Sitting of 2 July 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Commons Regulation (Coity Wallia) Provisional Order Bill, Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill, Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill, Local Government Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill, Local Government Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill, Local Government Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill, Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    PUBLIC SERVICES (RESIGNATIONS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering the number of officers in the Indian public services who may wish to retire in the event of the present Montagu-Chelmsford Indian reform scheme becoming law and the announcement by the Government of India that an officer finding his position unendurable should be entitled to apply to the Government of India for a proportionate pension, he will now state what are to be the proportionate pensions to which these officers will be entitled?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): My hon. and gallant Friend is basing himself on assumptions and prophecies. I have come to no decision as to the Government of India's proposal.

    KARACHI TROOP-TRAIN INCIDENT.
    Major. McMICKINGasked the Secretary of State for India if he is now in a
    934
    position to say whether Papers relating to the Karachi troop-train incident will be laid?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have carefully considered the matter, and have come to the conclusion that the case is not one of such public interest or importance as to justify the presentation of Papers.
    Major McMICKING: Will not the censure of this gallant officer continue to be based on confidential information and ex parte statements which have not been communicated to him?
    Mr. MONTAGU: That is not my fault. A new inquiry was offered on very favourable conditions. A free passage to India would have been provided, a special daily detention allowance would have been granted, and legal expenses within a reasonable amount defrayed. The offer gave him an opportunity of clearing himself. He did not accept it, and I see no necessity for laying the correspondence.
    Major McMICKING: Would not this officer have had to proceed to India, with this censure upon him?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The new inquiry was offered him in order to clear him from the censure, and that was the offer which he rejected.
    Major Sir B. FALLE: Is that offer still open?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It was eighteen months ago.

    CURRENCY COMMITTEE.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the abundance of paper currency in all countries at the present time and the general shortage of gold, ho could see his way to extend the terms of reference of the Indian Currency Commission so that they may be permitted to inquire into the silver question in its entirety, with a view to finding out whether more use can be made of silver as a circulating medium; and whether its position, which was destroyed by the German legislation of 1873, can in any way be restored?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Indian Currency Committee has been appointed to consider certain questions relating to India on which an early decision is needed. The members chosen are specially qualified to deal with these ques-

    935
    tions. The Committee has already taken an appreciable amount of evidence. It is not practicable to enlarge the subject of inquiry, as this would involve the reconstitution of the present Committee, would require the new body to begin work again, and would seriously postpone the date of report.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask the Leader of the House, to whom the question is addressed, whether it is not possible to have any inquiry made into the last portion of the question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): Nobody knows better than my hon. Friend that complicated and difficult questions are involved in his suggestion. The answer of my right hon. Friend shows that it is necessary to get an early decision on the other matter, and that would not be possible if this were included.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask for a separate inquiry to go into the matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I will have that considered.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (1914–15 STAR).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction which exists among the personnel of the Mercantile Marine consequent upon their exclusion from the award of the 1914–15 Star; and if the intention to bestow another award will be reconsidered in view of the unpopularity with which this announcement has been received?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wavertree on Monday last. In the course of that reply I stated that in view of the origin of this Star, which, as my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, was a development of the 1914 Star, the Admiralty are not prepared to recommend the extension of an award which sprang originally from the desire to give special recognition to the old Expeditionary Force which fought at Moms. I went on to add, however, that the Admiralty have on many occasions borne public testimony to their appreciation of the gallantry of the Mercantile Marine, and
  936
  immediately after the Armistice they made recommendations which will place the Mercantile Marine in the position of being favourably treated in the matter of medals. An announcement will probably be issued on this subject by the Board of Trade simultaneously with the announcement of the award of war medals to the combatant forces of the Crown.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the feeling in the Navy is very strong that their comrades in the Mercantile Marine should have this star the same as the rank and file of the Navy?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I was not aware of it, but I will take it from my hon. and gallant Friend. The latter part of my answer shows how we hope to requite the services of these gallant men in a fitting manner.
  Mr. HOUSTON: May I ask that the decision of the Admiralty should be reconsidered in view of the feeling that exists amongst the Mercantile Marine?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I will put the hon. Member's view before the proper authorities.
  Brigadier-General Sir OWEN THOMAS: Is some other form of decoration contemplated?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better read the latter part of my answer.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS FLAG.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether British men-of-war have flown the flag of the League of Nations; and, if so, on what occasions?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken in thinking that there is such a flag. The last part of the question, therefore, does not arise.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the flag not been flown by transports as stated in the Press?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Not to my knowledge. My advice is that there is no such flag.

    COAST WATCHERS, IRELAND.
    Major O'NEILLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the recent in-

    937
    crease of the pay of coast watchers in Ireland to 25s. 6d. per week is intended to represent the only war bonus which these men are to get; and, if so, will he say on what grounds they are being refused an adequate war gratuity in view of the services which they have rendered to the country in face of great discomforts and dangers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The pay of the coast watchers has recently been increased, as my hon. and gallant Friend's question indicates, to 25s. 6d. a week—a substantial increase in a great many cases. It is not proposed to add to that figure. I may, perhaps, be permitted to say that the question of awarding the war medal to coast watchers and Boy Scouts with one year or more service is now under consideration.
    Major O'NEILL: Are we to understand that these men, many of whom have undergone great dangers and hardships in parts of the seas where submarines were very active, are to get nothing in the shape of war gratuity for all the services they have rendered to the country?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That, I am afraid, is the case. I should be very glad to hear any views the hon. and gallant Gentleman has upon it and forward them to the proper authorities.

    ADMIRALTY (COSTS INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT).
    Major PRESCOTTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will give the numerical strength of the Costs Investigation Department of the Board and the average monthly costs of its administration since the outbreak of War; whether this Department has reported any Government contractors to the Board of Admiralty since the outbreak of War for misrepresentation or other fraudulent conduct; and, if so, will he give the particulars of the fraudulent representation and say what action has been or is proposed to be taken by the Board with the offending contractors?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The staff at present consists of:

    69

    Qualified Accountants

    78

    Assistant Accountants

    47

    Clerical Staff

    103

    Recorders

    Total 297

    The average monthly cost of the staff employed since the outbreak of War is £4,478.
    Thirteen case's of fraud or other irregularities have cither been reported to the Board or arc now under investigation by this Department. In four of these eases a prosecution was instituted, in three of them with success.
    In the three proved cases fraudulent charges against the Admiralty were proved. Of the other nine cases three are still forming the subject of inquiry, and one or two of these may result, in legal action. In four cases overcharges have been recovered, and in the remaining two, the overcharges are under calculation. The overcharges were due generally to the charging of sums against His Majesty's ships, which related to private work or to claims for amounts in excess of those paid, and arose not through fraud, but through laxity in control or carelessness in accounting. There have been many other cases in which overcharges have been discovered owing to errors in accounting of every description.
    The abatements obtained as the direct result of investigations made by this Department have amounted on the average to approximately £194,000 a month. In the three proved cases, two of the firms have been removed from the list of contractors; in the third case the prosecution related to the manager personally; the firm was not implicated, and was, therefore, not blacklisted. In the cases still being investigated, appropriate action will be taken when the result of the inquiry is known.

    OFFICERS' PAY
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is now in a position to make any statement as to the decision of the Admiralty with regard to the pay of officers of the Royal Navy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As my Noble Friend knows, the Admiralty it commendations are before the War Cabinet. While I am not in a position to announce a decision to-day, I think I may safely say that it will be announced at a very early date.
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the intense feeling of the lower deck at the delays in connection with the officers' pay?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I quite realise the spirit of comradeship which subsists between the lower deck and the officers, and I quite believe the lower deck desires the earliest decision in the matter, but whatever delay there has been has been unavoidable. I have hope of a decision at a very early date.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The right hon. Gentleman gave me the same answer some time ago. Is he not now in a position to name a date?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I am sorry to say I cannot. I should be glad if I could.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As the delay is no fault of the officers will the increase be made retrospective?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now anticipating a decision on one of the matters which will have to be considered.

    PRIZE MONEY.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any persons other than those serving or those who have served in the Royal Navy will receive any share of prize money; and if he can now state when prize money will be paid?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The forces entitled to share in the Prize Fund are the Naval and Marine Forces as defined in the Naval Prize Act, 1918, and include, as well as the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, the officers and crews of His Majesty's ships of war. Thus members of the Naval Reserves, of the Overseas Naval Forces, of the Mercantile Marine, and others who have the requisite length of service on board a ship of war at sea under the Royal Proclamation of 10th February, 1919, will be eligible to share. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the Royal Proclamation prescribing the conditions of eligibility. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by me to my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport on the 26th June.

    R34 AIRSHIP.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the cost for construction of the R 34 type of airship, the cost of the housing-shed and extensions, the per-
    940
    sonnel required at the shed for handling, berthing, cleaning the airship, etc., the estimated total monthly cost of the airship when in commission, including pay of persons employed in ship and shed; how many of these airships are under construction; and whether work is being continued on them?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The cost of constructing an airship of R 34 type is approximately £350,000. The cost of the housing-shed at East Fortune, together with extensions and windscreens, is approximately £166,000. Fourteen officers and 400 men are required at the station for handling, berthing, cleaning airships, etc. The estimated total monthly cost of the airship when in commission depends on the distance flown. Taking as basis 8,000 nautical miles per month at a speed of forty knots, it amounts to about £2,600 at current rates for cost of petrol, oil and gas. This figure includes the wages of crew and also one-fourth the total pay of the personnel required for handling, etc., as this latter is adequate for maintaining four airships in commission. No further airships of this class are under construction, but six of improved types have been ordered and are in varying stages of construction. Work upon them is being continued.
    An HON. MEMBER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has any news of the ship?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am sorry to say I have not.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will Peace make any difference to the programme?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Speaking off-hand I should say no.

    CAPTAIN BATHER'S COMMITTEE (REPORT).
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state when the Report of Captain Bather's Committee on stewards and cooks will be promulgated?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Report is now under consideration, and any further improvements that may be granted in connection therewith will be announced as soon as possible.

    MEN IN RUSSIAN WATERS (LEAVE).
    Mr. BRIANTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if leave can be given to

    941
    the men serving on the gunboats and monitors stationed near Russia, as in many cases men have received only thirty-one days' leave during the whole period of their service of four or more years?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Reliefs of all men who have served during the War on foreign stations are being effected as rapidly as possible. With regard to North Russia all reliefs asked for have been sent. With regard to Black Sea, many hundreds of men from these regions are now actually in process of being relieved. If my hon. Friend will give me more definite particulars as to the ships and stations he refers to, further inquiry "will be made.

    ROYAL MARINES (GROG).
    Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if, with a view of equality being accorded to men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, their Lordships will withdraw the Regulations issued to Royal Marines which disallows grog, or money in lieu thereof, to them whilst at headquarters, bearing in mind the fact that the seamen class are not so disallowed at their Royal Naval barracks?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Royal Marines, when afloat, are supplied with naval rations, which include grog or money in lieu. Royal Marines at headquarters are victualled on the Army scale, which does not include a grog ration or money allowance in lieu. The question of allowing Royal Marines at headquarters to be victualled on Navy rations is at present under consideration.

    JERRAM REPORT.
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty why in the Jerram Report no non-substantive pay has been recommended to the musicians of the Royal Marines for fire control, having regard to the great importance attached to that position and to the fact that it is no part of a musician's ordinary duty as such, and also why the non-substantive pay has been taken away from bandmasters of the same corps for the responsibility of the care of the instruments, music, and other things entrusted to them, bearing in mind the fact that in some instances they are
    942
    required to pay for the repair or renewal of those damaged or lost; and whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction exists amongst the musicians and bandmasters in consequence?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I can assure my hon. Friend that the whole question of the Royal Marine bands' pay and allowance received very careful and sympathetic consideration both by the Jerram Committee and the Board. Obviously, fire control has nothing to do with music; but, on the other hand, I think my hon. Friend will realise that every rating carried on a battleship of to-day must be trained to perform some useful work during action. It is not quite correct to say that non-substantive pay, "Instrument Allowance," has been taken away from bandmasters, Royal Marine. It has been merged in their pay, and, as I understand it, they have gained the advantage that they now receive it continuously instead of, as previously, only when they were in charge of instruments of a band.
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty why in the Jerram Report the question of non-substantive pay to the sick-berth staff generally is not recommended in respect of their special ratings as operative attendants, laboratory attendants, masseurs, and X-ray attendants, and which forms no part of the ordinary duties of a sick-berth steward as such; and whether he is aware that the present limited employment of a portion of those so qualified causes general dissatisfaction, especially in view of the fact that other ratings in the Service are paid as soon as they qualify upon special subjects, and whether employed or not?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Jerram Committee has now ceased to exist, and I am afraid it is not practicable to give information as to why the Committee's recommendations were not different from what they were. As regards sick-berth ratings generally the Committee stated that the fact that these ratings have few opportunities of earning non-substantive pay had received consideration in fixing their substantive pay. The sick-berth ratings, like other classes, will have future opportunities of bringing any requests arising out of the Jerram decisions to notice through their representatives attached to the Welfare Committee.

    INVERGOEDON VOLUNTEERS.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can make any statement as to the granting of railway facilities and assistance for those men from Northern yards who volunteered for Invergordon to bring their families back to the South now that the press of work in the North has ceased?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The men in question have been serving at Invergordon as men lent from their home dockyards, and they have been in receipt of a subsistence allowance besides being provided with single-men's quarters on the supposition that they were living apart from their families. In these circumstances the Admiralty have not been able to see their way to grant railway facilities and assistance to the men in bringing their families back to the dockyard towns.
    Sir B. FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as there is little overtime and not much work, the men are practically tied to this place?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not see how that can be but perhaps the hon. Member will discuss the matter with me.

    NAVAL PRISON OFFICERS (PAY, PENSIONS, AND BONUS).
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if the recent improvement in the pay, pension, and war bonuses, and conditions of service which have recently been granted to subordinate officers in His Majesty's civil prisons from 1st April last will be extended to the sub ordinate officers of His Majesty's naval prison service, including those doing duty in the naval detention quarters?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and gallant Friend's question apparently relates to certain improvements in respect of the pay, etc., of the staff employed in civil prisons, promulgated by the Prison Commission a month ago. We are considering the conditions of service of subordinate officers of Detention Quarters and the Naval Prison at Bodmin in the light of the Home Office decisions in question. I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend as to putting another question later.

  GERMAN BATTLE CRUISER "GOEBEN"
  Commander Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty where is the ex-German battle-cruiser "Goeben"; whether she has been definitely surrendered, and, if so, by whom is she manned; and whether any decision has been arrived at as to her disposal?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: in accordance with Article VI. of the Armistice Convention with Turkey, the "Goeben" is interned at Ismid. So far as is known, no definite decision has yet been come to as to her final disposal. It is assumed this question will be, dealt with in the Terms of Peace with Turkey.
  Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Have steps been taken to prevent this ship from being scuttled
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is in care of a Turkish management committee, and I think I am right in saying that in Article 13 of the Turkish Armistice the destruction of naval and military material is forbidden.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As this is a matter of very great importance, cannot officers be sent out to take definite possession of this ship by Englishmen?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That would be in direct contravention of the terms of the Armistice.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether he will publish the battle orders to the Commander in-Chief of the Mediterranean Squadron at the beginning of this War;
  (2) whether he will publish all war signals which passed between the Commander-in-Chief and the second in command. Admiral Troubridge, during the period covering the escape of the "Goeben"?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement which the First Lord made regarding these matters on the l5th April last. It is not advisable yet to publish papers in connection with this incident.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not the case that both Admiral Sir Berkely Milne and Admiral Troubridge desire

  945
  publication, and is it not right that, now Peace has been signed, they should be able to defend their reputation?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: In regard to the first part of the question I have no information. As to the second part, I will put it before the First Lord-

  PEACE CELEBRATIONS.

    NAVAL SQUADRON IN THAMES.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now make any further statement as to the visit of a naval squadron to the Thames during the Peace celebrations; can he state how many boats and of what class will visit London and in about what parts of the Thames the various vessels will be moored and on view to the public?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is proposed to assemble as many ships as possible in the Thames during the Peace celebrations. All particulars will be published as soon as the arrangements have been definitely settled. The vessels will be open to the public at certain stated hours.

    MARSHAL FOCH.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the consideration promised some weeks ago, he is now in a position to inform the House whether Marshal Foch has been invited to take part in the official Peace celebrations; and whether a similar invitation is being extended to include detachments of the various units of the French Army and Navy?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It has not been found possible to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
    Sir M. BRITTAIN: Is it not possible to find some occasion to give London an opportunity to welcome the troops of our gallant Ally, France?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure my hon. Friend realises that it is a difficult thing to make these arrangements. Everything has been considered. The French celebration is on 14th July, and it would really be impossible to have suitable arrangements made with our Allied troops the same time as our own.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Can it not be arranged that the French soldiers who are taking part at the tournament at Olympia should, take part in the procession?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not shut the door against such a proposal. Everyone would be glad to welcome the troops of our Allies and to do anything they could to recognise the community of fighting.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are our troops being represented at the Paris celebrations?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, yes; but it is very easy to have a complete display in Paris, because troops of all the Allies are in France. It is a very different thing to make arrangements here.

  LABOUR OUTPUT (STATISTICS).
  Captain BAGLEYasked the Minister of Labour if he will collect and give this House at an early date information as to the present average output per hour of workers in various industries as compared with their output before the War; and whether, in view of the primary importance of the question in relation to national and international policy, he will endeavour to supply such information from time to time in regard to workers of as many nations as possible?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): I am afraid it would not be possible to obtain the information which my hon. Friend desires. There is no general information available as to the average output per hour of workers in the various industries before the War, and, accordingly, even if it were possible to obtain this information in regard to the present time, no inferences could safely be drawn as to the output per hour now as compared, with that before the War. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is, however, being consulted with a view to ascertaining what information is procurable on the subject of output, and if it is found that information is obtainable of a kind that is likely to be useful, and could be published, I shall be glad to lay it before the House.
  Captain BAGLEY: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this question is a vital one in regard to nationalisation, foreign

  947
  competition, and prices, and does he realise that the information published in the "Labour Gazette" in regard to wages paid in various nations is valueless without some information in regard to the work that is done for those wages?
  Mr. WARDLE: I promise that the hon. Member will get all the information that can be obtained.
  Mr. SWAN: Will the hon. Gentleman find out how much meat is given to the miners to enable them to follow their employment in the county of Durham? The shortage of meat is deterring their output.
  Mr. WARDLE: Does the hon. Member mean rationed meat?
  Mr. SWAN: Yes. It is insufficient to enable them to follow their employment.
  Mr. WARDLE: I will inquire.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    DEMOBILISED OFFICERS REGISTERED.
    Captain BAGLEYasked how many demobilised officers are registered as wanting employment and, based on the experience of the latest four weeks, what is the average number of fresh applicants registered and vacancies filled per week; and whether an unemployed officer is entitled to draw unemployed pay?
    Mr. WARDLE: The number of applications for employment registered in the Appointments Department is 14,355, but this figure includes an unknown number of applicants who have since obtained employment without notifying the fact to the Department. In the four weeks ended on the 27th June, 1919, the weekly averages of fresh applications and of vacancies filled were 761 and 370, respectively. All these figures include not only discharged and demobilised officers, but discharged and demobilised men of similar educational promise. Discharged and demobilised officers are eligible for civilian policies under the out-of-work donation scheme, subject to the usual conditions attaching to such policies, but many ex-officers may be ruled out by the condition that applicants for civilian policies must have been employed contributors under the National Health Insurance Scheme before the 25th August, 1918.
    Captain BAGLEY: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that by this rule the great majority of officers are ruled out of participation in unemployment benefit, and that the number of unemployed officers according to the figures which he has given is being added to at the rate of 400 a week, and will he consider some scheme for giving them unemployment benefit the same as the ordinary soldier?
    Mr. WARDLE: I believe that there are special arrangements in the case of officers with regard to civil liabilities which tend to mitigate the evil that has been referred to by my hon. Friend, but I will inquire.
    Colonel ASHLEY: if the facts are as stated by the hon. Gentleman in his answer, is not the rate of unemployment among officers increasing week by week, and what is he going to do to meet that great need?
    Mr. WARDLE: I do not think that it is increasing week by week, though it has increased in this particular week, certainly. A great many things are being done to meet the case of the demobilised officer.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (WOMEN AND GIRLS).
    Mr. RAPERasked the Minister of Labour how many women and girls were being employed in Government Departments on, respectively, the 1st November, 1918, and the 15th June, 1919?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I hope to circulate shortly a statement showing the staff of each Government Department on 1st August, 1914, 11th November, 1918, and 31st March, 1919, respectively; under arrangements now instituted for monthly returns of the staff of Government Departments; figures showing the staff at the beginning of July will become available before long. I hope that in the circumstances the hon. Member will not press for figures for the particular dates in his question.
    Mr. RAPER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong feeling in the country that all the girls employed at temporary work in Government offices should be superseded by demobilised soldiers in the shortest possible space of time?
    Mr. BALDWIN: That is one of the reasons that induced me to have this monthly collection of figures got out.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the hon. Gentleman let us have the number of houses that have been commandeered since the Armistice?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

  DRAPERS' TRADE (WAGES ORDER).
  Lieut.-Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of Labour whether ho has received an. application from the Drapers' Chamber of Trade for the suspension of Statutory Rules and Orders No. 357, Wages (Temporary Regulation); whether he is aware of the strong feeling among the workers in the trades concerned against the suspension or modification of this Order; and whether, with a view to safeguarding the workers' rates of wages, he will take steps to set up a trade board in these trades as soon as possible?
  Mr. WARDLE: Application for the suspension of Statutory Rules and Orders, 1919, No. 357, has been made by the Drapers Chamber of Trade- Since the issue of the Order several conferences have taken place between the employers' representatives and trade unions concerned, and on every occasion the representatives of the workers strongly opposed any suggestion of modification of the prescribed rates except in the case of sub-normal workers. Notice of intention to apply the Trade Boards Acts to the whole of the men's and women's clothing trades was published on Tuesday, 24th June, and the necessary steps are now being taken to constitute the trade boards required. It is hoped that it will be possible for the boards to meet at the end of the present month.
  Mr. HINDS: Has not the Order lapsed, so that it is not in operation at the present time?
  Mr. WARDLE: I do not think so.
  Mr. HINDS: You will find that it is so.

  ARMY OF OCCUPATION ON RHINE.
  Mr. CLOUGHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a passport has been issued to John William Chapman. 19, Hothfield Street, Silsden,
  950
  near Keighley, to visit the Army of Occupation in Germany in connection with the transport of live poultry; and whether, in view of the man's views and the feeling in the Army, he will suggest to Chapman's employer that he should select some other employ é for the journey?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): No application for a passport has as yet been received from the person referred to. I understand that permits to enter the occupied zone are not given in any case by the military authorities until after full inquiry.
  Mr. HURDasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the result of the promised inquiries into four complaints from soldiers regarding messing arrangements in the Army of Occupation on the Rhine; whether it is still the case that soldiers have to go from 4.30 p.m. till 8 a.m. without food unless they buy it for themselves; and whether it now costs a soldier in that Army all his bonus to buy extra food?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): An experienced officer has recently been sent to the Army of the Rhine, and has made' full inquiry into the messing arrangements. He reports that some complaints arose in cases where units were in process of reforming, due to the shortage of trained cooks owing to demobilisation, and also where units sent from this country came on to the overseas field service ration from the home scale. The Commander-in-Chief of the Army of the Rhine has given close personal attention to the messing of the troops. Certain additions have been made to the ration, and everything possible is being done to remove all reasonable ground of complaint. The staff of the Army School of Cookery at Cologne has been doubled, and additional instructors, both officers and non-commissioned officers, have been appointed. The field service ration is good in quality and sufficient in quantity to provide suppers for all who require them, and orders have been given that this is to be done.
  Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: Has the War Office taken into consideration the purchasing power of money in this country and on the Rhine, as this makes a good deal of difference?
  Mr. FORSTER: We want to prevent that question arising by providing full meals for our troops.

  POLAND (ATROCITIES ON JEWS).
  Sir W. SEAGERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the atrocities that are being perpetrated by the new Polish nation upon the Jews; and will he consider taking action through the proper channels to put an end to them?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 1st July to the hon. Member for the Hartlepools.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Is the information received recently of a more favourable or a less favourable character?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The information which we have received with regard to these Jewish pogroms is much more favourable to the Polish authorities than some accounts have given the public to understand.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Have we had any officer with General Hammers' Army or with the Polish troops which committed these excesses in districts far away from the control of the Polish Government?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot give a definite answer without notice, but I think not.

  ARABIAN PENINSULA (POLITICAL SITUATION).
  Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information regarding the political situation in the Arabian Peninsula, more particularly in regard to the activities of the heretical sect known as the Wahabis?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I regret that I am unable to make any statement.

  BOLSHEVIK GOVERNMENT (POLICY)
  Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Bolshevik Govevn-
  952
  ment of Moscow have abandoned the Socialist policy of nationalisation of land in that part of Russia now under control of the Red Armies, and have re-established private ownership by peasant proprietors; and whether they have still further abandoned their avowed principles by allowing money deposited in savings banks and co-operative societies to earn interest at 5 per cent.?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I regret that I have no reliable information to confirm or refute the reports to which the hon. and gallant Member refers.
  Colonel L'ESTRANGE MALONE: Will the Government consider the question of sending out. a Commission to ascertain the truth?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will make representations to that effect.

  BRITISH TRADE (EASTERN EUROPE).
  Mr. G. MURRAYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Oversea Trade Department whether he will, in consultation with the War Office, make arrangements so as to provide that any British commercial representatives accredited by the Department shall be given all facilities and assistance by the British military authorities in the occupied territories of the Balkans and the East?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): The military authorities at Constantinople have already agreed to give full facilities to British subjects travelling in Roumania on business. In the case of the Balkans and the East, the names of accredited British subjects wishing to proceed to these zones for business purposes the forwarded to the general officers commanding with the recommendation that, so far as the exigencies of the military situation permit, full facilities shall be accorded to them. Any British firm desirous of availing themselves of these facilities should communicate with the Department of Oversea Trade, which will give them the fullest information in its power, and take the necessary steps to put them in touch with the War Office.
  Mr. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman request the First Lord of the Admiralty to give such facilities as are possible to representatives of British commerce?
  Sir A. GEDDES: I do not quite follow the question. The First Lord of the Admiralty has nothing to do with the establishment of British trade in the East.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    1914–1915 SOLDIERS.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the Secretary of State for War how many 1914 and 1915 men are now retained with the Colours; and whether he will take early steps to demobilise the remainder?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have no figures as to the number of demobilisable 1914 and 1915 men still retained with the Colours. With regard to the last part of my hon. Friend's question, I would refer him to the special Army Order issued at the end of last week, of which I will send him a copy.

    ARMY PAY CORPS.
    Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Secretary of State for War whether Corporal C. E. Turner, No. 17284, Army Pay Corps, with thirteen months' service at Lichfield, was released on the 28th January, 1919, as a pivotal man, and re instated, after demobilisation, as an acting-paymaster; and whether Corporal. Turner was in civil life assistant to an ironmonger?
    Mr. FORSTER: This man was released on 28th January, 1919, before the promulgation of Army Order 55 of 1919, and was subsequently taken on as a civilian clerk, from which grade he was promoted to acting-paymaster on the recommendation of the regimental paymaster. Ho has now been discharged on reduction of establishment.
    Sir R. COOPER: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how a man who has been an ironmonger's assistant can have the necessary qualifications for such a position as acting-paymaster? ["HON. MEMBERS: Why not?"]
    Mr. FORSTER: I can quite well imagine that such a man might prove a very skilled accountant.

    TROOPS IN INDIA.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Secretary of State for War whether all soldiers serving in India are being retained, irrespective of service, for the Army of Occupation; whether this is causing discontent amongst the 1914 and 1915 men, who have received no home leave since they landed in India; and whether he will make arrangements for the men who are entitled to demobilisation to be sent home at once?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): Demobilisation in India has been temporarily suspended owing to the situation in that country. Men eligible for demobilisation are not retained for the Army of Occupation, and demobilisation will be reopened as soon as the situation permits. Reliefs for the garrison of India are being dispatched, and it is hoped on their arrival to be able to release some of the urgent cases. Every possible step is being taken to release those eligible as soon us it is possible to do so.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he considers men who enlisted in 1911 as of the most worthy class?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do, indeed.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these men are in India now?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I regret to say it is so.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving priority to volunteers to go out in relief of these men in India, as a matter of policy?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Twenty battalions are now in process of dispatch to India, special arrangements having been made to safeguard them in their transit through the Red Sea in the hot weather. They are starting in a week, and the ships when they get there will bring back men from India, unless the situation in India is too critical for them to be withdrawn. The first men to come home will be those from Mesopotamia who were on their way back from Mesopotamia and were stopped in India when trouble began.
    An HON. MEMBER: Are these battalions composed of nothing but volunteers?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes
    Major Sir B. FALLE: Coming through the Red Sea in July?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The military situation has rendered it necessary that that should be done, but special arrangements have been made in regard to the troops' accommodation on the troopships, and other medical precautions have been taken which will reduce the hardships to a minimum.
    Mr. TERRELLasked the Secretary of State for War whether the officers and men of the Wiltshire Regiment at present serving in India have been informed at various times that the regiment would come home in the autumn; and whether he will give a definite assurance that this date will be adhered to?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret I can add nothing to the reply given on the 25th February last to a question asked by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, to the effect that if all goes well it should be possible to complete all reliefs during the course of next autumn. I have no doubt that the unit is aware of this reply.
    Mr. TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Wiltshire Regiment has been particularly promised release, and will he make special arrangements that this regiment, which has done so well in the War, should be sent home?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I do not think we ought to pick out one regiment. We must try to bring all these men back.
    Sir E. BEAUCHAMPasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state when men with dispersal certificates, some of whom left England in September and October, 1914, and have had no home leave, who have been detained in India on their way home from Mesopotamia, will be brought home; and whether care will be taken that ample accommodation shall be provided on board ship for men returning through the Red Sea at this season of the year?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Demobilisation has been temporarily suspended in India owing to the existing situation in that country. I regret that no definite statement regarding demobilisaion in India can be made at present, but it will be reopened as soon as circumstances permit.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
    Major O'NEILLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet re-
    956
    ceived a reply to the cable dispatched on 18th June asking whether Captain J. M. Gibson, Royal Army Medical Corps, could be relieved from Salonika and sent home for demobilisation; and, if so, can he state the effect of it?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that the reply has not yet been received. I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as I a in in a position to give him the desired information.
    Major O'NEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Parliamentary Private Secretary wrote to me on 15th April last stating that instructions had been issued for this officer to be immediately released and sent home for demobilisation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I was not aware of it until my hon. Friend mentioned it. It is possible that there may be difficulties-in releasing a particular doctor from a particular unit because of the health of the troops in the neighbourhood. As I said, I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as I have the information.
    Major O'NEILL: Would it not be better if Members of Parliament were not sent categorical letters of this kind informing them that their applications had been acceded to without qualification?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That as so. I regret it; but we are doing our best, and I will look into this matter and see if there is any special ground of complaint.

    DERBY GROUP MEN.
    Captain BAGLEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether all Regulations in regard to the release of Derby men will be made to apply equally to men whom the records show have presented themselves for attestation but were rejected on medical grounds, and were afterwards called up?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope to make a statement on this subject at an early date.

  EX-SERVICE MEN (APPOINTMENTS).
  Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister how many of the staff of the new Ministry of Supply have already been selected, and how many are ex-Service men?
  The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to reply to this question and would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave him yesterday, in which I said that if Parliament decides to set up a Ministry of Supply preference would be given to ex-Service men.
  Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask for an answer to the question? I asked how many of the staff of the Ministry of Supply have already been selected and how many are ex-Service men?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: That information I also gave yesterday. No appointments can be made to the Ministry of Supply until Parliament has decided to establish the Ministry, but I said that in the existing Ministry, out of the whole staff of 6,000, 2,000 were ex-soldiers.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Did not the answer apply to the Ministry of Munitions, and is it not a fact that a great many gentlemen have been told that they will be taken by the Ministry of Supply as soon as the Bill is passed?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: No appointments have been made, or can be made, until Parliament decides to set up the Ministry. Presumably it would be with the staff of the Ministry of Munitions. The figures for the Ministry of Munitions I gave to the House yesterday.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Are we to understand that no promises of positions have been made to anyone?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: That has been made clear. No promise can be given in regard to the Ministry of Supply.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Something almost equivalent to promises has been given them?
  Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot pursue the matter further by questions.
  Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the reduction of staffs in the various public Departments, it is the policy of the Government to insist that no competent ex-Service man, graded as temporary or permanent, is discharged till all those who have not served have been dispensed with; and, in view of the changes now being made in the staffs of the various Departments, will any dismissal of ex-Service men and their replacement by women be discontinued forthwith?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): A Committee is considering what immediate practical steps can be taken to extend the employment of ex-Service men in the Government service generally, and I hope that it may be able to report at an early date on the whole question. I am not aware that any Government Department is discharging ex-Service men and replacing them as suggested. If the hon. and gallant Member has any particular case in mind, I will gladly look into it on receipt of particulars.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the Government lay down what an ex-Service man is; whether a man who has been three or four years in a Government Department in khaki is one, or whether the description is limited to those who have actually served in the field?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not prepared to answer that.

  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC)
  Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister what was the gist of the Report presented to the War Cabinet by the unknown Committee lately appointed by the Government to report on the activities of the Liquor Control Board?
  Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether the War Cabinet has now decided to terminate the life of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic); and can he say when an account of the activities of the Board, alike in matters of finance, administration, and propaganda, for the year 1918 will be available, together with a statement of the public money it has expended without the sanction of Parliament?
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to announce the Government's permanent policy respecting the restrictions on the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government have come to the conclusion that some of the powers with respect to this industry hitherto exercised by the Ministry of Food may now be safely modified. The Cabinet has decided that all restrictions should be

  959
  removed as to the quantity of beer which may be brewed. They are, however, of opinion that restrictions on the gravity ought to be continued—[Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: "Oh, rubbish!"]—but they have decided that the gravity of beer in each grade should be increased by four degrees, that the permitted average gravity of the output of any brewer should be raised by a like amount, and that the price of beer of a gravity under 1020 should be 2d. per pint. The effect of these changes will be that the increased rate of profit derived by the brewers from the larger output of beer will be spent in improving the quality of beer supplied to the public, and consequently the Government does not propose to levy the additional duty which it would otherwise have been able to secure by reason of the increased barrelage.
  With respect to the Central Control Board, it is the intention of the Government to terminate the existence of this body, which was created to meet the emergencies of war, and has rendered great service to the country, and to replace it by a Commission under a Minister responsible to Parliament. A Bill to this effect is being prepared and will shortly be introduced.
  Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: May I ask if it was not the unanimous opinion of the Liquor Control Board that the low gravity of beer has been the means of driving people to drink whisky, and that the beer of 1020 gravity proposed by the right hon. Gentleman is not so strong as ginger pop?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: What I have just stated as the intention of the Government is to improve the quality of the beer. All that I have said about the 1020 beer is that if it is sold it has to be sold at a very low price.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is it proposed that the gravity mentioned shall be retained permanently, and may the public look forward to having as good beer as they had before the War, because that is their expectation?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I really have no means of limiting the power of the public to look forward.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that the Government make no change in the hours of sale?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have said nothing about that, but, of course, the House understands, I am sure, that it is not intended to remove at once all restrictions, and I am sure no section of the country desire it.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: As Question 60 refers to what is described as "intoxicating liquors," may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he understands by that phrase, and whether it means if you take too much it makes you ill, and does not that apply with enormously increased force to what are ironically called temperance beverages?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is quite a different thing.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that no teetotaller shall be appointed on this Commission?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There are other questions besides beer

  ROYAL COMMISSIONS (HIS MAJESTY'S JUDGES).
  Sir EDWARD CARSONasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of laying down a rule that in future His Majesty's judges should not be called to preside or take part in Commissions appointed to consider questions in which political controversies are involved?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government agree with my right hon. Friend that it is undesirable that His Majesty's judges should be involved in political controversies, and this consideration will be kept in view in making such appointments, but it is very difficult to make any hard and fast rule in the matter, and there must be cases where the judicial training and recognised impartiality of the judges specially qualify them for rendering national service in this way.

  COAL INDUSTRY COMMISSION (CHAIRMAN'S REPORT).
  Mr. HOLMESasked the Prime Minister whether the Government are prepared to accept the Report signed by the chairman of the Coal Industry Commission?
  Mr. CAUTLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint an impartial Commission to consider and report on the present condition and future prospects of the coal mining industry and the effect of the nationalisation thereof, more particularly in relation to the consumers of coal for household purposes and for manufacturing, mercantile, and agricultural purposes, and as apart from the narrow interests of coal owners and coal miners?
  Mr. SIMMasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of submitting the proposal of State ownership and control of mines and minerals to the nation for decision by means of a referendum of registered electors?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The subject referred to in these questions is one which clearly requires the most careful examination and until the Government have found it possible to consider the question in all its aspects it is not possible for me to make any statement. I may add that it is not, in my opinion, a matter that can be dealt with piecemeal by question and answer.
  Mr. HARTSHORN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will be able to reply to Question No. 50?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I really cannot name any date. I am sure my hon. Friend and the House generally will realise, as so many Members of the Government, including the Prime Minister, have had their time entirely taken up with Peace negotiations it cannot be expected that a matter of this importance should be rushed without adequate consideration.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (TRAINING BOYS).
  Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that disappointment is felt owing to the delay which has taken place in submitting to the country a practical national scheme for the sea training of British boys for the merchant service; whether certain proposals have been prepared by the Admiralty following upon the findings of the Admiralty Committee on Mercantile Marine; whether the question is also being considered by the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Shipping; and whether, in view of the importance of providing ade-
  962
  quately for the manning of British ships by British men and boys, he will invite the Departments concerned to present a concrete scheme to Parliament at the earliest moment?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: A Committee was appointed by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education, which included representatives of the Admiralty, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Shipping. The Report has not yet been received, but it is hoped that it will be at an early date.

  TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH SERVICES.
  Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Prime Minister, in view of the financial loss now entailed, if he will consider the advantage to the country of handing over to private enterprise the administration of the telephone and telegraph service, but placing the general control of these services under the Postmaster-General?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): As the whole of the present loss on the telephone service and a considerable part of the loss on the telegraph service are due to the recent large increases granted by way of war bonus in the pay of the staff, it is not apparent that there would be any advantage in transferring the administration of the services to private enterprise.
  Mr. BILLING: Is not the suggestion of the question that there should be increased efficiency rather than decreased cost?

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS (BLACK LIST).
  Mr. STEWARTasked the Prime Minister whether the names of contractors placed on black lists for offences of various kinds in dealing with the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Ministry of Munitions during the War but who have not been prosecuted in Courts of law will be published in a supplement to the list contained in Command Paper 107, of 1919, or whether delinquencies discovered by Government auditors or surveyors are regarded by His Majesty's Government as too confidential for publicity?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: The cases referred to by my hon. Friend are not of a kind involving moral fault and to publish the names of the contractors concerned would involve serious injustice to individuals.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.
  Colonel LAMBERT WARDasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the conclusion of Peace, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to repeal the Defence of the Realm Act, in view of the effect of this measure upon the trade of the country?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to similar questions on this subject.
  Mr. BILLING: Was not this essentially a war measure and would it not be better to consider the abolition of the Defence of the Realm Act and introduce a new Bill to deal with any powers which this House is not capable of dealing with in the ordinary way?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is most essentially a war measure, but at the time it was passed the House recognised that it could not end immediately after the War. Arrangements are being made which will terminate it as soon as the date of the termination of the War is declared, but it may be necessary, as I said yesterday, by Statute to continue some of its provisions.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Select Committee was appointed to go into the various Regulations with a view to advising the Government, and that that Committee came to an end with the Dissolution before it could report, and does ha propose to reappoint it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe that the Committee did not report, but some use has been made of its work in the preliminary inquiries.

  TURKISH GOVERNMENT (PEACE TREATY).
  Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister if he will state when it is anticipated that treaties of Peace will be presented for signature to the delegates of the Austrian, Hungarian, Bulgarian, and Turkish Governments, respectively; and whether steps will be taken to expedite
  964
  the conclusion of the treaty of Peace with the Turkish Government in order that the pledges given by the Allied Governments to the Arabs, Armenians, and Zionists that they shall be given free national status and delivered from Turkish misrule may be fulfilled without further delay?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not possible to name a date. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member, however, that there will be no avoidable delay in the matter.
  Major EARL WINTERTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an undertaking that we shall have a full discussion on each one of these treaties, especially the Turkish Treaty, in which very intricate questions are involved?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that is a. reasonable request.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When shall we have an opportunity?

  LEGAL PROFESSION (ADMISSION OF WOMEN).
  Major HILLSasked the Prime Minister whether he can now say when the Bill admitting women to the legal profession will be brought before this House?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot yet name a definite date, and perhaps my hon. Friend will discuss it with my Noble Friend.

  COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES, DUBLIN.
  Major O'NEILLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on 9th April, 1918, Mr. J. L. King, auditor, was knocked down and severely injured by a motor ambulance while cycling in Harcourt Street, Dublin; whether the police report of the accident was to the effect that the driver of the ambulance was entirely to blame; whether the only- compensation, so far, offered by the War Office has been a grant towards Mr. King's out-of-pocket expenses; and "whether his Department is now prepared to pay compensation adequate to the injuries received?
  Mr. FORSTER: Careful inquiry has been made into the circumstances of this case, and the action taken is based on legal advice.

  SURPLUS ARMY HUTS.
  Captain DOUGLAS HALLasked the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why, considering the amount of empty War Office huts there are in the Isle of Wight, and that summer-time is much the most favourable time to dispose of them in the island, no huts situated there have been notified to the Disposal Board for sale; and if he can see his way to hold a sale shortly in the Isle of Wight?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: A number of huts in the Isle of Wight will shortly be placed in the hands of the Disposal Board, Ministry of Munitions, for sale.

  HAY SUPPLIES.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the poorness in quantity and in quality of the hay crop, he will instruct the Army Forage Department to hand over all stocks held by them over and above what they require for home consumption for civilian use?
  Mr. FORSTER: I regret that my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion is not considered feasible, as hay is required also for the Forces overseas, in addition to such local stocks as are available in the countries concerned.
  An HON. MEMBER: In view of the extra hay that will be available in France, in the Somme country, this year, will it be necessary to send any great quantity from this country to France?
  Mr. FORSTER: I do not know.

  GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Colonel BURNasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the freedom given to the German prisoners in certain parts of the country, and the harm that is being done by the freedom of intercourse that is now possible between them and the inhabitants; and will he take steps to prevent this?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Men employed in agriculture, which is virtually the only work on which prisoners of war are now engaged, owing to the smallness of the groups in which they are employed, have
  966
  necessarily always had less immediate supervision than those employed in other forms of labour. The supervision of these men and all other prisoners of war is now precisely the same as it was before the Armistice. Strict orders are issued as to the intercourse between prisoners of war and the inhabitants, and I understand that these orders are observed.
  Colonel BURN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this possibility of freedom of intercourse has led to most undesirable results in the case of certainly three young girls, and that lying reports of conditions under which they live are spread by these German prisoners, and unfortunately are believed?

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS

    SERVICE GRATUITIES.
    Sir W. SEAGERasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the discontent prevailing amongst demobilised men because of the long period they have to wait for the payment of their gratuities; does he know that many sailors and soldiers have had to wait from four to seven weeks or more after the gratuity has been deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank for payment; and will he take action in the matter to avoid this serious delay?
    Mr. FORSTER: The arrangements for the payment of gratuities to demobilised men provide for the Post Office Savings Bank book being ready for issue at the local post office on the last day of the man's dispersal furlough. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of any individual cases of failure which may have come to his notice I shall be glad to have them investigated.

    GRATUITIES FOR INTERPRETERS.
    Mr. HURDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is now able to say whether a gratuity is to be granted to interpreters; and, if not, whether, seeing that a large number of interpreters have now been demobilised, a speedy decision can be arrived at?
    Mr. FORSTER: An Army Order granting a gratuity to commissioned interpreters at prisoners of war camps is about to be issued.

  CIVILIANS ON ARMY WORK.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that the officers commanding the Royal Engineers and Army Ordnance Corps at Colchester Barracks are refusing to pay the civilian workmen employed by them an increase of wage that has been agreed to by the employers and workmen at Colchester, although the increase has the approval of the Ministry of Labour; and whether he will issue instructions to all commanding officers employing civilian labour on War Office work that any increase of wages granted to workmen in their district doing similar work must be paid to the workmen employed by them?
  Mr. FORSTER: The increase referred to has not yet been approved by the Ministry of Labour, and I understand that that Department is in correspondence with the local Master Builders' Association on the subject. As soon as the position is clear, any necessary instructions will be issued.
  Mr. WILSON: Will he expedite the matter?
  Mr. FORSTER: I understand the Ministry of Labour is active in its pursuit of this question.

  ALLOTMENTS, WANSTEAD FLATS.
  Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he will say what action has been taken by the Leyton Urban District Council and other local authorities in the area of Wanstead Flats in reference to the decision of the Epping Forest Commissioners to terminate the tenancies of the allotments at the Flats at the end of this year; whether the Epping Forest Commissioners still decline to receive a deputation on the subject from the allotment-holders and the local authorities in the area; and whether, seeing that the allotments occupy an area of only 30 acres out of a total acreage of 1,500 and there is ample ground for other forms of recreation, he will take steps to secure that the implied promise of security of tenure for two years from the end of the War is carried out in regard to the allotments in question?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The Leyton Urban Dis
  968
  trict Council resolved on the 27th May last "that the council deem it inexpedient in the national interest to disturb or interfere with the present usage of the land in question." No action has been taken by other local authorities in the area of Wanstead Flats so far as the Board are aware. The Board understand that the Epping Forest Commissioners declined last month to receive a deputation on this matter. As regards the last part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answers I have already given on this subject.
  Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: May I ask whether he is aware that a large area of this land was formerly covered with hard core and rubble, that a considerable portion of it was under water, and that it was quite unfit for any other purpose, and is now providing useful recreation for 940 members of the community, and will he bring pressure to bear on the Epping Forest Commissioners?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have no control over the Epping Forest Commissioners, but we will certainly make representations; in fact, we have already done so.
  Mr. NEWBOULD: Is he aware that there is great public indignation in the district, not only at the attitude of the Epping Forest Commissioners, but at the attitude of the Board of Agriculture?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am not aware of that.
  Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Is he aware that over £l,000 have been spent by the people of this district, and that this is no mean sum?

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    MILK CONTROL.
    Lieut.-Colonel WEIGALL(by Private Notice) asked the Food Controller if he can state whether the Government have come to a decision as regards the future control of the milk supply?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): The Government have decided not to institute any permanent measure of milk control involving the taking over of the wholesale milk trade. They have, however, decided that the powers at present exercised by the Ministry of Food should be continued, the chief of which

    969
    are powers to fix maximum prices in case of need, to regulate distribution in times of short supply; to licence all dealers in milk; and to grade milk. In addition local authorities will be empowered to undertake the supply of milk within their areas. An Interdepartmental Committee, consisting of representatives of the Ministry of Food, the Local Government Board, the Board of Agriculture, and the Scottish Office, has been appointed to agree upon such legal and administrative measures as maybe necessary to make effective the powers referred to above.
    Lieut.-Colonel WEIGALL: Are there Regulations to be issued under the Milk and Dairies Act, 1915, which has not yet been put into operation, or is new legislation necessary?
    Mr. McCURDY: A Committee has been appointed, and among the things which they will consider is the question of what new legislation will be necessary.
    Captain Sir B. STANIER: Will the Milk Act be now brought into force?

  H.M.S. "DONOVAN."
  Major Sir B. FALLE(by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the petty officers and men of His Majesty's ship "Donovan," now temporarily in home waters from Gibraltar, have been refused leave to visit their homes, and, if so, why?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: His Majesty's ship "Donovan" arrived in home waters on 29th June and left for Gibraltar on 1st July, being urgently required at that port. There was, therefore, I regret to say, no opportunity to give leave. The ship, I may add, commissioned in August last and left England in September last.

  PEACE TREATY.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS' DEBATE.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, in connection with the statement by the Prime Minister tomorrow, it is proposed then formally to ask the House for the ratification of the Peace Treaty, and, if not, when the formal Motion of ratification will be submitted?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir, it is not the intention of the Government to ask the
    970
    House formally to ratify the Treaty tomorrow. It will be merely the formal introduction of the Bill for that purpose.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Is it anticipated that the general Debate will take place tomorrow, or do the Government desire to postpone it till the Second Beading?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government have no wishes in the matter. If the House desire to discuss it to-morrow, by all means discuss it.
    Lord R. CECIL: Will the Bill be a ratification of the Treaty or for carrying out the powers of necessary legislation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no obligation, as I understand, in the ordinary course to have a Bill at all. It might have been done by formal Resolution, but in this case legislation is necessary to enable some of the provisions of the Treaty to be carried out.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the actual ratification of Parliament be by means of this Bill or by Motion?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It will be by means of the Bill, though I may say it is not quite certain whether we may not have two short Bills instead of one long one.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: By what procedure is it intended to ask the approval of Parliament for the signing of Peace?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I understand, by agreeing to these Bills.
    Lieut.-Colonel C. LOWTHER(by Private Notice) asked whether, in. view of the fact that the Papers embodying the Peace Terms, which the Prime Minister hopes to lay on the Table of the House on Thursday, must necessarily be voluminous, it would not be in the better interests of the country to allow Members time for the assimilation of so lengthy and intricate a document; and, if so, whether the Prime Minister will postpone his statement until Monday or early next week—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]—when Members will be in a position to reply with at least some knowledge of facts and figures?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Treaty is at present in the hands of Members, and I do not think it is necessary, nor do I think the House would approve of my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.
    Lieut.-Colonel LOWTHER: May we, at any rate, take it that a discussion on Thursday will not debar this House from

    971
    further discussion later on, when we have had time to assimilate and digest the facts and figures?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is obvious that if a Bill is introduced, it must give opportunities for discussion on further stages.
    Mr. BILLING: When may we expect the Second Reading of the Bill?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say.
    Lord R. CECIL: Will the whole question be open on the Second Reading of the Bill, so that the House, if it prefer, may take the discussion on the Second Reading?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I should not be surprised should the House prefer the discussion then to take place. Certainly it is entirely a matter for the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Before my right hon. Friend moves the Resolution on the Paper with regard to taking time after eleven o'clock to-night, will he say whether he has considered the great feeling throughout this House that the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill should be very fully and properly debated here, as so many Members have not had an opportunity of debating it in Committee?
Mr. BONAR LAW: There is really no intention whatever of having a late sitting. I am moving this Motion simply in order that the Debate may not be interrupted if a particular Amendment be under discussion and can be disposed of shortly.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Birmingham Corporation Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
London County Council (Money) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon, the Table.
Beccles Waterworks Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the third time.
Sunderland Gas Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;
1. "That in the case of the Ammanford Gas, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
2. "That, in the case of the Pembroke Gas Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."
Resolutions agreed to.

OFFICIAL SOLICITOR BILL [Lords]
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 115.]
SOLICITORS (ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL [Lords],
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]
PUBLIC NOTARIES (ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL [Lords],
Read the first time: to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 117.]
MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (DOMINION TROOPS) BILL [Lords],
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 118.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Power to Control Temporarily Railways, etc.)
    (1) With a view to affording time for the consideration and formulation of the policy to be pursued as to the future position of undertakings to which this Section applies, the following provisions shall, unless Parliament otherwise determines, have effect for a period of two years after the passing of this Act:

    (a)Where at the passing of this Act pos session has been taken of any railroad undertaking or part thereof in pursuance of Section sixteen of the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, or otherwise, pos session thereof shall be retained without any renewal of the warrant granted by the Secretary of State in pursuance of that Section, upon the same terms as to payment as those heretofore in force, and the Minister may exercise over all such undertakings all such powers as have hitherto been exercised by the Board of Trade under the said Act or with the consent of the owners of the undertakings or otherwise, and such other powers as may be conferred by this Section or agreed to by the railway companies concerned:

    (b)The Minister may take possession, in the name or on behalf of His Majesty, of the whole or any part of any other rail way undertaking or of any light railway or tramway (other than a tramway or a light railway used as a tramway belonging to a local authority), canal, inland navigation, harbour, dock or pier under taking, or of any plant belonging thereto or used thereon (exclusive of privately- owned railway wagons), and of any barges, tugs, and other craft owned or held by the undertaking of which pos session has been taken:

    (c)The directors and other persons concerned with the management, and officers and servants of any undertaking of which, or of the plant whereof, possession is retained or taken shall obey the directions of the Minister as to the user thereof, and any directions of the Minister in relation to any undertaking or part or plant thereof of which possession is retained or taken—

    (i) as to the rates, fares, tolls, dues, and charges to be charged;

    (ii) as to the salaries, wages, and remuneration and conditions of employment of persons employed on or in connection with any such undertaking;

    (iii) as to the working or discontinuance of the working of the undertaking or any part thereof including directions as to keeping open or closing of any stations;

    1008

    (iv) for securing that the permanent way, rolling stock, plant, appliances, or equipment, whether fixed or moveable, are satisfactory in type and design;

    (v) as to the carrying out of alterations, improvements, and additions which the Minister considers necessary for the public safety or for the more efficient and economic working of the undertaking;

    (vi) for securing co-operation between undertakings and for securing the common user of facilities, rolling stock and equipment whether fixed or move-able;

    (vii) for affording running powers over their system, or any part thereof, to the owners of any other undertaking;

    (viii) for securing that manufacturing and repairing facilities, and auxiliary and ancillary services shall be used, and the purchase and distribution of stores shall be conducted, in such manner as may be most conducive to economy and efficiency:

    (d) For enabling any directions given by the Minister under Sub-section (c) of this Section as to alterations, and improvements and additions to be carried into effect the Minister may, by Order, authorise the owners of any undertaking to acquire any land (including easements) and to construct any works, and the Order may incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the Order, being modifications of those Acts made or authorised to be made by the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, or any other enactment, and may incorporate or apply any of the provisions of any enactment relating to the construction, maintenance, or working of railways light railways, tramways, canals, harbours, docks, and pers, and any such Order shall have effect as if enacted in this Act: Provided that nothing herein contained shall be deemed to empower the Minister to authorise the acquisition, otherwise than by agreement, of any land belonging to the owners of another undertaking to which this Section applies, or of a local authority, but the Minister may authorise the acquisition of an easement or right of using such land for the purposes of any works the construction of which he may authorise under this Section:

    (e) In the case of any undertaking of which possession is retained or taken by the Minister as aforesaid any rates, fares, tolls, dues and other charges directed by the Minister shall be, subject to the provisions hereinafter in this Section contained, deemed to be reasonable, and may, notwithstanding any agreement or statutory provisions limiting the amount of such charges or increases therein, but without prejudice to claims in respect of undue preference under the provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, to be charged in respect of any undertaking during the period for which the Minister retains possession of such undertaking and for a further period of eighteen months after the expiration of the said period, or until fresh provision shall be made by Parliament with

    1009
    regard to the amount of any such rates, fares, tolls, dues, and other charges, whichever shall first happen.

    (2) Subject as aforesaid, any agreement made between the owners of any undertaking, of the whole or part of which possession has been retained or taken under this Section, and any other person shall continue in force in like manner as if such possession had not been so retained or taken, unless the Minister considers that such agreement is contrary to the public interest, and in that case he may suspend or modify the operation of such agreement during the period of such possession and for a, period not exceeding eighteen months thereafter, and any party to the agreement who suffers loss or injury by reason of such suspension or modification shall be entitled to receive such compensation as, in default of agreement, may be determined by the Railway and Canal Commission, regard being had to any change in circumstances.
    (3)—

    (a) For the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Minister with respect to and for safeguarding any interests affected by any directions as to rates, fares, tolls, dues, and other charges or special services, a committee shall be appointed consisting of five persons, one being a person of experience in the law (who shall be chairman) nominated by the Lord Chancellor, two representatives of the trading interest nominated by the Board of Trade, one member who shall be a representative of transportation interests nominated by the Minister, a representative of labour interests nominated by the Minister of Labour, together with, if deemed advisable, one additional member who may at the discretion of the Minister be nominated from time to time by him.

    (b) Before directing any revision of any rates, fares, tolls, dues, or other charges, or of any special services, the Minister shall refer the matter to the committee for their advice, and they shall report thereon to him and where such revision is for the purpose of an increase in the net revenue of any undertakings which the Minister determines to be necessary, the committee shall also advise as to the best methods of obtaining such increase from the different classes of traffic, and the fairness and adequacy of the methods proposed to be adopted.

    (c) The committee, before reporting or advising on any matters referred to them under this Section, shall at their discretion give such public notice as they think best adapted for informing persons affected of the date when they will inquire into the matter, and any persons affected may make representations to the committee-, and apply to be heard at such inquiry, and at the discretion of the committee such inquiry may be open to the public.

    (d)The committee shall hear such witnesses and call for such documents and accounts as they think fit, and shall have power to take evidence on oath, and for that purpose any member of the committee may administer oaths.

    (e)There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to all or any of the members of the committee such salaries or other remuneration as the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine.

    (f) For the purposes of this Section, special services means the services mentioned in Section five of the Schedule to the Orders relating to railway rates and charges, and in the corresponding Sections of the Schedules to the
    1010
    Orders relating to canal rates and charges confirmed by various Acts passed in the years eighteen hundred and ninety-one to eighteen hundred and ninety-four.

    (4) Section twenty of the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916 (which relates to the establishment of new routes for omnibuses), shall continue in force until the expiration of two years after the passing of this Act, and shall have effect as if—

    (a) the following provision was substituted for Sub-section (2) of the Section (that is to say):

    (2) Except as provided in Sub-section (4) this Section shall not be deemed to detract from any existing powers of highway authorities in regard to omnibuses; and

    (b) the following Sub-section was added to the Section (that is to say):

    (4) Where, upon application for a licence to ply for hire with an omnibus, the licensing authority either refuses to grant a licence or grants a licence subject to conditions, in either case the applicant shall have a right of appeal to the Minister from the decision of the licensing authority, and the Minister shall have power to make such Order thereon as he may think fit, and such Order shall be binding upon the licensing authority.

    (5) The exercise by the Minister of any of his powers under this Section as respects any tramway or light railway used as a, tramway which a local authority, or two or more local authorities, have power to purchase under any Act of Parliament or Order having the effect of an Act of Parliament shall not affect such right of the local authority, or authorities, and upon the purchase thereof such tramway or light railway shall cease to be in the possession of the Minister.
    Major BARNES: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (a), to leave out the word "payment" ["terms as to payment"], and to insert instead thereof the word "compensation."
    I put on the Paper four questions to the President of the Board of Trade, the answers to which I had hoped to receive this afternoon. They would have given information, not only to myself, but to the House, which I think would have been of very great service in debating this Amendment. I do not know whether it would be in order for me to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister-designate to speak to his brother on this subject. It did occur to me that, perhaps, the answers to these questions might have found their way into the box in which the President of the Board of Trade places information it is not opportune to disclose. At all events, I hope that, before the Debate on this point closes, the answers to those questions will be forthcoming, and the House put in possession of that information. In Clause 3 of this Bill we have the

    1011
    railways of this country divided into two classes. There are those railways that were taken over at the commencement of the War—what perhaps we might call the first-class railways, the more favoured class—and then you have the railways which are to be taken over by the right hon. Gentleman under this Bill—what, perhaps, we might call the second-class railways. When you come to, the question of compensation, there are two Clauses in this Bill which deal with it—Clause 3 and Clause 7. The second-class railways got the whole of their compensation under Clause 7. The first-class railways get their compensation under Clause 3 and also under Clause 7. I think the attention of the House should be particularly directed to that fact, because it is a very difficult thing to explain why these two classes of railways should be treated differently. I take it that the object of the Government is to secure that, whatever compensation is given to either class of railway, that compensation should be full. In Clause 3 it is laid down that the railways now in the possession of the Government are to receive such payments as have been heretofore enforced. Those payments are payments made under the agreement which was made at the beginning of the War. But these railways may also come into Clause 7 for compensation, if under that Clause, unless such compensation is included in the payments they receive under Clause 3. In other words, the Government are, apparently, in some doubt as to whether the payments made under Clause 3 are all the payments to which these railways are entitled.
    I suggest that is an extraordinarily amazing position for the Government to be in, when one remembers what those payments made under Clause 3 are, and how they have arisen. Those payments are made under the Act of 1871, which provides that the payments are to be full compensation, so that according to the position these favoured railways are to receive full compensation under Clause 3, and then come under Clause 7 for something else. I cannot for the life of me understand how any doubt can exist in the minds of the Government on this matter. What does the word "unless" in Clause 7 mean? That these favoured railways are to get compensation under Clause 7, unless they have already got it under Clause 3; but, under Clause 3, they have got full compensation, so what can
    1012
    the word "unless" mean in Clause 7? I can understand one ground why these railways should get compensation under Clause 3 as well as under Clause 7, but I am quite sure it is a ground which the right hon. Gentleman would never accept, and it is this: The only ground on which they can get something more under this Bill than they get under that agreement is that the damage done to the railways under the control of the right hon. Gentleman is going to be greater than the damage done to the railways during the War.
    4.0 p.m.
    If that is not the position, unless, under his administration the railways are going to be subjected to greater damage than they suffered under the administration during the War there cannot be any ground for giving anything more than the full compensation under the Act of 187l and which is secured to them under the terms of Clause 3. At the outbreak of the War the then Government took over these-railways under the Act of 1871. They were bound to pay them full compensation. On the 6th August, 1914—two days after the outbreak of war—the Railway Executive met to consider the position, which was, how they were to safeguard the interests-of the shareholders in these railways. They were the trustees of the interests of the shareholders, and it was their business to-consider how they could safeguard them. There were two courses open to them. One was to say to the Government: "Carry on. Do what you want to do on the railways, and when the period of control is. over we will send the bill and you shall pay." The other course was to make an agreement before hand—to make some kind of estimate as to what was going to happen, and as to the best way to meet it. The position was an extraordinary one. No one knew how things were going, and the Railway Executive thought, very properly, that the thing to do was to play for safety, to ensure that, whatever happened, the interests of the shareholders should not be the worse. Countries might come and countries might go, but at least the railway receipts should be increased. So they recommended that the whole of the loss and injury caused by the taking over of the railways should be met by certain terms, and these were that the net receipts for 1913 should be guaranteed to them during the whole period of control, subject to one or two slight modifications. Faced with that proposal, the Government came

    1013
    to the conclusion that it was a sound bargain, and I do not complain of their decision. They had otherwise to enter into a very complicated set of accounts, and they thought by making a simple arrangement, that they were doing their best. The agreement was made, and the position was a very satisfactory one on the whole, I think, to the railway companies. What really came out of it was that the interests of the shareholders were saved. Dynasties might fall, but railway dividends were not going down. It was a very good bargain for the shareholders of these first-class railways. That is perfectly clear, because the railway companies asked the Government to continue the bargain, and the Government agreed to do so for two years; it is that agreement that is embodied in Clause 3. It is there, in the Statute for the first time. These railways have gone into the possession of the country, and are to be there on the terms of payment heretofore in force. These terms of payment are full compensation. There can be no doubt about that. That is the word which the Railway Executive use in their minutes; so that under Clause 3 of this Bill these railway companies are getting full compensation for all the loss and injury—[Several Hon. Members: "No, no!"]—and yet, in spite of that the Government have inserted a word in this Bill which indicates that in their mind there is some doubt on the point, and it may be that these first-class railways, after getting the benefit of Clause 3, may also come under Clause 7 and get compensation from that Clause.
    The position is that, according to the White Paper in the posession of Members, the whole of the Government railway traffic, based on pre-war figures for the period of control—at all events, up to the end of 1819—was £112,430,808. That is the whole figure which the Government would have paid if they had not made that arrangement. The railway company got the net aggregate receipts. I want to suggest that the term "net aggregate receipts" had a definite meaning. In 1914, when this agreement was made—that was three years after the passing of the Railway Accounts Act, the Act under which the railway company make certain returns —it was quite clear that what was meant was the net aggregate receipts arrived at after making the deductions which are laid down by Statute in those accounts. The most important of these deductions are the deductions for maintenance. Allow-
    1014
    ance is to be made for maintenance, and. accordingly in this White Paper you will find, on the statement of account, a deduction for maintenance. These accounts are in that form. We have a deduction for maintenance—what was actually spent on the railways during the period of control. It is a perfectly proper deduction to make. One sees that in the period of control, during which traffic of the value of" £112,000,000 had passed over the railways.. £125,000,000 was actually spent on maintenance. There appears to be some idea that during those four or five years nothing was spent, on maintenance. But there was. That deduction was very properly taken off the gross receipts. In addition to that, there is another deduction which does not appear in statutory form, but which is a proper deduction. It is for maintenance and renewal arrears carried out. In other words, it is quite probable that during that period there were arrears that ought to have been carried out, but which could not be carried out for lack of men and' materials. The railway companies take credit for all the work carried out after the period of control, and it amounts to nearly £34,500,000. They actually spent £125,000,000 on maintenance, and they have in their possession now, as a credit from the Government, that sum, out of which to pay for maintenance which they were not able to carry out. Those two-sums make £160,000,000. The accounts were prepared on that basis, and there is another claim put forward for what is called extra wear and tear. It is suggested in a footnote that it may amount to £30,000,000. The claim reminds one of the claim which is said to have been made by a seaside landlady. She had a boarder who every morning had a fresh egg, and at the end of each day she put him in a bill for the egg, and at the end of the week he got a bill for the use of the egg-cup. At the end of the month he got a bill for the extra wear and tear on the hen. That appears to me to be something of the nature of the claim made here. The auditors have a note on the claim, and they say that there are "some factors which may tend to reduce it." I am glad to hear it. I hope the principal factor is the determination of the Government to resist the claim. I have heard of no such claims since the date when Oom Paul put in a claim for "moral and intellectual damage." Here is a claim for £40,000,000. more than twice the sum which is going to be spent to place the men who have come

    1015
    back from the War on the land—a sum which would be sufficient to finance the erection of 200 houses. I suggest to the Government that it is a claim which should not be paid without the very-closest examination. It is a claim which ought to be resisted, a claim that any business man would resist to the last. But it may be that the claim can be substantiated. At all events, it falls within the agreement, and will fall within the terms of the payment set out in Clause 3, so that under Clause 3 the payments heretofore in force may be taken not only as the net receipts, but also those for maintenance and for extra wear and tear. In addition to all that, the railway companies are to be allowed to come forward on Clause 7 and obtain whatever can be got under that Clause. The right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said the agreement entered into by the Railway Executive under which this payment was made was not an agreement for compensation at all. It was merely an arrangement as to rent. One is astonished to hear such a statement put forward. If that is what the agreement meant, agreements mean nothing. If we are to be told that that does not mean compensation, but only means rent, and that compensation is to follow, then agreements have lost all meaning. The object of the Amendment I have brought forward is to make perfectly clear under Clause 3 that what the railway companies who come in under that Clause get is not the payment, which may be merely a payment on account, but is compensation. The object of the Amendment is to exclude railways who are in Clause 3 from Clause 7 as long as they are under the agreement. That agreement is said to have covered two years. The Bill may run to three and a half years. In certain conditions the Bill gives continued control. There is a provision in the Bill under which the period may be extended for three years and six months. Clause 13 of the Bill says that the period of three years and six months shall be substituted for the period specified in the Special Acts (Extension of Time) Act, 1915. That Act provides that any Government Department which has any duties to perform may apply for an order extending the period during which it is to perform that duty. The period cannot he extended for more than twelve months, and the
    1016
    application must be made during the period of twelve months which is closing. Is the effect of Clause 13 to extend that period to three years and six months?
    The MINISTER (Designate) of WAYS and COMMUNICATIONS(Sir E. Geddes): Clause 13, to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, only has the effect, as I am advised, that whereas certain undertakings other than railway undertakings would have to come to Parliament for powers to extend their rights to purchase land for works which have been authorised, and whereas those powers have been extended from time to time by the Board of Trade, and the power of extension is now being transferred to the new Ministry, it is being made competent for the new Ministry to extend those particular powers up to the limit of the time to which any portion of this Bill applies. There is no possibility under this Bill of the railway control being exercised by the Government after two years without coming back to the House.
    Major BARNES: I accept the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, although, if that be so, I am not quite clear what is the purpose of the Amendment to Clause 3 moved yesterday by him and accepted, which stated that
    "The following provisions shall, unless Parliament otherwise determines, have effect for a period of two years after the passing of this Act, or where as respects any particular provisions a longer period is expressly provided, for such longer period."
    Sir E. GEDDES: That only relates to the one provision in the Act under which the rate charged under the special powers sought by this Bill, and under the authority of the Minister, in excess of the statutory maximum, are to continue for a further eighteen months in order to enable the railways—for this is a railway provision—to pay their way until such time as they can submit proposals to Parliament to enable them to make reasonable increases, within the discretion of Parliament, in their own rates.
    Major BARNES: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation. The effect of my Amendment is to make it quite clear, by substituting the word "compensation" for the word "payment," that what these railways are getting is the full compensation that they get under the Act of 1871, and also to make it quite clear that the railways

    1017
    which come in and get compensation under Clause 3 shall not also be able to come in and get compensation in addition under Clause 7.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir E. GEDDES: So far as the substitution of the word "compensation" for the word "payment" is concerned, the Government are perfectly willing to accept that. But that does not in the least mean that the Government accepts the proposal in the hon. and gallant Member's next Amendment, which would require that, in the case of railways, for example, there should be two sets of officers, one dealing with the period during which the railway was under the control of the Board of Trade, and the other dealing with the period during which the railway was under the control of the Ministry of Ways and Communications. We cannot accept that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Major BARNES: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, a), after the word "force'' ["upon the same terms of payment as those heretofore in force"], to insert the words
    "under the agreement made in pursuance of that Section for such part of the period of possession as is covered by such agreement and for the remainder of the period of possession upon the same terms as to compensation as are provided for in Section seven of this Act."
    Mr. SHORTT: The Government are not prepared to accept these words, because, to begin with, the dual position which would be created with regard to arbitration would be an almost impossible one It would be extremely difficult, in dealing with the effect upon a railway, to say what was the value of either enhancement or depreciation before the 1st August, 1919, and what was the value after that date. It would be almost impossible to distinguish between the two periods. I do not propose to follow my hon. and gallant Friend into all the details into which he went as regards the claims of the railways. Those claims would have to come up, no matter whether you have one or two periods. I agree that railways which are taken under the Act of 1871 are to have full compensation. We know that there was an agreement entered into at the beginning of the War, but it has been perfectly clear that, owing to circumstances which have since arisen, the railway companies would not be getting,
    1018
    under that agreement, the full compensation to which they were entitled under the Act. Under this Act, if the Bill becomes law, they will be entitled to be paid for depreciation or they will have to pay for enhancement, as the case may be-But the Government feel that this ought to be settled by one arbitration and one only. If you have an arbitrator, dealing with railways two years hence, deciding at the end of the period of control what is the depreciation or what is the ground for compensation in respect of things done after the 1st of August, 1019, and. another inquiring into what is the depreciation caused to railways by things which happened previous to the 1st August, 1919, the position would be almost impossible. You cannot have two periods divided in that way when the control is really one. The mere fact that you have transferred the control from one Government Department to another Government Department does not prevent the whole period of control being one period of Government control. Financially, also, the position would be almost impossible. It would lead to all kinds of trouble, confusion, and complication. Of course the basis of the compensation cannot anyhow be changed, because the two years' period of control after the War is regulated by Mr. Runciman's letter, which said that the basis was to continue for two years after the War had ceased, and for those two years, so far as railways are concerned, the compensation basis continues in accordance with Mr. Runciman's letter. For these reasons the Government are unable to accept this Amendment.
    Major HAYWARD: This Amendment is objected to by the Government on the ground that they cannot acknowledge two-sets of arbitrations. As I understand the Amendment, there is no need for any arbitration with regard to the railways taken over under the 1871 Act, because the question of compensation under that Act has already been settled by the agreement made on the 6th August, 1916. I understand that the suggestion is put forward that that agreement is not to be acknowledged, but is to be set aside, and I think it ought to be made quite clear to the House what is happening. There is no doubt that what happened on the 6th August, 1916, was that the question of compensation under the Act of 1871 was taken into consideration, and it was agreed between the two parties that the

    1019
    Act of 1871 provided full compensation for any loss or injury, and that it further provided that this question might be agreed upon between the Secretary of State and the said person or body of persons, namely, the railway company. It is very strange that, on only about the last day of the Committee, for the first time we did get to know, not from the Government, but from the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), what the agreement between the railway companies and the Government was, and with the leave of the House I will read just the operative Clause. It commences:
    "The question of the basis on which compensation under the Act of 1871 shall be ascertained was discussed, and it was resolved to recommend that, to ascertain the compensation payable, the aggregate net receipts of all the railways taken over during the period for which they are taken over shall be compared with the similar aggregate for the corresponding period of the previous year. The ascertained deficiency shall be the amount of compensation due."
    In face of those words, can anyone doubt for a moment that that agreement did assess the compensation payable under the Act of 1871, and the full compensation? And now the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon has made it quite clear that he has only taken power to take over these railways for a further period of two years. That makes it also clear that, so far as the railway companies taken over under the Act of 1871 are concerned, the whole period of his possession is covered by the agreement. Further, so far as assessment is concerned, it is not necessary for these railways to be under this Bill at all. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us definitely whether he is going to stand by the agreement or not, so far as those railways are concerned, or whether he is now coming to ask the House to give those railways something over and above the compensation which they agreed to accept on the 6th August, 1916.
    Major HILLS: I think there is some confusion in the minds of the last speaker and of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle (Major Barnes) as to the exact effect of the Amendment they are moving. No one wants the railways to be compensated twice over, but Clause 3 of the Bill lays down that, when the compensation under the Act of 1871 is retained for two years more, the same terms as to compensation shall prevail as were agreed
    1020
    upon in August, 1914, and prevailed during the War; and so, as far as the Minister under the Bill retains possession of those railways for two years after Peace, he retains possession on the same terms as those which prevailed during the War. That applies to something quite different. Under this Bill the Minister has power to do various things with railways, and the things that he does may increase or reduce the value. Clause 7 provides for a mutual assessment. If the value is increased, the company has to pay the increase, and if the value is diminished, then the Minister pays the diminished value. The result of inserting these words would not, so far as I see, affect those two compensations, but it would draw a wholly artificial line. I want to say a word about the agreement. The agreement between the Government and the shareholders is by no means in favour of the shareholders; in fact, it would probably have paid the shareholders best to charge the Government the full value. It is, however, a perfectly fair and reasonable agreement, and it gives both sides what they want, and it enables the Government to know exactly where they stood. All compensation paid under the Act of 1871 and the agreement of 1914 does not affect anything done under this Bill. Under this measure new and wide powers are given to the Minister, and if the exercise of those powers increases the value of the railways, the company has to pay, and if they diminish the value, then the Minister has to pay it.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I do not know whether this Amendment is going to be pressed to a Division or not, but if so I should like to say a word or two as to the precise issue which lies before us. I am sure, not intentionally, the speech of my hon. Friend opposite had the effect of entirely confusing and mystifying the issue. It really is a very simple point indeed. As I understand it, the intention of the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend opposite is to limit the days under the Government guarantee to the period of control under the Act of 1871, and to leave any compensation with respect to the period of control under the Bill, but not under the agreement, to be dealt with in an entirely separate Clause—that is, Clause 7 of this Bill. That is how I interpret and understand the Amendment.
    Major BARNES: May I make the point quite clear? The object of my Amendment is that, in so far as the railway companies are under this agreement, and are enjoying the terms provided for by that agreement which are terms of full compensation, they should abide by those terms and should not have the benefit of any other terms which may be proposed in any other part of the Bill. If the Home Secretary would be prepared to take out the words "subject to the same terms of payment," and allow these railway companies to come in under the same compensation Clause as all other railway companies, I should have no objection.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: The simple issue which under this Amendment the House has to decide is whether the Government will or will not carry out by the Clause they have put down the agreement made with the railway companies. That is the simple issue, and I mean the agreement made in August, 1914, and confirmed by the letter of the then President of the Board of Trade, not in August, 1914, but in September, 1916. I think the House will remember that in September, 1916, speaking on behalf of the then Government and the Board of Trade, Mr. Runciman undertook to extend the period of guarantee of net receipts to two years after the termination of the War. The simple question the House has to decide in relation to this Amendment is whether it does or does not wish to honour the bond given by Mr. Runciman. That is the simple and sole issue the House has to decide.
    The Government come forward perfectly rightly, and have asked the House by inserting Clause 3, which is under discussion, to honour the bond into which they entered, and if the House accepts the Amendment which has been proposed by my hon. Friend opposite it will, in effect, break the bond which was made. My hon. Friend has referred to the effect of this Clause as compared with Clause 7 of the Bill. May I point out that Clause 7 is directed to an entirely different object. It has nothing whatever to do with the point dealt with under the Clause we are immediately discussing. The point to which Clause 7 is directed is whether compensation shall be paid for any reduction in value caused by the exercise by the Minister of this power under this Bill, which is an entirely separate and distinct point. May I call attention to the actual wording of the Clause.
    1022
    "Where at the end of the period of possession by the Government of any undertaking the value thereof on a revenue-earning basis has been reduced or enhanced as compared with the value at the commencement of such period, or where during that period the income thereof has been reduced or enhanced, after taking into account the natural growth of traffic on any railway belonging to a company,"
    then there shall be compensation paid if there has been a reduction in value. Consequently it works both ways. The point is entirely separate from that dealt with under Clause 3. I hope that not only will the Government honour the bond into which they have entered, but that the House will back them up.
    Mr. NEAL: I do not think this matter is so simple as the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has represented. I think we are going to get into a state of some confusion in this matter. There is no question in the Amendment before the House of repudiating at all the agreement made with the railway companies, but, on the contrary, there is a definite intention expressed in the Amendment to affirm that agreement, but to take care that is it not enlarged for the benefit of the railway shareholders at the expense of the State. No one, I think, will suggest for a moment that that agreement ought to be abrogated or lessened in its effect. I do not think the hon. Gentleman who last spoke wishes to suggest that it should be increased in favour of a particular class.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I did not make any such suggestion.
    Mr. NEAL: If the hon. Member will look at the Clause under Section 3, paragraph (a), he will see that the railways which have been taken possession of are to be remunerated during the extended period upon the same terms of compensation as were settled by the agreement. If he looks at Clause 3, Subsection (1), paragraph (b), he will find that the Minister is given power to take over certain other railways, but the Clause is silent as to the terms on which the railways are to be taken over. I submit that this is a casus omissus. Nowhere in this Bill, if I am right, do I find anything which says the working terms upon which these newly acquired railways are to be remunerated during the period of possession. If you look at Clause 7, which is the only part of the Bill which deals with this point, you will find it deals equally with both classes of railways, those which are in possession.

    1023
    and those which are to come into possession, and it provides a totally new principle. The effect of Clause 7 is that it embodies two principles, one of compensation for depreciation and the other the principle of betterment, as we used to call it, but enhancement, as it is called in Clause 7, for improved conditions.
    The provision of Clause 7 is that where at the end of the period of possession of any of these railways of both classes, by reason of something which has been done by the Minister they are increased in value on a revenue-earning basis, or where on the contrary they are decreased in value on a revenue-earning basis, then the company shall be liable to pay for the enhancement or receive payment for the depreciation. I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend wishes, by his Amendment, to establish that you must not, under Clause 7, increase the compensation to be paid to the railways during the period they are in possession. I hope I have succeeded in making my point clear. I suggest to the Minister that the simple way would be to insert words in Sub-section (1), paragraph (b) of Clause 3 making the terms of the agreement now in existence with reference to controlled railways applicable to the railways which are coming under control. It might be said that the railways to be brought under control have not been consulted, but seeing that the principal railways have already accepted those terms, I cannot conceive that there will be any injustice in putting the same terms upon the railways.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir E. GEDDES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) paragraph (b), after the word "may" ["the Minister may"] to insert the words
    "after giving not less than one month's notice in writing."
    This is merely giving effect to an undertaking in Grand Committee that a period would be inserted and that there should be provision in the Bill for definite notice to be given before any undertaking was taken over, so that as one member of the Committee put it, "some morning the undertakers should not come down to their office and find some one in possession." This Amendment therefore provides that a month's formal notice shall be given before the powers to take possession are exercised.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MARSHALL STEVENS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, b), to leave out the words "take possession," and to insert instead thereof the words "undertake direction." This is an Amendment brought forward at the suggestion of the Leader of the House, that some better phrase should be found than "take possession" in regard to the undertaking which is provided for under this Clause. The words "take possession" are in the Bill, as has frequently been described, because they are the words used in the Act of 1871, under which the railways were taken over at the commencement of the War. There is a great deal of misunderstanding in connection with the undertaking which it is sought to take over under this Bill, and it has been due to the use of these words "take possession." The difficulty, if I may state it shortly, is that the Minister gains central control and not local administration. That is the arrangement which was explained yesterday. Many of these undertakings, and I speak particularly of railways not yet taken over, think that they ought to obey the directions of the new Ministry, and that they ought in that way to come under his control, precisely in the same manner in which the railways which are presently managed and administered by the Railway Executive are under the control of the Board of Trade. There is no objection to that at all from the point of view of the owners of these railways, and T hope there will be no objection to the Amendment.
    Captain STANLEY WILSON: I beg to-second the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: This Amendment really makes no difference at all in the Bill, but the words, "take possession" are the words of the Act of 1871. They are employed in regard to railways taken over, the meaning of them is perfectly well known, and "take possession" simply means undertaking direction of the railways. If you are going to undertake direction it means efficient direction, and if your direction is going to be efficient it means taking over just as much as under the Act of 1871. These words "take possession" have always been used, they are well understood, and the Government hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.
    Sir H. NIELD: Surely there is a differentiation between the Act of 1871, which was purely a military Act, giving

    1025
    the Crown right to meet a military situation, and this Act which seeks to influence a number of private undertakings. I am going to make use now of an argument which I intend to put forward later in regard to the law of rating. Whether or not you are in possession of, or whether you undertake control or direction of, in the one case, if the Crown has the undertaking it escapes liability for all kinds of rates, and that would be a great injustice to the various rating authorities. In the other case, it cannot possibly be suggested that taking direction or control will relieve the Government of any liability or give the Crown any opportunity to escape paying rates. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is a great difference between the Act of 1871 and the purposes of this Bill. In the one case you have a measure intended to cope with civil commotion, and to enable the forces of the Crown to be brought into operation, but in the other you are going to take power to give directions with regard to a large number of commercial concerns, which have hitherto been liable to rates among other things. Surely this is the opportunity to make good what was said yesterday as to the intentions of the Government with regard to this concern? I fail to see why, after what happened yesterday, these words should not be inserted.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I think I may add that the Leader of the House told us yesterday that the phrase "take possession" was undesirable, and suggested that some other form of words should be proposed. As the Home Secretary admits that the words we suggest bear exactly the same meaning as the words which they are intended to substitute, I cannot understand why the Government resist the Amendment.
    Mr. REMER: I should like to join in the words uttered by my hon. Friends. In my opinion it is most important that the term "undertake direction" should appear in this Bill. I do not wish to join in any legal argument, because I am a layman, but if there is no difference in the meaning of the words why do not the Government accept them? In paragraph (c) we get the words "shall obey the directions of the Minister," and in my opinion the word "direction" ought to appear in both places. We do not want to have words conveying different meanings. We do not want in one Clause the words
    1026
    "take possession" and in the other Clause the word "direction." Obviously, it is bad drafting, and I hope, therefore, the Government will withdraw their objection to the Amendment.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give a little more consideration to this matter. The Home Secretary knows quite well that there is very great anxiety in the country as to the intentions of the Government in regard to taking possession. If the Government are going to take possession of railways in fact, they become responsible for the whole detailed management of the railways which are in their power. We have had it stated over and over again that my right hon. Friend does not mean to run the railways and to be responsible for every individual order, but if it goes forth to the world in the terms of an Act of Parliament that they are taking possession of the railways, in view of the enormous powers which are set forth in Clause (b), it will be implied to the world that they are going to exercise them, and the meaning of the Act of Parliament will be that in fact the railways are temporarily nationalised. Of course, the essence of nationalisation is, first, ownership, and, secondly, individual management. I agree that my right hon. Friend would not own the railways, but he is to take possession with full powers of management over every single man employed on the railways. The right hon. Gentleman tells us it is necessary to take these wide powers in case of emergency, but, he adds, "I do not intend to exercise them." I therefore hope he will agree to remove from this Clause the words "take possession," because they imply the half-way house towards nationalisation.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman tells us that there is no actual difference between the words in the Bill and those we suggest, I hope the Amendment will be accepted. "Taking possession of" is a perfectly well understood term in legal circles, but the ordinary man in the street would define it as the Government taking possession of the railways lock, stock, and barrel. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: With respect to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member (Sir H. Nield) with regard to rating, if the House will look at the

    1027
    Amendments further down the Paper they will find one with regard to rating, an equivalent to which the Government pro pose to accept, in order to safeguard the local authorities in this particular. With regard to the change of words which is proposed, it is true I said that there was no difference in the meaning, and I think so still, but it is so evident from the speeches delivered that something different is intended that I am more than ever persuaded not to accept this Amendment.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. STEVENS: I rise again because I think there is some misunderstanding. The suggestion for this Amendment came from the Leader of the House. He said he knew there was a misunderstanding in the country, and he would be very glad if any hon. Member could suggest words which would be more acceptable. The Some Secretary was not present at the time, but I would remind him that the Leader of the House said he would be pleased to have any suggestion from any hon. Member which would change the name without changing the intentions of the Government. At the time the word "direction" was named. It was suggested that something should be done in this way to bring it before the House. I, therefore, say that I am doing this with the knowledge of the Leader of the House.
    Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: The Home Secretary's first statement was that the Amendment made no difference, but, after listening to the expression of opinion of Members of the House, he apparently has come to the conclusion that there must be a great difference.
    Mr. SHORTT: I did not say that. I said that something very different was meant.
    Mr. G. BALFOUR: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's correction. It is quite clear what was meant by the expression of opinion of hon. Members of this House, that is, they are clear that if the words "take possession" remain in the Bill it means a step towards nationalisation, if not complete nationalisation. I should like the Home Secretary to say, that being the clearly expressed opinion of Members of the House, does he stand by the interpretation of nationalisation if we retain in the Bill the words "take possession"? May I add one word in order to save time? If the Government can see their way to accept the words "undertake direction" in place of the words "take possession," it would allow me to withdraw the next Amendment standing in my name.
    Question put, "That the words 'take possession' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 83.

    Division No. 55.]

    AYES.

    [5.3 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Armitage, Robert

    Cape, Tom

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Arnold, Sydney

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Forster, Rt. Hon. H. W.

    Astbury, Lt-Com. F. W.

    Carr, W. T.

    Foxcroft, Captain C.

    Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

    Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Bagley, Captain E. A.

    Carter, W. (Mansfield)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Casey, T. W.

    Gange, E. S.

    Baldwin, Stanley

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

    Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Clay, Capt H. H. Spender

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)

    Clyde. James Avon

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Barnes, Major H (Newcastle, E.)

    Collins, Col. Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Barnett, Captain Richard W.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Glanville, Harold James

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh)

    Barrand, A. R.

    Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff)

    Green, J. F. (Leicester)

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Courthope, Major George Loyd

    Greenwood, Col, Sir Hamar

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.

    Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

    Bennett, T. J.

    Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

    Griggs, Sir Peter

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Davies, T. (Cirencester)

    Guest, J. (Hemsworth. York)

    Bird, Alfred

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Southend)

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Dawes, J. A.

    Hacking, Captain D. H.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Dockrell, Sir M.

    Hallwood, A.

    Bowerman, Right Hon. C. W.

    Edgar, Clifford

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Edge, Captain William

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

    Bramsdon, Sir T.

    Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.)

    Hartshorn V.

    Breese, Major C. E.

    Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

    Hayday, A.

    Briant, F.

    Elliot, Capt W. E. (Lanark)

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

    Brawn, Captain D. C. (Hexham)

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.

    Murray, William (Dumfries)

    Sturrock, J. Leng-

    Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Surtees, Brig.-Gen. H. C.

    Hinds John

    Neal, Arthur

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

    Swan, J. E. C.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

    Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

    Hogge, J. M.

    Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

    Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)

    Hope, Harry (Stirling)

    Oman, C. W. C.

    Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Hope, John Deans (Berwick)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

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

    Hunter, Gen. sir A. (Lancaster)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Thorne, Col. W. (Plaistow)

    Hurd, P. A.

    Parry, Major Thomas Henry

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Hurst, Major G. B.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Tootill, Robert

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Percy, Charles

    Townley, Maximilan G.

    Jodrell, N. P.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander

    Pratt, John William

    Vickers, D.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Waddington, R.

    Kidd, James

    Purchase, H. G.

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Knight, Capt. E. A.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wallace, J.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Lane-Fox. Major G. R.

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

    Walton, J. (York, Don Valley)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Randall, Atheistan

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton)

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

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

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Waring, Major Walter

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Warren, Sir Alfred H.

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Robinson, T. (Stratford, Lancs.)

    Waterson, A. E.

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Rowlands, James

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Lunn, William

    Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)

    Weigall, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)

    Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)

    White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

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

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

    Whitla, Sir William

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

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Bosworth)

    Seager, Sir William

    Williams; J. (Gower, Glam.)

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Sexton, James

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Shaw, Tom (Preston)

    Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir Rhys (Banbury)

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

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

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

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

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

    Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

    Simm, Colonel M. T.

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

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Sitch, C. H.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Mason, Robert

    Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C.

    Spencer, George A.

    Winterton, Major Earl

    Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.

    Spoor, B. G.

    Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Stanler, Capt. Sir Beville

    Woolcock, W. J. U.

    Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

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

    Young, William (Perth and Kinross)

    Mosley, Oswald

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Mount, William Arthur

    Starkey, Capt. John Ralph

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.

    Murchison, C. K.

    Stephenson, Col. H. K.

    Talbot and Captain F. Guest.

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

    NOES.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    O'Connor, T. P.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Ainsworth, Captain C.

    Du Pre Colonel W. B.

    Perring, William George

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Raeburn, Sir William

    Banner, Sir J. S Harmood-

    Gardner, E. (Berks., Windsor)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bellairs, Com. Carlyon W.

    Gould, J. C.

    Reid, D. D.

    Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich)

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Remer, J. B-

    Blair, Major Reginald

    Gwynne, R. S.

    Remnant, Col. Sir J. Farquharson

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Renwick, G.

    Burdon, Colonel Rowland

    Hennessy, Major G.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Burn, colonel C. R. (Torquay)

    Hickman Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Campbell, J. G. D.

    Hood, Joseph

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

    Campion, Col. W. R.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Johnstone, J.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cayzer, Major H. R.

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Sugden, W. H.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)

    King, Com. Douglas

    Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts.)

    Cheyne, Sir William Watson

    Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

    White, Col G. D. (Southport)

    Child, Brig-General Sir Hill

    Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green)

    Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson

    Dough, R.

    Lowther, Col. C. (Lonsdale, Lancs.)

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

    Coats, sir Stuart

    Lynn, R. J.

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

    Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.

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

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Marriott, John Arthur R.

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)

    Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)

    Mitchell, William Lane-

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Henry Page

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Murray, John (Leeds, W.)

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

    Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Denison-Pender, John C.

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Marshall Stevens and Mr. G. Balfour.

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.

    Dr. D. MURRAY: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, if it is in Order for a group of rather boisterous Members of the House at the door, in order to defeat the Government, to prevent other Members from getting into the House to vote who were not quite here to time?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It would be most disorderly to defeat the Government by such means.
    Mr. G. BALFOUR: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (b),to leave out the words
    "part of any other railway undertaking or of any light railway or tram way (other than a tramway or a light railway used as a tramway belonging to a local authority)."
    This paragraph deals with various matters and allows the Minister, on very short notice, to take possession of various undertakings, including tramways and light railways. The various undertakings mentioned in the paragraph have been protected to a large extent by the Clause adjusted between Ministers and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) yesterday, but no protection whatever has been given or indicated in respect of tramways and light railways. The House has not informed itself of the true position of these undertakings in regard to this Bill When speaking yesterday on Clause 2,I mentioned that there are 279 tramway undertakings in this country with a total of 2,700 route miles, of which 1,800 odd are owned by the local authorities. All the 171 tramways covering 1,800 miles owned by the local authorities arc excluded from the operation of this paragraph.
    This Sub-section, therefore applies only to 108 tramway systems, totalling slightly over 800 miles, and detached altogether from the 171 municipal tramways covering 1,800 miles. Is there the slightest particle of sense in bringing these isolated tramway lines under the operation of this Subsection? I am not unfamiliar with the construction and management of tramway undertakings. Any personal interest that I or any other Member may have in any one of these undertakings must go by the board. The public interest must predominate. I am prepared to stand by that, inside and outside the House, but I have searched the records, and I have listened to the Minister-designate, and I have not found or heard of a single word he has uttered which justifies the inclusion of these small tramway systems in this Subsection. I ask him to give some real and solid reason as to how the public of this
    1032
    country are going to benefit by bringing tramways and light railways into it, or else to allow the Amendment to pass. If he can show me that there is some real great public object to be served, I will gladly withdraw the Amendment; but I think I am not asking too much when I ask for a plain, simple statement, showing that this is in the public interest.
    Sir H. NIELD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: I think from the very first we have pointed out that for the purpose of housing and other purposes the control of tramways and light railways was essential. They are often in those very places where you want to develop agriculture and have healthy and good surroundings in housing. For that reason it is most essential that these tramways and light railways should coma within the scope of the Act.
    Colonel GRETTON: The statement of the Home Secretary is not quite clear. There are a number of light railway undertakings in some agricultural districts which are privately owned by the owners of the land. They are labour-saving appliances. This applies especially to districts where potato growing is the-dominant industry, and the potatoes could not be either planted or moved under present conditions without the services of these light railways. Is it intended that the Minister of Ways and Communications should take them over? The Clause as it stands is very sweeping, and it does not appear to be necessary that any such-control should be taken.
    Mr. SHORTT: It is certainly not the intention to take over a railway which some private gentleman may have. Of course, if it is an undertaking which has-been sanctioned by the Light Railway Commissioners or anything of that sort, and is used by the public, it would come within the terms of the Clause, but if it is a purely private matter it would not be an undertaking within the meaning of the words.
    Amendment negatived.
    Captain HAMILTON BENN: I beg to move, after the word "navigation" ["canal, inland navigation, harbour, dock, or pier undertaking"], to insert the words
    "undertaking and subject as hereinafter mentioned any."

    1033
    This is a drafting Amendment necessitated by the new Clause which was passed yesterday.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (c).
    I move this for the purpose of obtaining from the Government an absolutely definite statement that it is not their intention during the period of two years contemplated by the Bill to take any steps which will have indirectly the result of forcing us into nationalisation. The Government draftsman has inserted at the beginning of the Clause a preamble, upon which I expressed the hope on the Second Reading that it represented a reality in the intentions of the Government, and was not mere camouflage. It is a plain statement, so far as the language is concerned, that the object of the provisions of the Bill is to enable the Government to ascertain, and, through the results of the experiment, to inform the House and the country, what is the position as regards the various transport services, and keeping entirely open what the policy should be as to the future. The question of nationalisation or not of the various transport services in the Bill is an urgent and real question here and now. There are large sections of opinion in this House in favour of nationalisation. There are hon. Members who want to nationalise railways, transport services, the mercantile marine, the mines, and every other industry in the country. That is what they are out for, and that is the reason why the solid block from the benches opposite supported the Government in Committee upstairs and in the last Division also. On the other hand, there is already a very large body of opinion which believes that nationalisation on those lines would spell the commercial bankruptcy and downfall of this country, and, with it, the livelihood of the workers, about which we on these benches are just as anxious as Members of the Labour party. It is because we may to-day be at the parting of the ways, taking or not taking a course which, willy nilly, may land us in nationalisation in the future, that I ask for an absolutely definite, clear undertaking as to the way in which they are going to administer this Bill. To my mind, that is not enough. I should like to have it so amended as to make it impossible for the Government to bring about nationalisation. I see little prospect of that happening in this House, but we all have hopes of another place.
    1034
    The point I want to make clear is this: On the Second Reading Debate the Government said, so far as their language goes, '' We do not mean by this Bill to effect nationalisation. We do not ask to do by a side wind what we are not asking to do directly. "Do they mean it? The Minister designate may regard this question of nationalisation as quite a small thing compared with the importance of giving him the autocratic powers over the transport services that he asks, but although ho personally may not have nationalisation in mind, it does not follow necessarily that during the whole of the period of two years he will be the Minister of Ways and Communications. Rumour says that there are many who contemplate asking him to reorganise the Church. There are difficulties looming up in another place which may demand the services of the one man who can do these things. My informant may, of course, be mistaken, but it is said that in that event he is to have the temporary rank of Archbishop. Be that as it may, we are not certain of the inestimable privilege of his services as Minister of Ways and Communications, and, in any event, this Bill has. to be judged on its merits, and not from the point of view of the personality of one man. Let us look at this Sub-section and see what germs of nationalisation there are in it. There are many services referred to in respect of which, I believe, the House, almost without exception, recognises that co-ordination, as distinct from State management, is desirable. We all want to see our transport services better linked up. We want more unification in that sense. But that is a radically different thing from nationalisation, and the public of this country only in the last few weeks, and with the assistance of Mr. Smillie, appears to understand what nationalisation means. Sub-paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 do not seem to me to raise nearly as much danger as far as nationalisation is concerned as the earlier Sub-paragraphs. They are all perfectly reasonable, and, indeed, essential objects, when you are dealing with the successful working of transport services. But not necessarily by means of one central authority, one individual man who can give orders from a State Department as to what is to be done throughout the country in all these details. That is a degree of centralisation which will lead to trouble. The Minister-designate has said that that is not his intention as to the way he intends to carry out his functions. Look at para-

    1035
    graphs (l), (2), and (3). See what he can do. In the Sub-section (c) it is set out that
    "The directors and other persons concerned with the management, and officers and servants of, any undertaking of which, or of the plant whereof, possession is retained or taken shall obey the directions of the Minister as to the user thereof."
    By paragraph (1) the Minister can alter the whole scale of rates, fares, tolls, dues, and charges of any undertaking. Paragraph (2) relates to salaries, wages, remuneration, and conditions of employment of persons employed on or in connection with the undertaking. The Minister has power to put up all the wages, to put down all the salaries and to do anything he likes in regard to the whole staff, managerial and manual, connected with the whole of these services. Is not that exposing the country to the extreme danger of political pressure? We all know that during the War trouble resulted from Government Departments running industrial undertakings. We all know about the 12½ per cent. of the Ministry of Munitions; we all know about the war bonus under the Coal Controller's Department during the War. I express no opinion as to whether these rises were right or wrong, but they were granted in circumstances when pressure was being exerted by the workmen to get these rises out of the Government, and having regard to the recent resolution at Southport as to direct action, are we not simply putting our heads into the noose by inviting Parliament to give the Minister each powers as are conferred by this Sub-section—absolute and autocratic powers with no safeguard whatever as a buffer, so to speak, between the Minister, the Government Department concerned, and the wages of the operatives who are in effect employed by the Ministry? It is idle to say that they are not employed by the Ministry, because under this Sub-section the position is exactly as though they were. Under paragraph (3) the Minister can order the whole staff, directors and everybody else, to obey his orders as to the working or discontinuance of the working of any undertaking or any part thereof. He can order the undertaking to stop working or he can order one part to stop and another to go on.
    These powers mean nationalisation, and my submission is that it is wrong, and that what we ought to have instead is a temporary period during which he can guide and offer advice and ask for
    1036
    agreement from the various bodies responsible for the working of these services, and if he cannot get from them immediate-agreement to his reasonable demands he-should have power to go to an independent authority and say, "You must do it," exactly on the lines of the Clause the Government have had to concede in regard to docks and harbours. That, I submit, is a sound policy which this House ought to adopt with regard to the whole of Clause 3. Adopt the Minister-designate's object, approve his motives, give him powers to co-ordinate, give him-powers of control, give him power to go to an independent authority to compel, but do not give him the power, by his mere Order, in effect to manage the whole-transport services of the country. I challenge him to say definitely, Does he or does he not contemplate that he is going in effect to have the powers of management? Let him tell us that. I have moved to omit this particular Clause in order that we may clear the ground and' know where we are, and so that we may not be lulled into false security by being told that this Bill does not mean nationalisation, and so that we may not find ourselves two years hence in the position of seeing the transport services of the country in such a position that nationalisation is the only way out of an impossible position. That, practically speaking, is the argument that many have used as to the railways, as the result of Government control during the War. It is an argument that many have used regarding mines as a result of Government control during the War. It is a dangerous argument, because it has a great deal in it. Before it is too late, let this House see that this Bill does not lead to a result which not only the great majority of this House want to avoid, but which I am certain the great majority of the nation want to avoid.
    Mr. STEVENS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    In doing so I want to supplement the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool. Let the House remember how this-Bill originated. As far as I can understand it came out of the resolution of the Trade Union Congress last year, namely:
    "That in view of the national advantages arising from the working of the railway services under State control, this Congress again urges upon the Government the desirability of the complete nationalisation of the railways This Congress further expresses the opinion

    1037
    that with a view, to the full development of our national resources steps should be taken to bring all the other available means of transport and communication, for example, canals, roads, motor vehicles, postal telegraph and aerial services, into harmonious co-ordinative working, the whole to be controlled by a Minister of Transport and Communications, who shall be responsible to Parliament and be assisted by advisory committees upon which the organised workers engaged in the industries shall be adequately represented."
    When addressing the electors at Dundee, the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Churchill) stated that the Government had decided upon the nationalisation of railways. So far as I am aware, there has been no definite statement to the contrary. When this Bill was before the House for Second Reading—a feather indicates how the wind blows—the Private Secretary to the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister, of course, being unavoidably absent—stated his views. I refer to the hon. Member for Crewe, who conducted, so far as I was concerned, the correspondence that passed between the Prime Minister and myself for the interests that represented cm this question. He stated in this House that this Bill was a necessity towards nationalisation. That is the nearest attempt we have had of any Government Indications of what is meant. As regards my hon. Friends of the Labour party, the hon. Member for Wednesbury said:
    "We support it chiefly because we believe that it is a step leading ultimately to nationalisation.''
    The right hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace), who conducted the Committee upstairs with such ability, supported the Bill, and said:
    "It is because the Labour party look upon the proposals of this Bill, not as meeting all they would like to meet, not as covering all they would like to see covered, but as an instalment towards placing the key industries of the State under national control to be used for the national interests and the national welfare rather than for private profit, that we shall give the Bill our support."
    In Committee this Bill was so supported en bloc by the Labour party that it has come down here now a different measure from what it would have been had it not been for their intervention.
    Mr. SCOTT: They know it.
    Captain STANLEY WILSON: They are proud of it.
    Mr. STEVENS: I want to give them credit for it from their point of view, and the more they applaud me the stronger is my case. We have been met from the
    1038
    outset by the Government in what appears to me, as a new Member and a business man, to be a deplorable way.
    Mr. SEXTON: After yesterday?
    Mr. STEVENS: Promise after promise has been made to individual Members and groups on matters which should have been considered here. The last Amendment with which we have dealt was only proposed at the instigation of the Leader of the House, who suggested that such an Amendment should be made.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It appears to me that the discussion is ranging much too wide. The exact point is, whether or not this paragraph (c) of Clause 3 in effect goes beyond the intention set out in the first five lines of Clause 3—that is to say, whether it commits Parliament to something more than is indicated in the beginning of the Clause. It does not go so far as to justify a discussion on the whole of the merits and demerits of nationalisation.
    Mr. BRACE: I should not have taken part in this Debate were it not for the speech made by the hon. Member for Liverpool. I appreciate the point made by you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that this is not quite the time to raise the whole question for or against nationalisation of railways or other industries, but I have been watching with some admiration and a good deal of fear the preparation of the atmosphere against nationalisation by the opponents of nationalisation. I am afraid that the Government is likely to be stampeded against nationalisation under the impression that there is but one view in this House, unless someone comes forward to put another view. My hon. Friends and myself realise that the best way we can help the Government in connection with this Bill is to sit quiet and vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I felt sure that that would appeal to all parties who would be only too delighted if they could get Labour Members up to make a series of long speeches, so as to delay the business.
    Captain WILSON: No.
    Mr. BRACE: We cannot be drawn, but my hon. Friends and myself would feel condemned if we allowed the statement of my hon. and learned Friend to go without some challenge. My answer to my hon. and learned Friend is this, not that the case is against nationalisation but that

    1039
    the War and the experience of the War have made the nationalisation of railways and mines of this land inevitable
    Mr. SCOTT: We will save you from yourselves if we can.
    Mr. BRACE: We would rather save ourselves if we can. I simply rise to tell the Government that I hope they will neither directly nor indirectly commit themselves in this discussion to nationalisation. I am quite aware that the great and far-reaching proposal to nationalise the great key industries of this land must be settled in a Bill which will deal in a direct manner with the proposals. But it is because I am afraid that, unless we make it clear why we are silent, while views against nationalisation are expressed in this House, an atmosphere may be created in which when we come to deal with nationalisation we shall find ourselves overwhelmed with an opinion which is not a proper opinion, that I ask the right hon. Gentleman in reply not to commit the Government against nationalisation either directly or indirectly; because whether we like it or not, or whether the House of Commons realises it or not, a vast body of progressive opinion in this country, not alone among the working classes, is convinced that if in the strenuous days which lie before US this nation is to emerge successfully from the great commercial and industrial competition with which it is going to be faced, it can only be done by placing the great key industries of this country upon a national footing.
    Mr. SHORTT: I understand that the object of this Amendment is to obtain from the Government an assurance that they will do nothing which will make the nationalisation of these undertakings or any of them inevitable. The question of nationalisation does not arise under this Bill at all. I do not intend to offer an opinion either one way or the other in regard to nationalisation. This Bill in Clause 3 provides for a period of time during which there shall be consideration and formulation as to the policy to be pursued as to the future position of these undertakings. I am asked to-day to give an assurance that nothing will be done to make nationalisation inevitable. Nationalisation could not come except by the Government coming to this House and obtaining the necessary powers. There is nothing in this Bill which makes nation-
    1040
    alisation possible without first coming to this House and getting these powers, and when I am asked to give an assurance to the House that His Majesty's Government, in carrying out the powers which this Bill, if it becomes an Act of Parliament, will bestow, will undertake that they will not behave in an absolutely dishonourable and dishonest manner, and come here with the pitch deliberately queered in order to get the question of nationalisation settled in a particular way, I do not think we are called on on behalf of the Government to give any assurance that we are not going to exercise these powers in a dishonourable way.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I intervene for a moment in order to get a little more information in regard to this matter. I am glad that it is accepted in all parts of the House that the issue of nationalisation of the railways is not to be raised in this Bill. I understand that it is accepted by my hon. Friends opposite, because my right hon. Friend tells us they are silently watching the progress of this Bill, and apparently are perfectly satisfied with the position, and it seems that they are satisfied, also, with the declaration of the Government that in no circumstances is this Bill to be used as a lever for nationalisation.
    Mr. BRACE: Our silence must not be taken as meaning consent. We must not be taken, simply because we do not intervene, as consenting to the policy which the Government have laid down.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: The right hon. Gentleman is like the young lady at the dance who was not employed but who sat there in the hope that a little later she would be employed. I have felt, from what I know of him, that if he were not satisfied with the manner in which things have gone up to the present time, he would not have been silent in these Debates, and refused to take any part in the controversy on this Bill as to the nationalisation of railways. But I do ask my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill to say to a few of us who are anxious that the Government should keep a straight line in the course of this Bill, exactly what the position is in regard-to it. As I read the Clause the Government, through the Minister, are authorised to take possession practically of all the railways of the country. I understand that in two years the position may be that the Minister will be in control of every railway in the country. He has power under

    1041
    the Sub-section which we are discussing to dismiss directors. [An Hon. Member: "No!"] It is provided that the officers or servants of any undertaking shall obey the directions of the Minister. Directors are bound to obey his directions. Does not that mean that he has power to dismiss them, not perhaps by order of dismissal, but by, his policy? The directors may decide a certain policy, and next day they may get a letter from the Minister to take exactly the opposite course. No man with a sense of dignity would remain in that position. Therefore, my right hon. Friend is going to be the great railway boss in the course of two years. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that that is going a very long way toward nationalisation. It has been said that nothing can be done until the House of Commons expresses its view's but he may come down here and say, "I have taken over all the railways and they are working very well. There is a profit here and a reduction of the loss there, and who is the man who will say that we ought to go back to the old awful position?" I am not prejudging, but I do say that that is certainly prejudicing the position.
    My right hon. Friend will have taken the railways over. During that period are the employés State servants or not? In my opinion he is representing the State. He is head of all the railways with power to dismiss, and he is the governing person to decide on all great issues, and, in effect, every man employed on the railway is a Government servant. I would ask him, therefore, if he takes any further part in this Debate that he should tell us what he considers to be the position of those employés during the time he is in control. I do not think that the House of Commons has been quite frankly dealt with in regard to this matter. We know that this is one of the great issues that are coming in a very short time. We have got to face it, but it has got to be faced on its merits in the House of Commons, and it ought to be faced purely on its merits. No one will pretend that this was one of the great issues at the last General Election. Therefore the Government ought not, and I am sure that they do not intend to, prejudice the position in any way. For my part after the declaration they have made that nothing is to be done under this Bill in any way to assist the controversy with regard to nationalisation, I think they might very well have put a Clause into the Bill to that effect. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give us some more information
    1042
    as to the intentions of the Government in regard to this matter—that they do not intend by a mere side wind to entrench themselves so that it will be impossible to shift them two years hence.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I think that the logical conclusions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) are perfectly clear, and they follow very definitely from the Clause of the Bill to which the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool has called attention. There can be no doubt that the Minister who has the power of affecting the remuneration and conditions of employment of those who are concerned with railways, of changing rates and determining the working conditions or the non-working conditions, by stopping the working of a railway, has a power which may lead undoubtedly to what the Mover of the Amendment so greatly fears. It seems to me that the suggestion of the Mover of the Amendment that there should be a Court of appeal against the Minister, so that the Minister should resign these powers and let them continue in the hands which at present control them, and then if he wants any change, that there should be a buffer between himself and the persons who are affected by these changes, is a definite proposition coming from himself. But would it work? Here we have an analogy—which occurred to me during the speech of my hon. and learned Friend —in the Post Office. In the Post Office you have a great Minister who has precisely the same powers in regard to the administration of a Department employing thousands of people, and we all know how the power of the Government through that Minister has been affected, and the attempt which there is to affect it, by appeals from those who are concerned and who are also electors.
    6.0 p.m.
    I do not think anyone can deny that the addition of another Department to the present existing Department of the Post Office is a step in the direction which my two hon. Friends appear to fear. But is it in any way avoidable? One of the speakers has stated that there was no mandate. There was a mandate. The mandate that was given by the country was to coordinate the transport system of the country. One of the most effective appeals of the Prime Minister to the country at the last election was that the transport for passengers, for goods, and for agri-

    1043
    culture should all be reorganised and all brought under one co-ordinated authority. I would ask my hon. Friend, Is there any alternative method to the one set forth in this Clause that would effect the coordination which was part of the policy upon which the last election was fought, and which is now, as regards transport, being fulfilled by the provisions of this Bill? I venture to think that if these provisions were withdrawn from the Minister and were continued in the hands of those who now administer them, and if the clogging and delaying effect of appeal to some other authority to be set up were started, as is suggested, the working of the Department would be impossible. What would be the effect on the Post Office of withdrawing from the control of the Postmaster-General the administrative power which he possesses in regard to such matters as charges, working, remuneration, and conditions of employment, and the setting up of a third or independent tribunal to whom the Postmaster-General might have to refer? The result would be chaos and the impossibility of working from a business point of view. So, whilst recognising, as I do recognise, the danger of nationalisation in regard to the railways, I regard it as inevitable to incur that danger and that risk in the case of railways and the co-ordination of transport as it was inevitable to do so, and must continue to be necessary in the case of the Post Office. I welcome the suggestion of the Mover of the Amendment that some declaration of a very definite character should, if possible, be obtained from the Minister, and that he should give an undertaking that nothing that would occur in his administration will promote or prejudice one way or the other those questions of future possible nationalisation or the refusal of it by Parliament. I do feel, however, that the' proposal of my hon. and learned Friend is impracticable; that it cannot be accepted because it will defeat the whole object and purpose of the Bill; and that it would introduce evils greater even than those he fears so much.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: While not in any way disputing the conclusion of my hon. Friend who has just spoken, that the effect of this Sub-section is precisely the same as that we find in the Post Office and the telephone service, I want to call attention to the statement of the Home Secretary that there was nothing in this
    1044
    Bill which could affect the question of nationalisation. Surely he is wrong I Surely, if the Minister-designate took powers—let us say, for example, greatly to increase the running expenses of the transport of this country, through wages or through some other method—you would have precisely the same argument that some people are using now when they say that Government control during the War has rendered the nationalisation of railways imperative.
    Mr. SHORTT: I said effect, not affect.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: I cannot agree that it makes very much difference. It is possible under this Bill that such steps could be taken by the Minister-designate as to produce the result that he would have to come to this House and say, "There is no alternative now but to nationalise the railways." There is a very great deal of uneasiness on this question. I think the speech of an hon. Member who spoke just now was conclusive evidence that this question has, been in the minds of Ministers and of the Prime Minister. We want to know where we are, and we do invite the Government to tell us. The whole case would be altered if we had a definite pledge that under no circumstances are they going to nationalise any industries until they have appealed to the electors again. With all due respect, there was no mandate at the last election of any description whatever for nationalising any industry.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: I never said there was any mandate for nationalisation, but I do say that there was a demand, in regard to transport, for co-ordination of a. comprehensive character.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: I do not wish to misinterpret my hon. Friend. I agree that, generally speaking, there was a mandate for co-ordination of transportation in this country. But we have gone further than that, and there are a large-number of people with the opinion, whether it be right or wrong, that the Government is in some way or other committed to these principles. It stands to reason, I think, that the Coal Commission, could not have been set up but for the fact that the Government did contemplate a. possible verdict in the direction of nationalisation. That being the fact, we want to know exactly where we stand. If the right hon. Gentleman has no ulterior motives, will he state to the

    1045
    House definitely that under no circumstances will there be any attempt made to nationalise the railways under this Bill? If so, we need not feel alarm to the extent that many of us feel it now. Let the right hon. Gentleman and the Government be frank with the House.
    Mr. WATERSON: I have come to the conclusion that this subject of nationalisation is brought into the Debate for a specific purpose, and that specific purpose is to call up the forces of the vested interests that are so well represented in this House, in order to defeat the main object of this Bill, in which the principle of nationalisation is not in any way incorporated. This endeavour to drag nationalisation into the Debate has that particular object in view. Mention has been made of certain resolutions passed at the Trade Union Congress. Those are not resolutions passed only at the last Trade Union Congress. We in the trade union and Labour world believe we have a sound policy for nationalisation, but it is a thing we advocated many years before this War broke out. I am reminded also of the fact that it was only a week last Monday that an hon. Member with one or two other of his Friends who had been sitting on this Grand Committee, evidently with a plotting procedure intended to wreck the Bill, met in conference at the Central Hall. I sprang a surprise on that meeting by getting up and saying something in contrast to a resolution that was carried with only one dissentient. If this particular paragraph is deleted from the Bill, what would it amount to? The Minister-designate may at once clear out of the position he now holds, for there will be no work for him to do. Does anyone suppose that our transport system to-day is what it really ought to be? If the Gentlemen who represent these vested interests tell us, as they do so frequently, that they are running all these concerns at a loss, why are they so particularly anxious to keep them in their bosoms? One would have thought it was a grand opportunity to dispose of them and to hand them over to the Minister-designate. He would run them, not to the satisfaction of any particular interest, but for the good of the community. On this Clause and in Sub-section (5) I want to draw attention to the fact that there is something which, if this paragraph is deleted, will be to the detriment of the British travelling public and
    1046
    also to the concerns themselves. It refers to the carrying out of alterations and improvements which the Minister considers necessary for the public safety or for the more efficient and economical working of the undertaking. There have been strong arguments in the country as to the need ' of establishing automatic couplings. Does anyone suppose that the scene we have recently witnessed in the railway world is one that can go on much longer—where trains are running in such a fashion that there is no co-operation between the railway companies? In Bristol to-day, although there is a joint station, it often happens that a Midland Railway express train will run in a few minutes after a Great Western train, with which it should have made connection, has left the station. While such a system prevails travellers-and the business community are saddled. It is a result of the false system of competition that has prevailed, and it is the-reason why we want to get a co-ordinating policy. The House has got to decide upon these issues. It has either to stand on the side of vested interests or it must take its stand for the communal good. Members of this House are elected not for any private interest, but are sent hereto speak the opinions and express the desires of the people who have given them their votes, and not in the vested interests of the British Federation of Industries or the Clyde Trust, or any other of the bodies which could be easily named. I am quite convinced if those vested interests took out of their minds this policy of nationalisation or cast it into the background, we-should have solid support for the Government, in order that this Clause should be retained as part of the Bill. As this contains the fundamental principle of the-Bill, I do hope that the Government will not capitulate on it as it had done before, but stand by it.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do wish hon. Members of the Labour party would realise that all the wisdom and all the right in the world is not on their side of the Gangway. We who sit below the Gangway represent our constituents just as much as they do theirs. I have no objection to them speaking for their constituents, but please let them not presume to say that many other Members do not represent their constituents, and represent, too, just as many labour votes—[HON. MEMBERS: "More!"]—as hon. Members above the Gangway. We should not be here if we represented vested in-

    1047
    terests. We are here representing large constituencies, and our hon. Members below the Gangway represent far more labour votes than hon. Members above the Gangway. At all events, many of us, in our individual constituencies, had the pleasure of fighting labour candidates, and by labour votes beating them. I do hope that they will realise that we are as honest in our determination to act in the public good and welfare as much as they are. I rise not to turn this Clause out of the Bill, but to explain why we did not attack it in Committee. Quite frankly the reason was this: Hon. Members will remember that on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister-designate told us that the railway system was in a parlous state, and that it must be taken charge of, and that there was a deficit of £100,000,000 sterling per annum on the working of the railways. It was because that was in our minds, and because the Leader of the House reiterated that statement, and because we had not then the Report of Sir William Plender and another eminent accountant before us on the railways, that we felt—and I think rightly felt—on this Clause that we were overwhelmed by the statement of my right hon. Friend with regard to the financial position of the railways. He told us it was essential to have these powers because of that deficit, and in order to make it up.
    The position is very different to-day. We are by no means satisfied now that there is a deficit of £100,000,000, and we cannot get any figures from the Government which would prove that deficit. It may be, and quite rightly, that the gross cost of running the railways is £100,000,000 more than it was in 1913, but the receipts are vastly higher than in that year. I think that if hon. Members look at the Report of the two distinguished accountants in the White Paper circulated, they will see that there is no clear proof that three months ago there was a deficit of £100,000,000. I do not want to immediately turn out this Clause, but to ask the Government for a declaration on the lines suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Liverpool, and I think we are entitled to that. Do not forget that one important member of the Government, the Secretary of State for War, distinctly stated during the General Election that the Government was in favour of nation-
    1048
    alisation. I do not know if that statement has ever been refuted, and I do not think it has been openly refuted. I wish the Leader of the House would make the statement to us here which he made to us in a private meeting two nights ago upstairs, and of which some garbled reports have appeared in the newspapers. I think it would be well if he would do so. The Home Secretary has really made no statement at all of any substance on this question of nationalisation. If he will get up and say on behalf of the Government, "We do not intend nationalisation," then well and good, and this discussion would not go any further. His colleague, the Minister-designate of Ways and Communications, was almost as explicit on the subject of nationalisation on the Second Reading of this Bill as was the Home Secretary this afternoon. If we want to know whether the Minister-designate is in favour of nationalisation or not, and means to use this Bill as an agent towards nationalisation or not, let us see what he said on Second Reading, as follows:
    "Is nationalisation a cure for that? I do not know. There are those who look upon nationalisation as an end in itself, as something desirable. I am not one of those. I look upon nationalisation as a possible means to an end, a means to an end which you may have to adopt with its disadvantages, if the advantages which it secures outweigh them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, col. 1770.]
    There is a cryptic sentence supposed to express the view of the Minister-designate when he brought this Bill before the House on the great question of nationalisation. I do not think I am much wiser, or that the House is, from my having read that statement. I see one or two hon. Members on the Front Bench, who share my political views, and I want quite seriously and quite candidly to tell them that there is a vast body of their supporters in this House who are gravely concerned as to the nationalising tendency of this particular Bill. May I say to them, and to the whole House, we have loyally supported the Coalition Government during the War and since the War. We felt that it was essential that the Coalition Government should complete the War and carry out Peace. A Coalition Government is a coalition of the Liberal, Conservative, and Labour parties who compose it, and a Coalition Government cannot have the united support of the Coalition Members if it transgresses the negative character of policy which must be the only policy of that

    1049
    Government. The moment they adopt a policy, whether it be socialistic on the one side or extreme Tory on the other, those on the Socialist side or those o the other are entitled to say that they are not playing the game as a Coalition Government, and its Members are absolved from the allegiance to the Coalition Government. I hope most sincerely that it will not be necessary to do so, and that the Government will not drive any of their supporters to disown their allegiance to the Government; but I tell them frankly that here in this Bill, and still more in the Report of the Coal Commission, is the genesis of a split in the Coalition party. If the Government is going in for nationalisation, I say at once vast numbers of Unionist Members, of this House will have no part or lot in carrying that, and as an hon. and gallant Friend reminds me, very many Liberals too. It is better that we should know where we stand. It is better for them and for us, and the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool has given the Government an opportunity this afternoon to make a statement to which I think we are entitled. We had no answer from the Home Secretary at all. The answer of the Minister-designate is really no answer either. I ask some member of the Government to get up and tell us whether they intend to work this Bill in order that it may be in the result the beginning of nationalisation, or whether they are going to work this Bill in order at all hazards to prevent nationalisation?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) will forgive me for saying that I entirely dissociate myself from, the bellicose tone' he adopted towards the Government. I think the House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member who has raised this question, which is one of great importance and one which should not be passed by without discussion. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member intends to proceed to a Division on his Amendment, but I hope that that will not be the case, because, as has been pointed out by an hon. Member on the Labour Benches, it would be quite impossible to strike this Sub-section out of the Bill without reducing the whole Bill to an absolute unmeaning set of phrases. You could not take out the Sub-section without destroying the Bill. While I do not imagine that my hon. and learned Friend desires to press this matter to a
    1050
    Division, at the same time I must say I felt very much impressed by the case which he submitted, and I should be glad if the Government felt themselves in the position to explain exactly how, from a practical point of view, a railway taken over under the powers of this Clause, and administered under the powers of this Clause, differs from a nationalised railway. If you, take possession of a railway and compel the managing body to carry out any order that may be given to them, and even in. reference to such matters as the rates of toll, and wages and salaries of the servants, what is there left in which a nationalised railway would differ from a, railway under such conditions as those? I confess I do not see myself. I may be entirely wrong, but it appears to me that a railway taken over is in effect a nationalised railway, just as the railways, have been nationalised during the War, and that there is not any real distinction.
    I am not going, of course, to discuss, whether nationalisation is right or wrong. We are all quite well aware that it is-a matter of great importance which will have to be dealt with and discussed as an issue of great importance some time in this House. There is a good deal to be said for it, and a good deal to be said against it. One of the things which is constantly said, rightly or wrongly, against it, is that it will be a great evil to have vast masses of employed people directly dependent on the State. That is one of the great stock arguments against it. Would not that be so in every railway taken over under this Clause? I would like to know the view of the Government on that; but reading it, roughly, and without the advantage of the skilled assistance which the Government has, I do not myself see how an employé of a railway taken under this Clause will in fact differ from being a State servant. His wages will depend on the decision of The Minister, and the conditions under which he works will depend on the decision of the Minister, and I imagine that even his dismissal will depend on the decision of the Minister. What is there left? It may be said that there will be few railways taken over. [HON. MEMBERS: "All of them!"] I do not know whether they all will be.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: They all wilt be, and I would remind my Noble Friend that practically all of them are now taken over.
    Lord R. CECIL: That is as far as railways are concerned, but there are other transport undertakings; but in. any case it may be that there will be a strong movement in favour of nationalisation, and more and more pressure on the Government to exercise a power of nationalisation. I have not the least idea what the policy of the Government is as to nationalisation.
    Capain. S. WILSON: They do not know themselves.
    Lord R. CECIL: Probably they are considering a matter of that great importance very carefully before formulating any policy, and no rational person will object to that being done. In the comparatively short time I have been back in the country, I have found a considerable amount of disquiet, unrest, and anxiety on this point, and I do feel that if it were at all possible for the Government to make some reassuring statement, it would be well to explain that the House may rest quite satisfied that whatever else is done under this Bill, nothing will be done, not only to carry out nationalisation, which the Home Secretary has undertaken not to do—and if he will allow me very respectfully to say so, it was scarcely necessary to say that, because technically no nationalisation could take place under this Bill—but the point is that you could do a great deal under this Bill to affect the question. That is quite clear, and my right hon. Friend, with his usual candour and good faith, immediately pointed out to an hon. Member who was speaking just now that what he said was that they could not effect nationalisation, not that they could not affect nationalisation. That is a perfectly just distinction, and I need not say I am making these observations in a most friendly possible spirit to the Government. If it were possible for the Government to give some assurance to the House, not only that they will not use these powers to effect nationalisation, but that they will not use them to affect nationalisation, I confess a good many of us would be pleased.
    Mr. SHORTT: Do you mean deliberately?
    Lord R. CECIL: What I mean really is that I do not think it would be a very desirable course that on a great and vital issue of this kind, which must be one which will have to be discussed with the greatest care, I do not think it would be
    1052
    right or that it would be good policy, or that it would be approved of by those who support the Government if they used the powers in this Bill to prejudge an issue of that kind. That really is the point, and if we can get a definite assurance that nothing of that kind will be done, I think we should all feel happier. Hon. Members opposite suffer, I think, perhaps under an undue amount of suspicion in this matter. I do not know whether they will accept my assurance that I have no vested interest in this matter, that I do not in the least care what happens to any vested interest, because it is a vested interest, that I am only anxious to see this greatest issue of nationalisation, which will evidently come before us at some time and will have to be decided, decided fairly. I do not even wish to express an opinion on it myself at this moment. I wish to observe, as far as I can, an open mind in this matter until it has been thoroughly threshed out, and I do hope very strongly that nothing will be done and that no appearance will be given of an attempt to prejudge the issue by a Bill which, I. have no doubt, in some such form is necessary in order to put right and to keep right a condition of affairs which has grown up during the War and which urgently calls for some legislation of this kind.
    Mr. SHORTT: So far as the powers of this Bill are concerned, they will be used by the Government with one object and with one object only, and that is to bring about for this country the best possible system of transport. That is the object with which these powers will be used, and that alone is the object with which these powers will be used. I cannot pretend to say whether in the exercise of these powers for that purpose without any ulterior motive the question of nationalisation may or may not be affected. It is impossible for me to give a pledge that nothing which would improve transport might not affect the question of nationalisation, but if it is suggested that the Government are going deliberately to use their powers under this Bill, either to make nationalisation inevitable or to make it impossible, then I can assure hon. Members that the last thing the Government would really do—
    Mr. SCOTT: That was not my suggestion, but my fear was that by this Bill inadvertently the Government would prejudge the issue.
    Mr. SHORTT: I do not call that prejudging. The Government will use the powers of this Bill with the one single motive of improving transport, and nothing else will affect them. They will do all they possibly can to improve transport. How what they do will affect the question of nationalisation neither I nor any other person can Bay. It is quite impossible The only possible assurance that I can give or, indeed, can be asked to give, would be that we should not knowingly or willingly do anything for the purpose of affecting the question of nationalisation. That assurance I can, of course, give. The Government would not dream of doing anything of the sort, and I do not know what other assurance I could possibly give. I could not give an assurance as to what the effect of some policy would be. It is impossible for me or anybody else to do it, and I am not going to tie the Government down by attempting any promise of that sort. But I can assure the House that in the exercise of the powers of this Bill the Government will be actuated by one motive and by one motive only, and that is the improvement of transport, and that they will do nothing, willingly at any rate, either to make nationalisation inevitable or to make nationalisation impossible. They will try and steer an absolutely even keel between the two sides, having no regard to nationalisation. Nationalisation is no part of this Bill. Transport is the only object of it. To that we shall devote ourselves, and we certainly will do nothing willingly which will prejudice either one way or the other the question of nationalisation.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: May I ask whether the Government does or does not recognise the statement of the Secretary of State for War at the time of the election?
    Mr. T. SHAW: The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) made a rather curious admission. He said they were told there was a deficit of £100,000,000 on the railway system, and that owing to that statement they were prepared to accept certain things, but they discovered that there was a possibility that that estimate was a mistaken one, and it appears to me that the State could manage the railways or own them if they were a losing concern, but that the State must neither manage nor own the rail-
    1054
    ways if they were a paying concern. I look upon the railways and all other methods of transport from the point of view as to how they can be most effective for the good of the whole community, and I suggest that this Clause is the, essence of the Bill. We have had no alternative to this Clause suggested in the discussion. If we carry our minds back to the beginning of the War there will be no doubt whatever as to the conclusion that one must come to, that co-ordination was absolutely essential in order to get the best out of our transport system during the War. Now we are at the end of the War, and co-ordination of effort is still as valuable a principle as it was during the War and is still as necessary. Can we trust to private enterprise without central control to develop transport in such a way as to meet the problems of the present day? I am one of those who think that we cannot, and that if we are to develop our transport system, particularly as regards the development of suburban areas for workmen to live in, in order to give a chance for the housing scheme of the Government and in order to give the Ministry of Health a chance of developing its ideals, there must inevitably be co-operation, and co-ordination of all the various means of transport. This Clause provides for that co-ordination. If the Clause is dropped, the Bill goes, and I suggest that whether nationalisation is in the air or not, the question that we ought to face first of all and all the time is, Will this Clause make the position of the country better or will it not? How can one argue that the result of the working will not affect one way or the other the country's position with regard to nationalisation? It is bound to affect it one way or the other. If the thing be successful, obviously the mind of the people of the country towards nationalisation will be quite different from what it will be if the experiment is a failure. It is bound to affect it, and how can a Minister or anybody else say that neither directly nor indirectly will this policy affect this question? I suggest that there is one thing above all other things that ought to be paramount to every Member of this House, and that is, will the Clause benefit the country or will it not? If it benefits the country, then I think it is our duty to vote for it; if it does not benefit the country, it is our duty to vote against it. I believe it will benefit the country, and I hope the Government will stick to its Clause.
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: I think we can follow the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in all of his sentiments in regard to this Clause, because it is quite possible that different people may take different views. The Clause may be used for a great many purposes, and according to those purposes for which it is used it may or may not benefit the country. We all want the most efficient system of transport in this country, the best co-ordinated system that can possibly be established. That, I think, is common ground, and that is the ground on which the Select Committee on Transport in the last Parliament approached the consideration of this question. The first witnesses which they called before them were those who during the War had been engaged on the railway executive in doing so much under the Board of Trade to coordinate the working of the railway system. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) went technically into what this Clause meant, and said that in its results it was indistinguishable from nationalisation. I do not quite endorse that statement, because, as I take it, the powers that are being conferred by this Clause are not very different from, and I doubt if they are any greater than, those which were being exercised during the War by the Railway Executive. The whole point is in what spirit the powers which are being given by this Clause are going to be exercised, and I for one am satisfied with the declaration we have had from the Home Secretary. I. am certain that his statement has been honestly given, and that his assurance may be relied upon, and one reason why I think it can be relied upon, apart from my faith in his personal statement, which requires no additional corroboration, is this—I do not think it is possible for the Government at this time to have made up their minds on the question of nationalisation.
    The Select Committee contemplated that before they could investigate this subject even partially they would have to take an immense amount of evidence. That evidence has not yet been taken, and the Government have asked for an experimental period of two years, during which they are to study this and all other questions connected with the co-ordination of transport. I do not think that is a very great request to make, and we must support them in taking such evidence and making such investigations as are necessary in order to determine this most difficult ques-
    1056
    tion. Therefore, I do not think it is fair for the hon. Member for Twickenham to make such a sweeping request for an assurance as he did make. I do not think it would be possible or right to ask the Government to tell us to-day what is their policy on nationalisation. I do not think they have had the material evidence before them on which to decide this question, and therefore it cannot be right to press them for an answer which they are not in a position to give. But if we accept the assurance of the Homo Secretary—and I take it he meant that he is not going to destroy the organisation of the great transport system of the country during the two years' experimental period, if his assurance means that, and I am convinced it does—then I do not think any harm will be done during the two-year period by the exercise of the powers given in this Clause. The railways may have been technically nationalised during the War, but in effect I do not think they were. The evidence given before the-Select Committee showed that the organisation of our great railway companies-really remained intact, and though they were guided, and certainly in many cases-instructed, by the Board of Trade to do-certain things, on the whole their organisations during the War were the same as they were before. The boards of directors continued to discharge their functions, as did the general managers and other officials under the general direction of the Railway Executive and the President of the Board of Trade. If that is what is going to be done during the two-year period, I am perfectly certain that neither myself nor anyone else who has studied these questions closely will, quarrel with that attitude, and I should be very glad if the Minister-designate or the Home Secretary could see his way to-give an assurance in the sense I have indicated. If we are assured he intends to order the transport system of the country during the next two years on practically the same lines that they were ordered during the War, then I feel we can rest quietly in our beds.
    I do not think the Minister-designate or the Government generally can be surprised that there is a certain amount of unrest in this House at the magnitude of the powers which are being asked for. Speaking on that subject yesterday, I said that I for one was prepared to give most generous powers. On the other hand, that that being the general desire of the

    1057
    House and country, I think the Government should to some extent adopt a reciprocal attitude, and be prepared in any and every direction, where questions are asked as to the extent to which these powers will be used, to give, as far as they can, assurances. It seems to me that the Minister-designate has come before this House saying, "I have a very great job to perform; I cannot quite tell what it is going to be. You must give me a complete; outfit of all the instruments and tools I require for that purpose." When the outfit comes to be looked into closely, as it has to be in Committee and on the Report stage in this House, we find, for instance, that among his outfit is a steam hammer—an engine that can crack anything put under it—and I do not think it is an unfair description of the attitude of the Home Secretary, when I say that every time the possible uses to which an instrument of that sort can be put are exposed to view, he replies to the House, "Oh, that is all right. We are not going to use this great weapon to the utmost extent it might be used; we are only going to crack nuts." Therefore, I do feel in every case where criticism is directed to the extent of these powers, assurance should be given so that the House may know what are the intentions of the Government, so far as they can be known. I am certain my hon. and learned Friend who proposed this Amendment will not press this to a Division, but I do hope that the Ministers in charge of the Bill will be able, before we conclude this discussion, to give a somewhat extended assurance on the lines which I have already indicated.
    Mr. SPENCER: I think the object of this Bill is the co-ordination and efficient working of the transportation of this country. How that co-ordination is going to be effected, or how we are going to secure efficient working by the deletion of the Clause passes my comprehension. We have this afternoon listened to a series of very singular, very able, but in some senses very contradictory speeches. The hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment said that he believed the public interest should be paramount—I am not expressing his words, but I think I am expressing his sentiments—and that that interest could be best carried out, not by the nationalisation of the mines or of transport or industry, but by private ownership and private management of these great undertakings, and that he was
    1058
    alarmed at the prospect of the nationalisation of the mines or the railways or the other undertakings of the country. Following him there came a series of speeches from those who are willing to support the deletion of this Clause, simply because they think that this Clause is going in the direction of nationalisation. If the opening remarks of the Mover have any foundation in fact, that nationalisation is going to be disastrous in the interests of the country, why should you oppose the Minister-designate having these powers? There are those who have stated their one objection to this Clause to be that it may prove a success, that the railways may be such a successful undertaking by co-ordination under one management that it will influence—and that is the whole point—the mind of the public in the direction of nationalisation of other forms of industry, and because of that I think many hon. Members are not prepared to run that risk. They would rather continue to have privately-owned railways and mines run, not in the interests of the public, not making the interests of the individual subordinate to the interests of the whole nation, but simply retaining and running these in the interests of those who are owning and managing them at the present time. If that is not so, if their one desire is to subordinate their own private interests and all private interests to what is acknowledged to be the public good, why at this moment move the deletion of this Clause, which is absolutely essential and necessary to give the Minister-designate any possibility of trying whether nationalisation can be effected or not?
    It is a very unhappy moment for the Mover of this Amendment. He says, in effect, that private management has been successful and that public management has not been successful. I say it is very unfortunate for him that the only Commission that has ever been held to inquire into a great industry, before it had gone many weeks or many days, in its very first Export expressed itself emphatically against private ownership and control of mines. We on these benches believe that if you set up Commissions to inquire into other great industries—and we hope inquiries will be carried on that those Commissions, sooner or later, will discover that those industries too are not run upon the best lines in the interests of the general public. We desire—and I believe there are Members on the other side, too, who

    1059
    desire—to put the public interest first and foremost. There is room, I know, for a difference of opinion. I believe there are men on that side of the House who honestly, sincerely, and truthfully believe that the interests of the country can best be promoted by private interest. I will give every Member credit for being inspired in that direction. But certain speeches this afternoon have cast a degree of suspicion over our minds that they really do not desire to give the Minister a fair trial to prove whether nationalisation can be successful or not. One of the Scottish Members stated that the Minister had the power to dismiss a director. The right hon. Gentleman did not claim that power, but I will accept the conclusion that the Minister could, by giving his orders, overrule the decision of the directors, and that any director who had a spark of manhood would resign. Underlying that statement is the assumption that the business man is always correct; but you may have directors whose resignation might be a good thing, so that I am not alarmed at the idea of some director having to resign because of the orders given by the Minister. I believe that this side of the House, at least, will support the Government in retaining this Clause, and I believe those who are really anxious for the welfare of the country should support it, and not only support it, but those who come into contact with the transport system should give it a fair trial to see whether it is possible to make nationalisation a success or not.
    Sir E. GEDDES: I did not mean to intervene, but so many hon. Members have referred to me in connection with this Bill that I would like, if possible, to clear away a misunderstanding as to the way in which these powers may be used, and, in some cases, the need for them. Reference has been made to the apparently—and I agree with the words—large powers of the Minister, for instance, in regard to salaries. Why does he wish these powers in reference to salaries and wages, and, again, in reference to rates? For five years the State has been directly concerned in the financial results of the working of the railways. For two years the State is going to be directly concerned—vitally concerned—in the financial results of the working of the railways. Suppose that the Government had come to this House without the power in the Bill to have really a
    1060
    decisive voice in the income and outgoings of these large undertakings which, it is generally admitted, must be controlled in some such way as this if we are to meet a difficult situation. Suppose that the Government had come to the House and had not asked the House for powers to have a say. And does the House conceive that every time the Government has a say in anything it is going to say it stupidly and destructively? The Government must have a say in the incomes and the outgoings of the concern.
    7.0 p.m.
    I venture to think, from a very short experience of this House, that there is nothing of a minor character about which the House is more particular than the individual cases of people who arc put into appointments or removed from appointments and who, possibly at the expense of the State, get increases of salary, whether they be the workers or the superior officers of these large undertakings. Is it conceivable that the House can pass a Bill like this, making the Government, as it does for two further years, financially responsible for the railways totalling a capital of £1,200,000,000, and not give the Ministers responsible some decisive say as to the income and outgoings? That is surely one instance—and I could go on; there are others, if I were not wearying the House and if it were really worth while—of why these sort of powers have to be given. As the Leader of the House said yesterday, the powers have to be sought, and if you interpret them in an extreme way in every direction and in a cumulative way they seem and are enormous. But there is a good reason for all the powers that are sought, and I think that the two reasons I have given have shown the House that it is essential that these sort of powers must be given to the Minister. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) has quoted what I said on the subject of nationalisation in. the speech I made on the Second Reading of the Bill. I am delighted that I put my point of view so clearly. It is, in fact, the point of view that is set out in the Bill. It is the point of view that my hon. Friend, who presided so ably over the Committee on Transport, has put forward, and the point of view which the Committee itself put forward—that you must have time to consider this very great question. The words were put in in order that it should be perfectly clear that this lack of

    1061
    policy—because it is an absence of policy—we have said so over and over again—necessitates two years at least—and in my opinion it is going to be a very difficult job to get it done in two years—to consider the question. You cannot let things go on as they are for two years. You have to take powers, but there is nothing in the Bill, as the Home Secretary has said, which, prejudices the question of nationalisation. So far as I know, and I ought to know in my present position, the Government has not made up its mind, nor have any individual members of the Government made up their minds on nationalisation.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Would the right hon. Gentleman state whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was then not speaking on behalf of the Government at the time of the General Election?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I cannot speak for the Secretary of State for War. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put the question to him himself. So far as I know, the question of nationalisation is as open to-day as it ever was. If this Bill becomes an Act, and I am to be the Minister, it is in that spirit I will interpret the measure; and in the endeavour to arrive at the best possible solution of this difficult problem I will devote my energy and my mind. This is not a nationalisation Bill; there are no proposals for nationalisation in it. There is no scheme for nationalisation underlying its provisions, and there is no intention to use it in any way to prejudge—for that is the word that has been used—the question of nationalisation. I venture most respectfully and earnestly to make an appeal to the House. We have had a long Debate, and one which possibly Members with a longer experience here than myself would call a Second Reading Debate, on nationalisation. I wish to make an appeal to the House, can we not get on?
    Mr. SCOTT: In view of what the Minister-designate has said I do not propose, unless the House wishes, to go to a Division, but I want to add a word or two. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) said that in his view the policy of the Coalition must be a negative policy. With great respect to him, and I agree with much he has said, I utterly and profoundly disagree with that.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I meant a negative policy on this political question of nationalisation. Of course, I need hardly say I am all for progress.
    Mr. SCOTT: I am glad my hon. Friend said that. Progress is of the essence of the Coalition policy. No question arises in this Debate as to the merits or demerits of nationalisation at all, but the right thing was to make it perfectly clear that there was a wide and fundamental divergence of opinion on that subject between different parties in the House, and to make certain that by this Bill that question should not be prejudged I think the statement of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down as to what he intends is of great importance. The powers may be wide; the result of the exercise of those powers depends upon the way in which they are exercised, and if the right hon. Gentleman intends to exercise them in the way he has indicated then there should be no reason to fear the results that were undoubtedly possible under this Clause as framed. In asking leave, therefore, to withdraw my Amendment, I only wish to put this one further point to the Minister-designate. The confidence of this House in the way in which he exercises those powers will, during the two preliminary years of his office, if he retains it, depend very largely on whether he takes the House into his confidence from time to time as to the way he is working these powers. I hope we shall have from him the greatest candour as to the way he is administering this Act when he gets it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir E. GEDDES: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, c), after the word "undertaking" ["servants of any undertaking"], to insert the words
    "of the whole or part"
    This Amendment is only one of drafting. The powers given under Sub-section (1, b) of Clause 3 are that the whole or any part of an undertaking may be taken possession of. This Amendment merely puts into (c), which shows what the Minister may do when he has taken possession of an undertaking, the same provisions as there are in (b).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not quite clear on this point. I should like the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to assure me on it if he can. It rather seems

    1063
    to me that under this new Amendment, if my right hon. Friend takes possession of the whole or any part of an undertaking, he can then give directions under the whole of the provisions of this Clause with regard to the whole of the undertaking. The Home Secretary will see what I mean. It', for instance, the right hon. Gentleman takes possession of one particular station or side line of railway or a little piece of a tramway for certain purposes, is it possible for him to give directions and to put into effect the whole of this Clause in regard to the whole of that undertaking? That is what I want to know.
    Mr. SHORTT: No, the control or the direction would be as to the part it has reference to.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir E. GEDDES: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, c), at the end of paragraph (i), to insert the words
    "subject, however, to the provisions hereinafter contained respecting references to the advisory committees established for advising as to directions on the matters aforesaid."
    This, again, is merely drafting. It is to provide for consultation with the Advisory Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (l, c, ii), leave out the words "any such" ["any such undertaking "], and insert instead thereof the word "the."—[Sir E. Geddes.]
    Mr. REMER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, c), at the end of paragraph (iii), to insert the words
    "but there shall be no power on the part of the Minister to close any road or prevent the use of any road by any user."
    The object of the Amendment really has reference to the use of heavy motor vehicles on the roads. There is a great feeling amongst motor-wagon users that they may, under this Act, be told that they cannot continue to use the roads which they have been using up to the present time. They may be told that there is railway competition as regards these particular roads, and that therefore road transport is not necessary. I have referred to this question previously in the House, and I also put it before the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Geddes) when a deputation waited on him. On that occasion he told me that I must use a little common sense. The object of this Amendment is to put
    1064
    that common sense into the Bill. It may be thought that it is not common sense that any Minister should come along and interfere with the use of roads by heavy motor-wagons, but I would like to tell the House, and also the Minister, that this has been done during the War by the Government. I certainly think it is a vital necessity that road transport should be encouraged instead of being discouraged, and that it is one of the most hopeful methods which we have of cheapening transport in this country. I feel sure the Government would be wise to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg formally to second the Amendment.
    Sir E. GEDDES: I think, in whatever other place in the Bill this might be suitable, I ought to ask, on a point of Order, whether it is applicable here, because a road is not an undertaking. This Clause only deals with undertakings.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly it does not come very well here. A great part of this Clause appears to deal with railways and tramways, and so forth, and not with roads.
    Mr. REMER: There might be motor transport companies which might be taken, over by the Ministry.
    Sir E. GEDDES: They are not "undertakings."
    Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment, and undertake to find a more suitable-place for it?
    Mr. REMER: Yes.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The following Amendment stood on the-Paper in the name of Mr. REMER:
    In Sub-section (1, c),at the end of paragraph (viii.), to insert the words
    "and for this purpose purchasing offices shall: be opened in Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester, Dublin, and Glasgow."
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member wish to move this Amendment?
    Mr. REMER: This Amendment is put down with one object. I do not wish to press it, but I do want to call attention to the policy of centralised buying which appears in the Bill. In theory centralised buying may be very good. The paragraph in question reads as follows:
    "for securing that manufacturing and repairing facilities, and auxiliary and ancillary ser-

    1065
    vices shall be used, and the purchase and distribution of stores shall be conducted, in such manner as may be most conducive to economy and efficiency."
    It seems to me that the words of the text imply centralised buying. I should like to impress upon the House that centralised buying is not so advantageous as it may sound in theory. We have had a great deal of it during the War in connection with the acquisition of private hotels, and so on. This was of great advantage to people who happened to have offices in London. The result, however, in relation to those manufacturers who happened to belong to the provinces was that they had either to open offices in London or—
    Sir W. BULL: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Member in order in speaking to an Amendment that he has not moved?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, d), after the word "authority" ["to which this Section applies or of a local authority "], to insert the words
    "or of a body constituted by Act of Parliament."
    This Amendment is necessary owing to the alteration made in the Bill yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman does not think so? The Sub-section says
    "provided that nothing herein contained shall be deemed to empower the Minister to authorise the acquisition otherwise than by agreement of any land belonging to the owners of another undertaking to which this Section applies."
    When docks were in this 'Section, it was quite clear that the docks would be included within my right hon. Friend's proviso; but he could not give direction to a railway to take land belonging to the docks. It is perfectly clear that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to use his powers to enable one railway to prey upon the docks, merely because Parliament has taken the docks out of the provisions of this Clause. Owing to the agreed Clause carried yesterday for taking the docks out of Sub-section (3), some such Amendment as is here suggested must be inserted, in order to give adequate protection to the property of the docks. Otherwise it might be taken compulsorily.
    Mr. SHORTT: We cannot accept these words, as they are rather wide; but, having regard to the new Clause, we will accept other words that meet the case.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, d) after the word "authority," to insert the words
    "or of a harbour, dock, or pier."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. BIGLAND: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, d), paragraph (d), after the word "land" ["an easement or right of using such land"], to insert the words
    "during a period of not more than two years."
    It ought to be put very clearly into the Clause that if a Minister takes land that does not belong to the undertaking or the dock in question at the time, that it shall only be for a period of two years.
    Captain H. BENN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: If this were accepted, it would simply mean there would be no development at all under this Clause for two years. If you acquire land in order to carry out some improvement, extension, and so on, it would be idle to attempt to do it if the land or the right to use it could be taken away at the end of the years specified. It would simply defeat the purpose of the Clause. It is true that the power to order the improvements and additions only lasts for two years, but any exercise of those powers during the two years must not of necessity end at the expiration of the two years. Improvements or additions are not likely to 'be ordered under such a limitation. Improvements and additions must of necessity have some form of a permanent nature. It is not sufficient ground to say that because the power of direction is only exercisable during the two years that no improvement is to last for more than the two years, and that would be the effect of this Amendment.
    Mr. BIGLAND: I accept the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The following Amendments stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: In Sub-section (J, d),after the word "may" ["the Minister may by Order"], to insert the words
    "subject to the proviso hereinafter contained"
    and at the end of paragraph (d), to insert the words
    "provided also that any person interested in such land, or claiming that he will be prejudiced by the construction of such works, may

    1067
    apply to the Railway and Canal Commission, or such other independent sanctioning authority as Parliament may hereinafter set up for the granting of compulsory powers of acquisition and user of land, and such Order shall not take effect except by leave of the Railway and Canal Commission or such other authority as aforesaid; and upon such terms as they think right; and the Railway and Canal Commission or such other authority shall have power to deal with the costs of such application as they shall think fit."
    Mr. SPEAKER: Are these Amendments not dependent the one upon the other?
    Mr. SCOTT: No, Sir. With very great respect, they are quite independent. If you read the Clause with my second Amendment, which is now before you, added, you will see it will not make any difference at all. I thought it would be more convenient in some way to raise a discussion on my main Amendment at the beginning of the Clause. On reconsideration, however, I decided to raise it as it stands at the end of the Clause. My second Amendment leaves the Clause intact. It gives a certain remedy which in my submission is essential. As a matter of order, the first is quite independent of the second Amendment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to add a proviso which is to give an altered sense to the Sub-section to that which the House has agreed to, it will be necessary at an early stage to put it in in the form in which the hon. Gentleman has put it down—"subject to the proviso hereinafter contained." Still, I do not want to press technicalities too far.
    Mr. SCOTT: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, d), to insert the words
    "Provided also that any person interested in such land, or claiming that he will be prejudiced by the construction of such works, may apply to the Railway and Canal Commission, or such other independent sanctioning authority as Parliament may hereafter set up for the granting of compulsory powers of acquisition and user of land, and such Order shall not take effect except by leave of the Railway and Canal Commission or such other authority as aforesaid; and upon such terms as they shall think right; and the Railway and Canal Commission, or such other authority, shall have power to deal with the costs of such application as they shall think fit."
    The point is that under the next Clause as it stands the Minister may by a stroke of his pen, if he chooses—I do not say he will choose—without hearing or consulting, or in any way ascertaining the position of the parties interested in the land taken, take from them compulsorily land
    1068
    which is theirs. It is contrary, in my submission, to two fundamental principles of the Constitution that this should be done. I am all in favour of expeditious machinery. I entirely recognise that it is of most vital importance that permanent eminent domain should be exercised to the full in this country. Where land in private ownership requires to be devoted to public purposes, the owner should part with it without a murmur. But on the question as to whether it is in the public interest that that particular piece of land should be taken, it is only just and right that the party in question should have a fair hearing before an independent tribunal. The other fundamental principle of our Constitution that the Clause contravenes, as many similar Clauses in recent legislation have contravened, is the principle that a man should not be judge in his own cause. And that applies to a Minister of the Crown almost more than anybody else. The principle that a head of a Department should take land compulsorily where he wants it for his own purpose is wrong. It is ten, times wrong where the Department in question is not an ordinary administrative Department like the Local Government Board, the Board of Trade, or the Board of Agriculture, which are there to see fair play between everybody. His-Department is carrying on a business in the interests of the State, but yet carrying on a business. The Minister wants to make his business a success. He wants to take a particular piece of land, some Naboth's vineyard, which he wants for financial purposes connected with the undertaking. It is ten times wrong for that Minister, by a stroke-of the pen and by the exercise of bureaucratic power, to take the land away without there being any independent sanctioning authority to whom the owner of the land can go and before whom he can put his grievance.
    The object of my Amendment is, without imperilling the speedy working of the Bill, without complicating the machinery, as it is provided by the Clause, to give to the parties affected the right to go to an independent authority. It may be in the recollection of many Members of the House that the Committee over which I, had the honour to preside proposed such a special form of sanctioning authority being used in the cases where the land was wanted for public purposes: an authority which would

    1069
    preserve the power of this House over action which is essentially legislative in character. It has not yet been dealt with by the Government. I hope it may be. In the meantime there is a body which is familiar with the type of question to be dealt with by the Minister under this Bill, namely, the Railway and Canal Commission. This body is used for the purposes of traffic facility appeals and so on. All I suggest in this Amendment is that this body should give its sanction to the wishes of the Minister, except giving him autocratic power. No doubt in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred when he says he wants land it will be recognised that the land has to go. In the remaining, 10 per cent. say, of the remaining 1 per cent., when the case is before the Railway and Canal Commission, the Minister's view will not be taken by that Commission. In the one odd case injustice would be done if it were not for the presence of the independent authority. I propose, therefore, in the interests of Justice which the House is just as anxious to preserve here, and in all legislation of the same kind, that some provision of the sort I put forward should be adopted. I wish the House to observe that in the proviso I move the Railway and Canal Commission have complete discretion over the costs, and the Minister will also have the advantage of the procedure under the Land Acquisition (Compensation) Bill in regard to price. Under my proposal unreasonable people will be punished by having to pay the whole of the costs, and I think that will make the number of unreasonable appeals very much smaller. Those are the objects of my Amendment. The procedure enables a decision to be obtained immediately, and the Railway and Canal Commission can sit locally. That is the principle I want adopted, and I desire to have some independent sanctioning authority.
    Sir CLIFFORD CORY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: This Amendment not only deals with the mere question of taking the land, but it is really an appeal against the Order of the Minister giving directions for improvements or alterations. The object of this Clause is definite, and two years is allowed for the carrying out of the extensions and alterations necessary for the efficient working of any undertaking. It may be necessary in the matter of some extensions that land
    1070
    should be taken, and if there is delay in getting the Order it may mean that the improvements or the extension may be stopped for weeks or months while the whole question is being threshed out before the Railway and Canal Commission, and the whole object of the Minister may be defeated. If this Amendment is carried the Order itself can be stopped. With regard to the taking of land it is not an unknown thing in our legislation that land should be taken this way when it has been so sanctioned by the Houses of Parliament. It is so in the case of the Allotments Act, the Town Planning Act, and other Acts where land is taken in this way I could well understand that proper provision should be made that the owner should be fairly and justly recompensed, but it is rot unreasonable where Parliament has sanctioned a big policy which may involve the taking of portions of land here and there, that it should be taken by an Order, always of course on fair terms. This Amendment. How ever, goes much further. The appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission is not confined to the occupier of the land, or indeed to anyone. It applies to any persons interested in the land, and they have the right to appeal. In fact a person may not be interested in the land at all, and all he has to claim is that he is prejudiced by the constructing of the works, and then he can hold up the whole thing while he goes before the Railway and Canal Commission. Anybody who claims that he is prejudiced can go to that Commission and the Order cannot take effect except by their leave.
    Mr. SCOTT: I was only dealing with cases of injurious affection and owners of adjoining land, and I am willing to limit it in that way.
    Mr. SHORTT: Even assuming that is the object, the result will be that any person who objects can appeal to the Commission and delay the whole operations of the Minister while some sort of decision is being arrived at. Such a proposal is not necessary. All that is necessary is that the owner of the land should be treated fairly and justly. It is not suggested that that will not be done, and an appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission probably would defeat the whole object of the Bill. It certainly would cause great delay, and when you are limiting to a period of two years that

    1071
    would be a serious matter. For these reasons I ask my hon. and learned Friend not to press this Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. REMER: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, e), after the word "aforesaid," to insert the words
    "where the independent chartered accountant appointed by the Treasury has reported a deficiency in the profit and loss account."
    The object of this Amendment is to call attention to the impossibility of getting figures from the Ministry. We have been told on the Second Reading that there was a loss of £100,000,000, and although questions have been asked, we cannot get any reliable information as to how those figures were arrived at. There is a distinct danger of the same state of affairs existing after this Bill has become law, and this Amendment provides that there shall be an independent Treasury official who shall be responsible to this House to give an opinion as to what the deficiency is, and how it has been arrived at.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Where is the authority for the appointment of an independent chartered accountant?
    Mr. REMER: Does it create a charge?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If under the Bill there is an independent chartered accountant appointed by the Treasury, the hon. Member would be entitled to move this Amendment, but if there is no such person appointed then he is introducing such a person, and, of course, he would require salary, and it would not be in order.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1, e) leave out the words
    "subject to the provisions hereinafter in this Section contained."—[Sir E. Geddes]
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, e), after the word "claimed," to insert the words
    "or complaints."
    I am afraid I shall have to go back to the Railway Act of 1854, which gives jurisdiction to hear complaints and restrain action of undue preference by injunction. Under the old Common Law there is a right to hear claims which involve damages, and if we only leave in the word "claims"—
    Sir E. GEDDES: I accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1, e), after the word "Acts," insert" 1854 to 1913."—[Sir E. Geddes.]
    Mr. REMER: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), at the end of paragraph (e), to insert the words
    "but no change shall be made in the method of charging rates, fares, tolls, dues and other charges."
    This Amendment deals with certain goods, including timber at present carried by measured weight. The reason for this is that timber, being of very long lengths, it would very often be very weighty, and in the case of English timber going into country stations very often there are no weighing machines on the station. The object of the Amendment is that there shall be no interference with the law of the land which deals with this question which is a very intricate one, and the timber trade are very anxious that there should be no interference with these methods of charging timber. The right hon. Gentleman knows that this is a very intricate question, and there arc a great many Acts of Parliament dealing with it.
    Captain H. BENN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir E. GEDDES: There being no change in the law, as the hon. Member said, there will be no difficulty in giving him an assurance on the point. But it is not a question of the law of the land. It is a question of custom. Timber and other commodities are, according to custom, carried by measurement weight and not by Statute. Statute enables and authorises what is known as machine weight to be the basis of charge, and the House would not wish in a Bill of this kind—in, in fact, an emergency measure—to embark on legislation amending in one detail alone the charging powers which have been bestowed upon the transport undertakings of the country under their special and general Acts. It is the custom to charge by measurement. That custom may be departed from and machine weight restored wherever there are appliances for weighing timber. If this Amendment were passed, it would merely be selecting one particular item of charge in the general charging powers of the railways and amending it.
    Captain H. BENN: In days gone by disputes between traders and the railway companies have invariably been settled before the Railway and Canal Traffic Com-

    1073
    mission in favour of traders, and the traders, therefore, desire to assure themselves that the new Ministry is not going to depart from the custom of long years. The question of this custom has been on many occasions gone into very thoroughly by the Board of Trade.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, In Sub-section (1), at the end of paragraph (e), to insert
    (f) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the rights of a consignor or consignee of goods or minerals, any trader or class of traders, or any port or harbour authority or dock company to complain to the Railway and Canal Commission under the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts in respect of the provision of reasonable facilities, undue preference, or undue disadvantage, or allowances, or rebates in relation to the provision of station accommodation or terminal services shall not be deemed to be affected and it shall be no answer to any such complaint that the railway company in respect of which the complaint is made was acting under the directions of the Minister."
    I moved this identical Amendment as a new Clause and it found very strong support in all quarters of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting, and the hon. Member for St. Helens, both supported it. It is really a very important matter, but I do not want to trouble the House with the speech I made yesterday, for it was rather a long one. It concerns the rights of the trading community to appeal to the Railway and Canal Traffic Commission against the railway companies. Traders in the country have always been suspicious of the powers of the railway companies, and Parliament in its wisdom reserved to the traders, in cases where they thought they were wrongly treated by the railway companies, to go before the Railway Commission and put their complaints before that body. There was, of course, the important question of undue preference. If a railway company gave one trader an undue preference in rates as against another it would obviously be proper that; the right of appeal should be preserved. That right has been preserved in the provisions of this Bill. But there are other rights which ought also to be preserved. There is, for instance, the right to demand that there shall be reasonable facilities. If, for instance, a railway company says, "we are not going to carry a particular class of goods because it is a troublesome class" —it may be fish from Grimsby or fruit from Kent—"and we cannot give reasonable facilities," under the
    1074
    present law the trader may go to the Railway Commission, and it is for that body to decide whether reasonable facilities are or shall be granted to the trader. Then there are the questions of station accommodation and terminal services. The trader may have a private siding into his works, but the railway company may not give the necessary accommodation for that private siding. Or it may be that new works are established and a private siding constructed which the company refuse to give accommodation for. Now the trader can go to the Railway Commission.
    Under the provisions of this Bill we fear that these rights are no longer preserved. When an appeal was made from the Front Opposition Bench, both by Labour Leaders and by a Liberal Leader, my right hon. Friend very kindly said that this new Clause of mine would come on again as an Amendment to Clause 3, and that is the Amendment I now move. The London Chamber of Commerce, as we were told by the hon. Member for Lime house, has passed a resolution in support of this proposal. The Home Secretary said last night that Clause 3 was the proper place for this matter to be dealt with. It is true he has preserved our rights in regard to undue preference, but we consider that he should also preserve our rights in the other matters I have mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman assured us, too, that any proposal put forward for the protection of the trader or any other section of the community would receive most careful consideration. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has had time to consider this question. I have had telegrams to-day from traders in most parts of the country urging me to insist on this provision being inserted in the Bill. I "would ask my right hon. Friend if he cannot accept the exact words, whether he will agree to accept similar words. I may also draw attention to the last words of my Amendment, which make it quite clear that, if the trader goes to a railway company on any of the points involved in this Amendment, the railway company cannot say," We do this by order of the Ministry, and that is a sufficient answer. "My right hon. Friend will agree it is quite right that the railway companies should not be entitled to shelter themselves under the Orders of the Ministry of Ways and Communications. Under these circumstances I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to meet the reasonable demands of the traders in this respect.
    Mr. STEVENS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: After consideration, we have come to the conclusion that we cannot possibly accept this Amendment. The question of undue preference is provided for in Sub-clause (c), and with regard to these other matters, if we gave power to any other class of traders—farmers, port authorities, harbour authorities, dock companies, and individual traders—to prefer complaints in respect of the provision of reasonable facilities, it would enable them to complain of any alteration we propose to make of any sort or description.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: They have it now.
    Mr. SHORTT: The result would be, if you put in a Clause of this sort, it might prevent us carrying out improvements which might attract trade to the undertaking concerned. The words "reasonable facilities" and "undue disadvantage" seem to me to lend themselves to delay, and if power were given to appeal on such grounds the result might be not only to hold up but even to prevent some improvement which might affect in some way the facilities enjoyed by traders and which it is for the benefit of the community they should lose because thereby great improvements might be brought about. I also object to the last few words of the Amendment because they would injure or hinder the carrying out of the objects of the Bill. We oppose the Amendment in its entirety.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. STEVENS: The seriousness of the matter is not, I feel sure, fully understood. An arrangement was come to yesterday. The Minister-designate said that one-half of the docks have gone from beneath his grasp. But the other half are in his possession, and he could use them all without intending in any shape or form to do anything more than he thinks is his duty, to the great disadvantage of the docks which are not within his possession. Hundreds of illustrations could be given of that. Take a port like Hull. Why, the Minister-designate, when he becomes Minister under the Act, will have in his absolute possession the docks and railways, and, indeed, the whole industry of that port. He will be able to utilise that port, and with his great experience, I feel sure he will do so. If I had had the experience which he has got from the North Eastern I should probably do the same thing myself. Our
    1076
    great fear in this matter is that this Bill gives us railways over all means of transport-railways rather than that transport should in all its branches be separately and properly administered, controlled—yes, I say controlled purposely—by a Minister who is to administer, not by the State, but by the separate interests. The Minister has it in his power under this Bill, unless we have some Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal is available to us to-day in the Railway and Canal Commission. I would appeal again—it is no use my appealing to the Home Secretary; who know that from what transpired upstairs—to the Government to give us fair play from the traders' point of view, and not to take away from us the advantages we now possess of an appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission on these questions of undue preference, disadvantage, and the other matters on which we can now freely go to the Railway Commissioners.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: I have an Amendment standing next on the Paper, and I should like your ruling, Sir, whether the discussion now taking place would preclude me from speaking on that Amendment? If so, I would crave your permission to speak on this Amendment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I was just examining these two Amendments to see really what the distinction is. I think the only distinction we can draw is that in one case the personal element represents the rights of consignors and of any port or harbour authority, and the other relates to harbour authorities established by Act of Parliament, which are taken out of this Bill and do not come within the purview of the Minister. Is that the distinction?
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: In that case, I crave leave to speak on this Amendment. May I remind the House that both the docks and harbours have to a certain extent been taken out of the Bill, and that, as the Bill stands at present, there is nothing to prevent an undue preference being shown to one harbour authority over another? While, as the Home Secretary has just told us, this matter was discussed to some extent last night, at his suggestion the full discussion was postponed till this point of the Bill was reached, in order that he might have time to consider the issues involved. It will be within the memory of those present last night that every Member who rose from any side of the House expressed

    1077
    himself in favour, in substance, of the principle embodied in this Amendment, which is that it ought not to be within the power of the Minister-designate and his new Department to place one dock or harbour authority at a disadvantage compared with another. The Home Secretary has drawn, I believe, some distinction between undue preference and undue disadvantage, but really they are the same thing. You cannot give an undue preference to one body without putting another body to an undue disadvantage, therefore, it is merely a form of words. The principle which was supported from either side of the House last night is that it ought not to be possible under the wording of this Bill for a Government Department to say, "We are going to do something in regard to this port in the South of England which will place a port on the North of England at a disadvantage." To be quite fair, they ought not to be able to say they are going to do something for a port in the North of England which would place a port in the South of England at a disadvantage. Each of these great ports has a right to its individuality and to make the best of the opportunities of trade and traffic that occur. None of them, I submit, ought to be smothered or hampered or put into an unfair position owing to a preference being given to the other. There is more in this than in any mere matter of local feeling. Take the docks of the great port with which I am associated, Liverpool. Thousands, and possibly millions of people are financially interested in that port, and it would be a monstrous thing if, by the action of the Government, all those people who have contributed their money to build up this great harbour undertakings should suffer through an undue preference being given to some other port. That argument applies not only to the port with which I am connected, but to all ports. All I need do is to ask the Home Secretary to redeem the promise he gave last night that he would consider this matter when it was brought up again, and whether he cannot see his way to insert in the Bill words which must really convey the intention of the Ministry, because it is impossible to assume that it is the intention of the Ministry to take such action and to so differentiate between these different ports that they will give an undue preference to one and thereby place another at an undue advantage.
    Earl WINTERTON: I did not intend to take part in this discussion, but, after listening to the last speaker, I should like to make some observations upon what he said. In the course of his speech he said that all the speakers in the course of the Debate yesterday on this matter were in favour of the principle contained in this Amendment.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: I think I said, at any rate I endeavoured to make it clear, that I was speaking on this Amendment because Mr. Speaker suggested that my Amendment would not coma on for discussion. I was referring to the principle embodied in my Amendment.
    Earl WINTERTON: I was quite capable of taking that point, because I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. I understood that his object in speaking on this Amendment was because it was similar to an Amendment about to be proposed. What I said still remains true. He said that the principle expressed in the two Amendments was favoured by all speakers on both sides of the House. Personally, I am not quite clear what was said by the hon. Gentleman and by the Mover. What exactly is the principle? I think they are seeking to obtain from the Government precautions to prevent something occurring which will not occur under the Bill. If that is the issue, I do not believe the House in any sense unanimously supports the view of hon. Gentlemen who on this and other Amendments take up a certain line of action. I am surprised to hear 'that the Labour party supported it. I certainly do not. I support the Government in this matter and on any other Amendments dealing with this principle As to the answer given by the Home Secretary, one hon. Gentleman opposite was rather inclined to sneer at the Home Secretary's speech.
    Mr. PENNEFATRER: I hope that does not apply to me.
    Earl WINTERTON: I do not think it does, but the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. M. Stevens) said he could not expect anything from the Home Secretary. I have no doubt that those who represent special interests in this House are not satisfied with the Home Secretary's attitude, but a great many people have entirely different views. We believe that the Home Secretary takes up an extremely reasonable attitude on this and other

    1079
    Amendments of the same kind. We object to Amendments proposed in the interests of particular ports. What hon. Gentlemen have in mind, perfectly openly and above board, is that the interests of particular ports may be affected, but there is something above those interests, namely, the interests of the country and traders as a whole. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that many of us who are not interested in any particular port are interested in the business of the country, and we are not satisfied with the way we are treated by the ports at the present time, and should be glad to have, under this or any other Bill, some controlling authority, not as those who propose this Amendment suggest, in order that an unfair preference, may be given as against the port, but that the port should not give an unfair preference as against the people of this country.
    Captain H. BENN: The Noble Lord could not have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Pennefather) after reading the Amendment, because he would have seen that the point of the Amendment is the protection of a class of traders. The law at the present time gives the trader an appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission. I understand that from the Clause the trader is excluded, and it only applies to a harbour, dock, or pier. The object of the Amendment, while further safeguarding the interests of the harbour, dock, or pier, is to include the traders in the right of appeal to the Railway and Canal Commissioners. Having been present during the Debate yesterday, I agree with the hon. Member for Kirkdale that everyone who spoke, including one of the Labour Members, the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton), strongly urged the acceptance of this Amendment by the Government. It does seem a very extraordinary thing that in this Bill, which is brought in for the benefit of the country as a whole, the right of appeal which a trader now has is to be taken away from him.
    Mr. A. SHAW: I really think that this Amendment of my hon. Friend's oversteps the mark. It would really place an intolerable burden upon a. great Department. What is it that is asked for? He asks that between the Minister who is responsible to this House and the exercise of his duties there should be placed a tri-
    1080
    bunal—the Railway and Canal Commission. I do not think he will deny, if the Railway and Canal Commission sit as judges on possibly every executive act of the Ministry within the scope of the Clause, that the Minister, the head of a great Department, would not have a single eye to the public interest, but would be carrying on all the while with the trammels of the possible jurisdiction of the Railway and Canal Commission. We in this House have to decide whether or not we are going to entrust a Minister with large powers. Once those powers have been entrusted to him by this House, he should be allowed to use those powers with a single eye to the public interest and should not be placed in the position of a schoolboy, subject always to the jurisdiction of some other authority in respect of every executive act he may perform. I agree with every word said by the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton). Where interests are concerned, no doubt efficient consideration must be given, and in very individual case justice should be done, but we cannot have the country facing a position where, on every executive action, interested parties may say to the country, "We are not acting with a single eye to the national interests; we require all the procedure of the Courts; we require to brief eminent King's Counsel and to pile up expenses," for a thing which, although solely against the interests of interested parties in Liverpool, obviously may be in the general interest of the nation. I am very glad, coming from the source it did, that my Noble Friend spoke on this question. I can assure him and hon. Members opposite that there are many Members of this House who first regarded this Bill with some suspicion, but who are now perfectly convinced that in its present stage it ought not any longer to be subjected to the attacks of the kind which have been made upon it.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I profoundly disagree with the speech we have just listened to. It seems to me that if you are going to put the owners of railways and other means of communication, docks, harbours and so on, in the power of a Minister you must give the parties interested at least as much protection as they now have before the Railway Commissioners against the Minister. There is no doubt that when a Minister has control there will be the greatest possible pressure put upon him by one locality as against

    1081
    another, by one interest as against another, and by one political party as against another, and if there is no judicial body to which the subject can appeal to maintain his rights we are going to be subjected to a tyranny through the Minister caused by political, local and other interests which will be infinitely worse than anything we have suffered at the hands of the railway companies. Therefore I very strongly feel that this protection of the interests of the subject is most necessary.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. STEVENS: I have, on the Paper, an Amendment, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "Subject as aforesaid."
    In a similar way to the last Amendment, this is a matter of very great importance to traders. In reply to what the Noble Lord (Major Earl Winterton) said, anything I am saying on this Bill is from the point of view of the traders and not of any particular interest. I will not go on with the Amendment, because I am not prepared to go to a Division upon it.
    Amendments made: After the word "modification" [" by reason of such suspension or modification "], insert the words
    "and any person who, by virtue of any special statutory provision or agreement, is entitled to the benefit of any special rate, fare, toll, due, or other charge, and whose position relatively to other persons is prejudiced by any direction of the Minister altering such special charge."—[Colonel Hall Walker]
    In Sub-section (3), after the word "two" ["two representatives of the trading interest"], insert the word "being."
    Leave out the words "Member who shall be," and insert instead thereof the word "being."
    After the word "Minister" ["transportation interests nominated by the Minister"], insert the words
    "one being."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    In paragraph (b), after the word "traffic" ["from the different classes of traffic"], insert the words
    "having due regard to existing contracts."—[Mr. Wallace]
    In paragraph (c) leave out the words "at their discretion," and insert instead thereof the words
    "unless in their discretion they consider it unnecessary or undesirable to do so."
    After the word "when" ["when they will inquire"] insert the words
    "and the place where."
    Leave out the words
    "at the discretion of the committee"
    and insert instead thereof the words
    "if the Committee in their discretion think fit the whole or any part of the proceedings at."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    At the end of paragraph (c), insert the words,
    "Provided that, for the purpose of this provision, any city, borough, county, or district council shall be deemed to be persons affected in any case where such council or any persons represented by them may be affected by any proposed revision as aforesaid."—[Colonel Hall Walker.]
    In paragraph (f), after the word "canal" ["orders relating to canal rates"], insert the word "tolls."—[Mr. Shortt]
    Mr. CLOUGH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "omnibuses" ["in regard to omnibuses"], to insert the words
    "save that the Act shall cease to apply to any system of travelling facility involving overhead equipment when such equipment was commenced prior to the passing of the Act."
    It may seem a, somewhat small point when compared with the vastness of the Bill as a whole, but I think I shall have no difficulty in proving that it is absolutely necessary that this Amendment should be accepted unless a manifest injustice is to be continued for at least two further years. I believe there are several towns concerned, but the corporation which I have in mind obtained powers so long ago as 1912 to run trackless trolley vehicles on certain defined routes within and outside the borough. They proceeded to equip the various routes with these vehicles, and the portion of route affected by the Amendment was the last to be so equipped. After negotiations which lasted some considerable time, the contract for the work on the portion in question was sealed by the Town Council so long ago as 4th January, 1916, and the work was practically completed when the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916, was passed. The route was inspected in July, 1916, by the Board of Trade, and on the 1st August, 1916, they certified the same as fit for public traffic. The corporation incurred heavy exyenditure on the work, involving a yearly liability in interest on the loan. This liability has continued for three years and to the loss of the ratepayers and the great inconvenience of the inhabitants living along the route to be served may

    1083
    continue for two more years if this Bill is passed without the Amendment which I ask the House to accept. The county council were consulted with regard to the equipment of the portion of the route in question and gave their consent to the position of the poles, etc., and it has been a matter of great surprise to the corporation concerned that in the circumstances they have exercised adversely the discretion which was given to them by the provision of Section 20 of the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916, and have so far withheld their consent to the running of the vehicles. In view of the abnormal war conditions prevailing at the time, the corporation did not carry the matter to the Local Government Board, although they considered, and still consider, the county council's attitude on the question to be most unfair and unreasonable. If the Bill is passed without my Amendment the county council will, without adequate cause, be able to continue their opposition. Their main reason has been that the roads were not adapted to the traffic, but surely in these days of unemployment the task of remaking them cannot be very difficult and certainly cannot be impossible. The trolley vehicle Clauses of the Corporation's Act of 1912 were strenuously and unsuccessfully opposed by the county council, but Parliament then accepted the view of the corporation. Section 20 of the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916, has resulted in delaying the corporation exercising the powers granted in 1912. There maybe some reason why the Government may wish to continue in some cases the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, but such cannot possibly be desirable where the route has been equipped for three years and duly inspected and passed by the Board of Trade. A good reason why these additional travelling facilities should be expedited is that this new route would convey workers to and from their work and relieve to a small extent at any rate the dreadfully overcrowded condition of the local train service at the present time. The trolley-vehicle service, for which I wish to provide exemption, would be a matter of public convenience, particularly for the working classes. It is very much desired by the inhabitants, and I trust that the Government will accept my Amendment so that a three years' old grievance may be forthwith removed.
    Mr. STEVENS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: As I understand it, this Amendment is intended to give preferential treatment to trackless trolleys. I cannot imagine any form of vehicle or any form of traffic that less deserves preferential treatment than these trackless trolleys. They do probably more harm to the roads than any form of traffic. They are very expensive to the local authorities, and they certainly do not contribute, as some people think they ought to do, to the upkeep of the roads. I cannot conceive any reason why they should not be treated exactly in the same way as trams and other undertakings of that sort under this Bill. Therefore I must oppose this Amendment, and ask the House not to accept it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (4) after the word "Minister" ["appeal to the Minister"], insert the words, "of Ways and Communications."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Mr. MOUNT: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (5), to insert the words
    "(6.) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to exempt any undertaking- to which this Section applies from any rate assessable by any county or local authority."
    I understand that this Amendment, which stands in the name of my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) is accepted in principle. It is quite clear that this is a matter that requires to be dealt with, because if you are taking away for two years what will be the big assessable value of the railways and other undertakings, it will mean great loss to the local authority.
    Mr. JOHNSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: If my hon. Friend would alter the Amendment to read "Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to exempt from any rate any undertaking to which this section applies," I would be prepared to accept it.
    Mr. MOUNT: That, as I understand it, is wider even than the Amendment I have moved. It seems to me to be a reasonable Amendment, and I shall be glad to move it in that form.
    I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment in its present form.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. MOUNT: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (5), to insert
    "(6) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to exempt from any rate any undertaking to which this Section applies."
    Mr. JOHNSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I understand that the Noble Lord intended to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the one that follows, standing in my name. I should like to give the reason why my Amendment has been put down in a different form and why I think the proposal now made by the Home Secretary will not meet the case. I am advised that the probability is that local railways at the present time are not liable to be assessed for rates, having been taken over under the Defence of the Realm Act. Therefore, I suggest that the Home Secretary should consider whether it is not necessary to have an Amendment more on the lines of my Amendment, and to positively make these undertakings assessable to rates in the same way as railways have been in the past.
    Mr. MOUNT: My Noble Friend was obliged to leave the House, and he asked me if I would look after his Amendment. He did not say anything to me which led me to think that he preferred the Amendment in the form in which it has been put down by my hon. Friend (Mr. D. Herbert). I have no particular affection for this Amendment, of which I am only the stepfather, and if the Home Secretary would prefer to have it in another form I have no objection.
    Mr. SHORTT: We cannot accept the other Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Power to Retain Lands, etc.)
    Where in pursuance of any direction given by the Minister under this Act the owners of any undertaking shall acquire any lands, or construct any works, or carry out any alteration or improvement of or addition to their undertaking the owners may, after the expiration of the period of possession, continue to hold and use such lands and maintain and use such work, alteration, improvement, or addition for the purposes of their undertaking, and such land, work, alteration, improvement, and addition shall for all purposes be deemed to form part of their undertaking.
    Amendments made: After the word "lands" ["lands or construct"], insert the words "or easement,"
    After the word "lands" ["lands and maintain"], insert the words "or easement."—[Mr. shortt.]

    CLAUSE 6.—(Provisions as to Officers and Servants.)
    (1) The following provisions shall apply with respect to officers or servants of any undertaking of which possession has been retained or taken under this Act (all of which officers and servants are in this Act hereinafter referred to as "existing officers and servants"):

    (i) Where the Minister requires the services' of any existing officer or servant, that officer or servant may be transferred to the Minister—

    (a)either permanently with the con sent of the officer or servant; or

    (b)temporarily with the consent (which shall not unreasonably be withheld) of the officer or servant, and of the owners of the undertaking;

    (ii) No existing officer or servant so transferred, whether temporarily or permanently, shall, without his consent be, by reason of such transfer or anything done under this Act, in any worse position in respect to the conditions of his service (including tenure of office, remuneration, gratuities, pension, superannuation, sick fund or any benefits or allowances, whether obtaining legally or by customary practice), as compared with the conditions of service obtaining with respect to him at the passing of this Act, and if any question arises as to whether the provisions of this paragraph have been complied with the question shall be referred to a, standing arbitrator or board of arbitration appointed by the Lord Chancellor for the purposes of this Section, and if the arbitrator or board consider that those provisions have not been complied with and that the officer or servant has thereby suffered loss or injury, they shall award him such sum as they think sufficient to compensate him for such loss or injury:

    (iii) Where an existing officer or servant has been transferred either temporarily or permanently to the Minister under this Section then so long as the Minister remains in possession of that undertaking that officer or servant may remain a full member of any pension or superannuation fund established in connection with the undertaking with all the rights to which he would be entitled had he continued in the service of the undertakers, and any contributions payable under the rules of the pension or superannuation fund or by customary practice by the owners of the undertaking may be paid by the Treasury out of moneys provided by Parliament, and he shall be entitled to receive such reasonable allowances for temporary disturbance as the Minister with the consent of the Treasury may determine (including direct pecuniary loss sustained in consequence of the transfer):

    (v) The Minister may direct that the office or situation of any existing officer or servant which he deems unnecessary shall be abolished:

    1087

    (vi) If by or in consequence of a direction of the Minister any existing officer or servant is, during the period of possession by the Minister of any undertaking, required to perform duties such as are not analogous or which are an unreasonable addition to those which he has, prior to the date of the passing of this Act, been required to perform such officer or servant may relinquish his office or service:

    (vii) Every such officer or servant who so relinquishes his office or service as aforesaid, and every such officer or servant whose services by or in consequence of any such direction are dispensed with on the ground that his services are not required, or for any reason not being on account of any misconduct or incapacity, or whose salary, wages, or remuneration are reduced on the ground that his duties have been diminished by or in consequence of any such direction, or who otherwise suffers any direct pecuniary loss in consequence of this Act (including any loss of prospective superannuation or other retiring allowances, whether obtaining legally or by customary practice), shall be entitled to be paid by the Minister compensation for such pecuniary loss, to be determined by the Treasury, subject to appeal to such standing arbitrator or board of arbitration as aforesaid, in accordance with the provisions contained in Section one hundred and twenty of the Local Government Act, 1888, relating to compensation to existing officers, and those provisions shall apply accordingly as if they were herein re-enacted with the necessary modifications:

    Provided that in the case of any officer or servant who was appointed to his office as a specially qualified person at an age exceeding that at which public service usually begins, such addition may be made to the amount of compensation authorised under the said provisions as may seem just, having regard to the particular circumstances of such case
    (2) Any person formerly in the employment of the owners of an undertaking of which possession is retained or taken under this Act, who on the date of the passing of this Act is, though not legally entitled thereto, in respect of a pension or other superannuation allowance, shall continue to receive from the owners of such undertaking the same pension or allowance on the same terms and conditions as if this Act had not been passed.
    (3) Any person who, at the date of 'the! passing of this Act, was in the employment of the owners of an undertaking of which possession is retained or taken under this Act and who, during the period of such possession, would, though not legally entitled thereto, in accordance with customary practice, be granted a pension or superannuation allowance by the owners of such undertaking, shall not be in any worse position in regard thereto by reason of the passing of this Act.
    Amendment made. In Sub-section (1), after the word "which" ["of which pos session has"], insert the words
    "or of any part or plant of which."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Mr. J. JONES: I beg to move, in paragraph (ii.) to leave out the words
    "and if any question arises as to whether the provisions of this paragraph have been complied with the question shall be referred to a standing arbitrator or board of arbitration appointed by the Lord Chancellor for the purposes of this Section, and if the arbitrator or board consider that those provisions have not been complied with and that the officer or servant has thereby suffered loss or injury, they shall award him such sum as they think sufficient to compensate him for such loss or injury."
    The object of this Amendment is to make the Clause apply in all its purposes for superannuation and compensation. In the Committee we proposed an Amendment on these lines. Owing to a, misunderstanding' members of the Committee "were, to some extent, left under a misapprehension and the majority of the members of the Committee thought that this Amendment had been carried, but we were informed by the. Chairman that this was not the case, and that the only chance we had was to raise, the matter when the Bill came down to the House. At present superannuation and compensation for loss of position only apply under paragraphs (ii.) and (vii.) The object of this Amendment is to make compensation and superannuation apply so far as the whole Clause is concerned. We are very anxious as to this matter, because in every case of these undertakings, particularly railways, the members of the staff subscribe to a superannuation fund and, so far as compensation provided under the Act is concerned, the staffs will only receive compensation on the basis of the Civil Service. There is this essential difference between the railway staffs and the Civil servants. The railway staffs are compulsory contributors to the various funds; the Civil servants are not part and parcel of a compulsory system of contribution. In this case we are anxious that in the event of a dispute between the Government and the staff in the event of the loss of office, or as to the amount of superannuation, the same mode of arbitration shall apply in all cases.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Colonel GRETTON: This Amendment raises a question of considerable importance. The hon. Member desires to safeguard the position of officers or servants transferred from a railway or other undertaking, possession of which has been taken by the Minister, so that they will be in no worse position. This Clause lays down that the following provisions shall

    1089
    apply: where the Minister requires the services of any existing officer or servant, that officer or servant may be transferred to the Minister either permanently or temporarily. This Clause contemplates the permanent transfer to the Government's service of the servants of an undertaking possession of which is taken for only two years, and this means a very serious interference with the workings of these undertakings. No doubt, if there is a permanent transfer, and reason is shown for this transfer, the future of these people should be most carefully safeguarded, and my hon. Friend is perfectly right in raising the question and satisfying himself that these interests are to be so safeguarded. I imagine that no person can be taken into the Civil Service of this country except under the conditions of the Civil Service, and the proposal of the Bill as it stands is that in cases of that kind there should be arbitration. My hon. Friend has not made clear to me the particular reason why he wants this Amendment in place of some other provision in the Act. Members of the House who were not on the Committee may consider this matter to be somewhat mysterious, and may like some explanation. I would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman why it is necessary that the servants of an undertaking of which it takes temporary possession under this Act should be transferred permanently to the service of the Ministry, which is only set up for two years, and how he proposes to safeguard the interests of persons so transferred?
    Sir E. GEDDES: It may be convenient to the House that I should answer the question at this stage, because it is fundamental. My hon. Friend who has just spoken is under a misapprehension as to the duration of the Ministry. The Bill sets up the Ministry permanently. It gives certain powers temporarily, but the transference of the powers under Clause 2 is the transfer of powers to a permanent Department, and unless Parliament should decide that the Ministry of Ways and Communications is no longer necessary, the Ministry will continue. It may be said that it would be a mistake to employ permanently in the Ministry officers or servants who are at present in the employment of these undertakings, because at the end of the period of two years it is for Parliament to decide as to the proposals which must
    1090
    be submitted under this Hill. This Bill is framed with the very object of enabling the Department to submit proposals as to the future transportation of this country, and it would be a mistake to transfer a large number of officers or servants to the permanent service of the State, but at the same time it can be readily understood that during the two years there are some officers and servants occupying certain positions who could be used us experts, and it is only from these undertakings that we can draw experienced men, unless we have to go to British subjects in the Argentine or elsewhere. There are some positions where it is absolutely undesirable, if not impossible, to employ, even during the two years, an officer or a servant who has to go back to his undertaking. There arc certain posts where the advice given must be given by a man who is entirely independent of any undertaking in future, and, as we can draw for experts only upon undertakings which exist in this country, unless we, are going to limit our choice enormously or do an injustice to these officers or servants, we must in a few instances—a limited number, I agree—transfer them permanently; but it is desirable that we should have power to take into the permanent, service of the State a number of these servants if we expect them to give completely un-biassed advice. That is why permanent powers are asked for.
    Mr. WATERSON: I hope the Minister-designate will accept this Amendment. There is no doubt that during the next two years there will be many disturbances. Men will be transferred from one particular part of the industry to another, and in that disturbance they will be called upon to make no mean sacrifice unless their particular interests are safeguarded. It is within the knowledge of the Minister-designate that men particularly such men as this will apply to, have been paying into superannuation funds, pension funds, and death funds. When these men are transferred they will hardly be aware of the exact position which they will occupy, and it may even happen in more cases than one that although they may receive a slightly larger salary than they have hitherto been paid they will eventually find themselves, when all is reckoned up, to be the losers. It is to prevent that that the Amendment is moved. I have in my mind that on the London and North-Western Railway there

    1091
    is a pension fund to which the men are subscribing week by week. If any of the individuals who subscribe to the fund are taken over by the Minister-designate and are transferred, we are anxious that the justice of their case shall be seen by the Minister-designate, and if he sees it in the light in which we see it there is no need for the remaining portion of this paragraph. Further, there are men in the service to-day who are past sixty-five years of age. From patriotic motives and because the railway companies have been short of men, these servants have been retained in membership in the railway industry. We know many of them will be retired and that already schemes are being laid for them to be superannuated. They have paid for many years into the pension fund. We are anxious that their interests should be safeguarded. It is not necessary that a mere arbitration board should be set up for these cases. The very fact that these men have been in the service ought to justify their being participators in the things they have paid for during many years. In the interests of such men I hope the Minister-designate will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. NEAL: I trust we shall hear from the Minister-designate a statement on the very real point raised on behalf of the officers who may be disturbed either by transfer to the Ministry or in any other way under this Act. The Amendment is the first of a series of Amendments standing in the name of myself and one other, and I take it that the object they have in view may be stated shortly in this way: Under the Clause, if you look at page 10, Sub-section (7), it will be seen that there is an endeavour to bring the officers or servants within the provisions of Section 120 of the Local Government Act of 1888, relating to compensation to existing officers. But it is by no means clear that that will accomplish what is desired. There is an attempt being made here to treat them as if they were Civil servants. Under the scale of compensation for Civil servants, as I understand it, the practice is to calculate each year of service as one-sixtieth of the final annual salary, then to multiply by forty, and to arrive at two-thirds as the maximum compensation payable by way of annuity. But, under some decision of the Treasury, that has been interpreted as coming to a final maximum of one-half, and, as I am informed, the
    1092
    representatives of the railway staffs affected are of opinion that the Bill as it stands would give them only very limited compensation. Further, the ordinary Civil servant is not a member of an ordinary superannuation fund, but these men are members of these funds, into which they have paid vast sums. I am instructed that there is over £12,500,000 invested in these funds at this moment.
    I am not responsible for the drafting of these Amendments. I have not had time to consider them sufficiently carefully to make it clear in my mind that they carry out what was intended, but I think I interpret what is intended by saying that they relate to two points. Members of the staffs desire to be assured (1) that their maximum compensation may reach two-thirds of their final salaries according to the Civil Service scale, and (2) that that will not be taken in any way in derogation of the superannuation funds to which they have contributed during a long period of service.
    Sir E. GEDDES: I think there is nothing at all in principle between the Government and my hon. Friends who have moved this Amendment. We desire just as they desire that there should be full justice done to the staffs, and, if I may, without transgressing the rules of Order, just explain what the position is as regards arbitration under this Clause, I think it will help the House. The first point on which there is arbitration under Clause 6 is if officers or servants should be transferred cither permanently or temporarily. The House will recollect that that can only be done in both cases with the consent of the officer or servant. There we have provided arbitration, and it will be seen from paragraph (ii) of Subsection (1) that the arbitration is to be by an arbitrator or board of arbitration appointed by the Lord Chancellor. That is arbitration when the consent has been obtained.
    Mr. WATERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what happens if the men refuse to go?
    9.0 P.M.
    Sir E. GEDDES: I will come to that later. Thus there is arbitration if an officer or servant is transferred temporarily or permanently with his consent. The arbitration there would, of course, be on a question of fact as to whether the gratuities, pensions, superannuations, sick fund, or other benefits, were in fact

    1093
    being given to the man as he believed they were to have been given. Paragraph (iii) of Sub-section (1) is merely an enabling Clause, and there there is no arbitration, and I think arbitration is not necessary in that case. In the first place it is a provision merely enabling the officer or servant so transferred temporarily or permanently to remain in the superannuation fund to which he has been paying during the period of control. If he is temporarily transferred he remains in the fund, and power is taken for the State to pay what is known as the company's contribution during the period of control, and if at the end of the period of control he goes back to the undertaking then the State is out of pocket to the extent of the contributions which the State has made in lieu of all contributions which the company would have made to the fund on behalf of the individual. That was put in in order to save the State in the event of temporary transfer from having to take over the whole future liabilities of that man's pension. The second portion of that paragraph (iii.) of Sub-section (l) enables the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, to make the officer or servant so transferred an allowance for disturbance such as the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine. For that I agree there is no arbitration, and I do not think the House would ask arbitration there, because when you transfer a man the first thing he will say is, "This is going to put me to expense, "as it must, and then he is told," We will give you so much a year, or by the month, or by the week, for this temporary transfer. You are transferred by the Ministry with your consent, and you want to know what your allowance is going to be, and here is what it is." In that case I do not think there ought to be arbitration, because it is a matter for the Minister to determine and then to ask the man whether he likes to transfer or not. With that allowance, apart from the mere technical aspects of the case, there is no practical danger to the officer or servant, because in every case the man will say, "What allowance will I get?'' It is the first thing he will ask, and the first thing the Minister will have to settle. To say that the Minister can make this arrangement, and get the man's consent, and that then there is to be arbitration as to whether the sum which he
    1094
    has consented to take is right or not, does not seem to me to be a suitable subject for arbitration.
    Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: Assuming the man disagrees, and refuses to go?
    Captain A. SMITH: Suppose you offer a certain sum, and he refuses?
    Sir E. GEDDES: In each case the man has got to consent.
    Captain SMITH: But if the man refuses the compensation?
    Sir E. GEDDES: It is not a question of compensation, but of allowance. You may wish to transfer a man, for instance, who is a clerk or a draughtsman, and to bring him from Derby or Crewe to London but he can only come with his consent, and you say to him, "Here is the salary, and you remain in the superannuation fund just as you were, and will you come if I give you such-and-such an allowance?" Paragraph (iii.) of Sub-section (1) enables the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, to settle the allowance, and the man cannot be made to transfer either temporarily or permanently without his consent Paragraph (iv.) deals with officers or servants who are not transferred. If the man does not consent but remains in the service which he was in before he was asked to transfer, there are these fears, but I do not think they amount to a great deal. The matter was discussed in Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) thought that there was not much ground for them. There is the case of the man who may be displaced. Owing to economies by the operations of the unified control there may be a certain number of men redundant. If they are displaced, then arbitration is provided for them under paragraph (vii.) of Sub-section (1) as to men whose services by or in consequence of any such direction are dispensed with. If, on the other hand, instead of being displaced the man is offered work which is not reasonably comparable to the work he was doing, —that is to say, if a clerk were offered work as a goods porter, then he is entitled to relinquish the position ho holds, and this paragraph provides for arbitration in that case by an arbitrator or board to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. So that in the three main features of this Clause we have two in which the Govern-

    1095
    ment agree that arbitration should be made, and we have one paragraph where the Government think that arbitration should not be given I think I have made the matter clear to the House.
    We come to Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Clause 6. This is merely providing that nothing which the undertakers gave by custom or otherwise shall by reason of this Act be withdrawn from the employés. There is no arbitration there, and I do not think there ought to be arbitration, because you would then be imposing an arbitrator and an arbitration where it does not exist to-day, and throughout this Bill we have avoided altering the status quo. That is merely saying that the existing state of affairs is to continue as between the undertaker and the employés. As to the particular point which my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken drew attention to, the provisions for the compensation to officers or servants under Sub-clause (vii.), there, I think, the point is as to the superannuation benefits which have accrued but have not become payable. I think that is met by an Amendment later on in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Tyson Wilson), which the Government is prepared to accept, and which provides that account shall be taken of the accrued benefits but not the matured benefits in the superannuation fund, and that comes in to the proviso at the end of Sub-clause (vii.), where we provide that in the case of an officer or servant appointed at a greater age he shall get some consideration. I think that, with the exception of the particular provisions where no arbitration between the undertaker and the employé exists to-day, and the one point, namely, the settlement of the allowance which the officer or servant is asked to accept before he gets the consent to transfer temporarily to the Ministry, arbitration is provided throughout.
    Mr. NEAL: Is he able to give information as to what would be the maximum pension, whether it would be one-half or two-thirds, and whether the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton, to go in at the end of Sub-section (vii.), namely,
    "In determining such compensation the expression 'the Acts and rules relating to Her Majesty's Civil Service in Sub-section (1) of Section one hundred and twenty of the Local -Government Act, 1888, shall mean the Acts and
    1096
    rules relating to His Majesty's Civil Service which were in operation at the date of the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888,"
    would not make it clear that it would be two-thirds?
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: The object of the Amendment before the House is to bring within the scope of the arbitration the whole of the questions that might arise in the matter, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not consider that under Sub-clause (vii.) of Clause 6 it is possible that disputes may arise as to what is due to a man or other questions between employer and employé. There is no difference in principle between the right hon. Gentleman and ourselves, only we want the Arbitration Board to apply to all the persons who may be affected, and i submit that in Sub-clause (vii.) cases will arise where it will be necessary to have adjudication between the Department and the servants concerned. In an Amendment later on the Paper we are proposing to re-insert, with a small addition, the words we are now proposing to delete, and the reason for that is to bring within the scope of the Arbitration Board any and every question that may arise, wherever there is a difference of opinion between the Ministry and the persons concerned. I am certain it is a very reasonable request. The right hon. Gentleman says that in Sub-section (iii.) there is nothing to go to an arbitrator. Very well, then, if the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment the efficiency of the Bill will not be affected in any way.
    Sir E. GEDDES: I have evidently failed to make myself clear. Under Sub-clause (vii.) arbitration is provided, and that covers any officer or servant who is affected by Sub-clauses (iv.), (v.), and (vi.). There is arbitration in Sub-clause (vii.), and there is arbitration in Sub-clause (ii.). In Sub-clause (iii.) there is no arbitration.
    Mr. WILSON: I see the point.
    Mr. J. JONES: I should like to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir E. GEDDES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, iii.), to leave out the word "undertakers," and to insert instead thereof the words
    "owners of the undertaking."
    This is purely a drafting Amendment. The owners of the undertaking is the wording which has been used throughout,

    1097
    and I wish, therefore, to substitute it in this Sub-clause for the word "undertakers."
    Amendment agreed to
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, v.), to insert the words
    "Provided that in exercising these or any other powers under this Act the Minister shall do nothing to deprive the directors of the undertakings of the services of any officer whose advice and assistance will in the opinion of the directors be essential to them in their conduct of the undertaking at the end of the period of possession by the Government."
    The House will see that under Sub-section (1) of this Clause the Minister can obtain permanently, with the consent of the officer or servant, his services. The result of that might be that the Minister might take away from a railway company, for instance, the general manager, or the solicitor, or the chief traffic superintendent, or the goods manager—
    Mr. J. JONES: Or the directors!
    Sir F. BANBURY: Or the officers whoso services would be essential if the undertaking was returned to the proprietors at the end of the two years. I would point; out to the right hon. Gentleman that ho has already told us that under this Bill he does not intend during these two years to do anything which will in any way prejudge the question of nationalisation. I think he will agree with me when I say that if he were to deprive the railways of their chief officers and instal them permanently in other Departments of the Government, then, at the end of the two years, when these undertakings are returned, the directors of these undertakings would have great difficulty in continuing the services. I think this is an extremely reasonable Amendment, and I always thought the Government had overlooked it and would themselves put it in. Only a couple of hours ago we were assured that it was not contemplated to do anything under this Act which would in any way affect the question of nationalisation, or make it more difficult for the directors of the undertakings to continue their undertakings efficiently at the end of two years, and in view of that I do not think there can be any doubt that the Government will accept the Amendment. Should the Government at the end of two years come to the conclusion that it is necessary to nationalise the undertakings, ray Amendment would not
    1098
    in any way interfere with doing that in the Bill which they would have to bring forward to achieve that object. I am nut in any way pre-judging the question of nationalisation, and I expect the Government to accept this Amendment in order that they may not in any way prejudge that question.
    Sir E. GEDDES: I fully sympathise with my right hon. Friend in his point, but the House has already agreed, in Sub-section (1) (i) of this Clause, that an officer or servant may be transferred permanently with his consent. I think it would be a serious thing for this House to accept this Amendment when it debars an officer or servant from accepting an appointment which ho wishes to accept permanently with the State, merely because the directors of an undertaking—quite justifiably, no doubt—wish to keep him, and say, "No; you shall not go. "That does not seem to me to be in accordance with liberty of contract between employers and employés. Then this Amendment is very wide. It says, "Provided that in exercising these or any other powers." I can quite conceive that, looking ahead, a railway company, or a dock company, or any other undertaking, might wish to make sure that they have not only the best advisers, but the second-best advisers, and they could appoint a deputy or second general manager or a second solicitor, and that would be paid for by the State. I do not say they would do it, but in this Bill, as we have found throughout, you have got to look at contingencies which may never arise, and I do not think it would be in keeping with the responsibilities of a Minister, who is, after all, responsible for the actual expenditure of these undertakings for two years, that he should be in a position that he had to accept the appointment of a special officer retained by a particular company because of his particular abilities. He might be in a dual position. Or they might wish to retain a man because another is going to retire, when the companies return to their ordinary position. Much as I feel with my right hon. Friend on this point, I do not think the House ought to accept the Amendment. It is one of the inevitable disadvantages which, on the face of the document, appear to be placed on these undertakings. If it is a temporary transfer I agree we ought to get the consent of the Undertakers, and that is provided for in this Clause, Sub-section (1), (i), (6), which

    1099
    has been passed by the House. If the State wishes temporarily to obtain the services of an officer or servant, and that officer or servant is essential, in the opinion of the directors, to the running of the concern, they can withhold that consent, and that is provided for. Therefore, I think that, so far as it is reasonable and right, we are meeting the point which has been made, and I hope the House will not pass this Amendment.
    Mr. WILS ON-FOX: It seems to me that this proposed Amendment can be looked at from two points of view—the point of view of the directors of any undertaking, which has been put by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and the point of view of the State itself, a point of view which I think was suggested in connection with the last Amendment, or the one before, by ray hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). It seems to me that until the Government knows what it is going to do at the end of the two years' experimental period, it has no business to make permanent appointments of technical officers who may be redundant. They "will be men highly skilled with high salaries, who may be out of a job, and they may not then, under the conditions foreshadowed, be able to return to their former employment, and will consequently have to be compensated at the expense of the State. I do think the Minister-designate should give the House a more explicit assurance than he has done at present, that the most that is contemplated during the two years is—to use an Army phrase—to second these men to these positions which he may require them to fill. He has said that during the two years he may require the services of men who must, during that period at any rate, be independent of interests in connection with any particular company, if men are seconded they are in that position, and they may be trusted, as most responsible men in this world are, to fulfil any duties entrusted to them impartially and fearlessly. I am quite sure if, later on, they returned to their old employers and to the big undertakings with which they were connected, the directors of those undertakings would think more highly of them than they did before, because in the meantime they had served the State honestly and well in the capacity in which they had been placed. Therefore, I hope, on business grounds, and from the point of view of carrying out the under-
    1100
    taking which he gave this afternoon that, during the period of two years trial, it is not his intention to take any action which may in any way destroy or impair the existing organisation, he will see his way to give the House some farther assurance in the direction I have just suggested.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has advanced two arguments against the Amendment. The first is that it would deprive the officers in question of an opportunity of entering the services of the State; the second is that it is more or less provided for in Sub-section (1, i., b), which says that the officers cannot be transferred temporarily except with their own consent and the consent of the directors. The first point, that the Amendment will prevent any officer entering the service of the State, is, I venture to think, a mistake.
    Sir E. GEDDES: I do not think I said "any officer." I said it might prevent an officer entering the service of the State.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, "an officer." But that is not so. All my Amendment says is that, in exercising these or any other powers under this Act, the Minister of Ways and Communications cannot put an officer into his Department. The Amendment does not prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Secretary of State for War, or the Admiralty, or the Board of Trade taking an officer and putting him into their Departments. All it does is to prevent this one Minister, and this one Minister alone, from taking an officer and putting him into his Department.
    Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: Suspicious about this one man?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think the Labour Members will accept what I say, and will not dispute that when I say a thing it is correct. If I say that in my opinion I hold this view I am sure they will accept that statement. I am the last person to prevent anybody in this country, whoever he is, and I do not care what he is, from doing the best he can for himself. That has been my line, that a man should be allowed to do the best he can for himself. That is not always the line of hon. Members opposite; apparently they wish to make everybody equal, I do not. If an officer wished to obtain employment under the Government, whether as First Lord of the Admiralty or anything else, I should

    1101
    be only too glad to see him get it. But that is not my Amendment. My Amendment is aimed at one thing only, at preventing the Minister, whoever he is, because it may be a different Minister, from deliberately taking those whose services are absolutely essential to a company and putting them in a position which might be quite superfluous and redundant in his own Ministry.
    Sir E. GEDDES: I beg the hon. Baronet's pardon, but I did not say "my own Ministry."
    Sir F. BANBURY: No, I used those words. That is the only point in the Amendment. It is to prevent the right hon. Gentleman, or his successor whoever he may be, from taking men who are absolutely necessary for the conduct of an undertaking and putting them in his Department, and at the end of the two years preventing the railway or dock company or any other undertaking from being able to continue their business because he has secured their head men in the employ of the State. So far as that goes, this is a most reasonable and necessary Amendment. With regard to the second point, that this Amendment is met by Sub-section (1, i, b), that Subsection is really, shall I say, rather camouflaged. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman wishes to take my general manager temporarily, and I withhold my consent, all he has got to do is to take him permanently. That is the effect of the. Sub-section, and its protection vanishes. My Amendment is not only reasonable but absolutely necessary, and it is not met by the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. I know he will not think I am guilty of any want of courtesy towards him when I say that he has either not appreciated the point or that, having done so, he has failed to meet it with any reasonable answer.
    Amendment negatived.
    Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (1, vi), after the word "possession" ["period of possession"], leave out the words
    "by the Minister of any undertaking."—[Sir S. Geddes.]
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, vii), after the word "retiring" ["superannuation or other retiring"], to insert the words
    "or death."
    1102
    This being a very unimportant Amendment I presume the Government will accept it.
    Sir E. GEDDES: I accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, vii), to insert the words,
    "In determining such compensation the expression ' the Acts and rules relating to Her Majesty's Civil Service ' in Sub-section (1) of Section one hundred and twenty of the Local Government Act, 1888, shall mean the Acts and rules relating to His Majesty's Civil Service which were in operation at the date of the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888."
    The reason I move this Amendment is because when the Bill was under discussion in Committee, and this Clause was being considered, the right hon. Gentleman made a certain statement in regard to what the compensation would be. He said that the effect of interpreting the provisions of Section 120 of the Local Government Act of 1888 would be to allow compensation to be awarded on the same basis as was granted to the servants of all local authorities.
    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not looked into the matter so fully as he might have done when he made that statement. As a matter of fact, the scale of compensation referred to was based upon the Civil Service scale under the Superannuation Act of 1859, but that scale has ceased to operate since 1909. In consequence of the new Superannuation Act for Civil Servants having been passed in that year, when compensation is awarded it is awarded, instead of being one-sixtieth of the salary for each year of service, at only one-eightieth. The Amendment as drafted on the Paper, if accepted by the Government, would place any redundant servants or officials in exactly the same position in which assistant overseers were placed under the Representation of the People Act. We ask that the same policy should be adopted.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. This Amendment would increase the charge upon the State, and therefore, as it is impossible to increase the charge on the Report stage, may I inquire whether it is not out of order?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): It rather seems to me, from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing

    1103
    the Amendment, as if that would be so. I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench what was his point of view, so as to have a guide, for I cannot profess to be sufficiently familiar with the two Acts that decide the point.
    Sir E. GEDDES: If the facts were as my right hon. Friend opposite supposes, I think, undoubtedly, his proposal would increase the charge, and therefore, Sir, it would possibly be out of order. But I do not think the facts are as he has stated. Perhaps I could better help matters if I explain. I see where the mistake is. Prior to 1909—the date given by my right hon. Friend—the compensation given was one-sixtieth for each year of service. After 1909—and I would ask the House to recollect or to realise that this is only applicable after 1909—compulsorily to those who enter the service after 1909. So that really we are talking of those who might be displaced. The only ones, therefore, to whom this would apply are young men. They cannot be a, very big number, because they must have entered since 1909. After that year the basis was altered, and became, instead of one-sixtieth, one-eightieth of the retiring salary as an annuity for each year of service. In the later enactment a lump sum, a retiring donation, equivalent to one-thirtieth for each year of service, was given. My right hon. Friend omitted' to mention that in speaking to his Amendment. I said in Committee—and I am not responsible for the figures, which are from the Treasury—that I was advised that actuarily it is practically the same thing. It is optional, and, while I do not say it is identically the same, it is practically the same. The proof of that is this: after the new enactment was brought in every Civil servant, if he wanted to, transferred from the old basis to the new. I am assured by many Civil servants to whom I have spoken that a large number did transfer voluntarily because they preferred the lump sum to getting an annuity, which enabled them to make financial arrangements in a way they preferred. I am told there is not much difference between them, if anything. Therefore, as a matter of fact, I do not think there is a difference. But if there is the difference that my right hon. Friend fears, it would undoubtedly, as I am advised, be an increased charge on the Exchequer.
    Mr. WILSON: If the facts are as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, will he say
    1104
    why it was thought necessary to insert the Clause in the Representation of the People Act dealing with the redundant or compulsorily retired assistant-overseers?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I am very sorry I cannot answer that question, but that is the position.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: On the facts as presented I am afraid I must rule the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman out of order.
    Mr. WILSON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, vii.), after the word ''begins" ["at which public service usually begins"], to insert the words
    "or of any officer or servant who suffers any loss of prospective superannuation or other retiring allowances as aforesaid."
    I understand the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. WATERSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It may be necessary, in consequence of my Amendment a few minutes ago, to make a similar Amendment here.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Would the words suggested by the hon. Baronet not come in better after the word "retiring''?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "retiring,'' to insert the words "or death."
    I was taken a little by surprise, and probably I moved my words in the wrong place.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, us amended, there inserted in the Bill.
    Further Amendments made: In Subsection (2) after the word "which" ["of which possession is retained"], insert the words
    "or of any part or plant of which."
    In Sub-section (3) after the word "which" [''of which possession is retained"], insert the words
    "or any part of plant which."—[Sir E. Geddes.]

    CLAUSE 7.—(Claims against and by the Minister in Respect of Exercise of power)
    (1) Where at the end of the period of possession by the Government of any undertaking the value thereof on a revenue-earning basis

    1105
    has been reduced or enhanced as Compared with the value at the commencement of such period, or where during that period the income thereof has been reduced or enhanced, after taking into account the natural growth of traffic on any railway belonging to a company which had not before possession was taken by the Government paid a dividend of four per centum on its ordinary capital, and in each case capital expenditure by the owners of the undertaking on any works brought into use in the interval, then, if and so far as such reduction or enhancement is due to the exercise by the Minister during that period upon the undertaking in question of the powers under Section three of this Act (including such powers as have been hitherto exercised by the Board of Trade as mentioned in paragraph (1) (a) of that Section) the owners of the undertaking shall, unless such reduction or enhancement is otherwise provided for by the payments mentioned in paragraph (1) (a) of that Section, be entitled to be recouped, or liable to pay, the amount by which that value has been so reduced or enhanced, and if any question arises as to such amount or the liability to pay the same, or otherwise with respect to the financial relations between the Minister and any person affected by the exercise by the Minister of any of his powers under the said Section, the question shall be determined by the Railway and Canal Commission having regard to all the circumstances of the case:
    Provided that—

    (i) no claim in respect of any loss alleged to be due to any direction issued by the Minister shall be entertained if the direction was issued with the concurrence of the owners of (he undertaking; and

    (ii) if, whilst an undertaking of which possession has been taken before the passing of this Act remains in the possession of the Government, the State is authorised by Parliament to acquire the undertaking, nothing in this Sub-section restricting claims for enhancement attributable to the exercise by the Minister of such powers as aforesaid to cases where the value of the undertaking has been enhanced as compared with the value thereof at the commencement of the period of possession shall be held to affect, one way or the other, any question as to the principle on which the price to be paid on such acquisition is to be based.

    (2) Without prejudice to any other form of payment or satisfaction, the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Minister, may, as or as part of the consideration for exercising any powers of control under the said Section, guarantee the payment of any dividends on any stock or other securities issued by the owners of an undertaking up to such amount as may be agreed, or the payment of any working expenses of the undertaking and any sums required to fulfil any such guarantee shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
    Sir W. RAEBURN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "Government" ["possession by the Government"], and to insert instead thereof the word "Minister."
    Sir E. GEDDES: The provision covers the whole period of possession by the Government, and if the word "Minister" is inserted it is of vital importance to the undertaking.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) after the word "undertaking" [''of any undertaking the value thereof"], insert the words "or of any part or plant of an undertaking."
    Leave out the word "thereof," and insert instead thereof the words "of the undertaking."—[Sir H. Geddes.]
    Major BARNES: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "income thereof," and to insert instead thereof the words "revenue earned."
    I do not know whether there is any distinction between "revenue earned" and "income thereof," but if there is no distinction I think it would make it clearer if the same words were used in all cases.
    Major HAYWARD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir E. GEDDES: I do not think this Amendment really improves the wording. There is no intention of any subtlety in the words "income thereof." This question was carefully considered in Committee, and if it has no further import, I hope the proposal will not be pressed. Furthermore, if it has any bearing upon the next Amendment the Government must resist it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: This Clause has been very carefully considered, and I am glad the Government will not consent to accept the Amendment. I do not think myself that there is very much difference between "income thereof" and "revenue earned" If the hon. and gallant Member means gross revenue, there is a very great difference. Revenue earned would probably mean the net revenue. I am sure these words would cause considerable litigation and trouble, whereas the meaning of the words now are perfectly clear and understandable.
    Major BARNES: I have no dark designs in introducing these words. If the same thing is meant, I think we ought to use the same words, and I gather that the meaning is the same.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Major BARNES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (l), after the word "en-

    1107
    hanced" ["income thereof has been reduced or enhanced"], to insert the words
    "as compared with the revenue earned during a period of equal length immediately preceding the period of possession under this Act."
    When you come to deal with the question of annual value there does not appear to be any standard of comparison. You have to decide whether the income has been reduced or enhanced, but there is no period to compare the income. There was a standard set up in the 1913 Act, but here there does not appear to be any comparison by which you can compare the income during the period of possession. My Amendment suggests that you should compare the income during the period of possession with the income of equal length immediately preceding the period of possession under this Act.
    Major HAYWARD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir E. GEDDES: The intention was that the revenue basis should be taken on a comparison with the period preceding possession by the Government—that is, the pre-war period—and that seems to me to be the only fair comparison to make. If we were to adopt this Amendment it would mean that we would have to take the revenue for the two years preceding the passing of this Act. Whatever we wish to do in regard to this matter, we wish to be fair to these undertakings, and they are mainly the railways, and it would not be a fair basis to compare their income for the last eighteen months of the War and the next six or eight months with the two years immediately preceding. The comparison must be with the same period as the one for which we made the capital value—that is, the period preceding the taking over of these undertakings by the Government.
    Major BARNES: If my Amendment said "immediately preceding the period of the War," or the period of the passing of the Act of 1871, would that be acceptable?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I do not think so, because, owing to the War, the accounts were made up and the basis taken was 1913, and the agreement was to compare on the 1913 basis, and it is on the 1913 net revenue that we undertake to make good, so that the actual words would not apply. If there is any doubt as to whether
    1108
    the period is properly laid down, and I am told that it is, an Amendment can be introduced in another place.
    Mr. STEVENS: I would like to ask whether it would be fair or correct to take the period before the War for undertakings that have not yet been taken possession of, because there are cases in which they are quite different undertakings today compared with what they were before the War. Some of the smaller railways, for instance, have doubled their mileage. I only want to put the matter to the Minister-designate so that he may have the point covered.
    Sir E. GEDDES: That is a point which no one here can decide. There are innumerable ways in which undertakings conceivably might be affected, and, therefore, it would only be a matter of bargain or arbitration. It would be equally unfair to deal with every undertaking on a pre-war basis.
    Major BARNES: It is quite clear that some words must be introduced into this Clause. Two absolutely different periods are apparently to be taken, and the capital value of the undertaking when taken over will be compared with that at a date in 1919 or 1920. The right hon. Gentleman is apparently going to compare capital value with a reduction of income in time of war. But, as I understand the point will be considered in another place, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    10.0 P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think the hon. Gentleman opposite has put an interpretation on the words of the right hon. Gentleman which is not quite correct. The right hon. Gentleman said he would consider whether it was necessary to add certain words, and, if he came to the conclusion that it was, then it would be done in another place. It is absolutely impossible to say what the actual earnings of each individual company may be. Suppose the hon. Gentleman goes to a station and takes a ticket for a journey extending over three lines, a not unusual thing at all. In the old days the sum of money paid for that ticket was sent to the clearing house and apportioned between the three lines. That is not done at the present moment; the money instead goes to the line that issues the ticket. Therefore taking a period of two years from the commencement of the Act it

    1109
    would be quite impossible to find out what the revenue of the particular undertaking was. The whole question of compensation for the railway is based on the year 1913, and if at the end of that period a question arises under this Act whether anything done by the Government has enhanced or depreciated the undertaking it is perfectly clear that it is the intention that the railway company shall obtain nothing except on the basis of 1913. Therefore it is quite unnecessary to put in any words, and those suggested in the Amendment are absolutely impossible. It is always a mistake, where legal questions are involved, to put in words at short notice.
    Sir E. GEDDES: I think the right hon. Baronet has a little misapprehended what has been said. The Mover of the Amendment withdraws his Amendment, the Government undertaking to see whether the point raised is not clear, and, if it finds it is not clear, it will provide other words in another place.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is what I said.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir E. GEDDES: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words
    "the natural growth of traffic on any railway belonging to a company which had not before possession was taken by the Government paid a dividend of four per centum on its ordinary capital, and in each case capital expenditure by the owners of the undertaking on any works brought into use in the interval, then"
    and to insert instead thereof the words,
    "in either case—

    (a) any capital expenditure by the owners of the undertaking on any works brought into use in the interval; and

    (b) where the undertaking has not before possession was taken by the Government paid a dividend out of revenue of four per cent. on its ordinary capital the natural growth of traffic on the railway."

    This is really only a drafting Amendment. In Committee we provided for capital expenditure being allowed for, as well as for the normal growth of traffic, when we were dealing with undertakings which pay less than 4 per cent. on their capital. The Amendments are merely drafting Amendments in order to make the point more clear.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Major HAYWARD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Section" ["paragraph (1) (a), of that Section "], to insert the words
    "and is not due to the natural growth of traffic or the natural growth of outgoings."
    1110
    In Committee Amendments were made to allow for natural growth of traffic, and I suggest that side by side with these provision should be made for the natural growth of outgoings. What this Clause provides is that assuming the net revenue of the railways in question, to have been £40,000,000 and when they are handed back it is only £20,000,000 there is a 'reduction of £20,000,000, there will consequently be a loss of £20,000.000 per annum. This Clause provides that depreciation upon that basis is to be paid. The railway company may say, "You must pay us so many years' purchase of this depreciation." I quite agree, I do not think anybody will dispute it, that if there is any reduction in the net revenue which is due to something which the Minister has done under the exercise of his powers and which would not otherwise have been done, then, of course, the Government should pay for the depreciation. But it is very clear that in the normal state of things, even if the Minister never had taken possession, and even if the Government had never taken the railways—the right hon. Gentleman made it quite clear in his speech on the Second Reading—the net revenue of the railways would be diminished. It is a thing one cannot state, but the Minister seemed to make out that the railways were in a very parlous condition and the probability was that, apart from any interference whatever, the revenue was likely to steadily diminish That being so, it seems hardly fair that the State should be called upon to make good that loss which would have happened inevitably and to capitalise that loss and hand it over to the railways. This Amendment provides that where, apart from anything that the Minister has done under the exercise of his powers, there would have been an increase in outgoings —the natural growth of outgoings—that shall be taken into account in assessing the depreciation to be paid under this Clause. It is only fair. It provides that where anything is done by the Minister that would not have otherwise have been done which reduces the revenue, then the Government should have to pay, but that where by the natural growth of outgoings, apart altogether from anything that has been done, there would have been a reduction in revenue, then that must be taken into account in allowing for this depreciation.
    Major BARNES: I beg to second the Amendment. Its object is to extend

    1111
    the advantage which the right hon. Gentleman has conceded to a very small number of undertakings in the Amendment which has just been passed. There is a very small group of undertakings who are to have the benefit of the natural growth of traffic. We desire to extend that privilege to all undertakings. We are quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with us that everything that happens on the railways will not be due altogether to the exercise of his powers. Some misfortunes will fall upon the railways quite apart from anything he may do, and some benefits will accrue to the railways quite apart from the advantage of having his administration. We are anxious to be perfectly fair both to the railway companies and to the State, and where there are some benefits that would have accrued to them whether he had come along or not, owing to the natural growth of traffic, we do not see why a little group of undertakings should be singled out to receive this benefit. It does not seem fair. There must be the natural growth of traffic on all undertakings. Why the right hon. Gentleman has selected only a small number for this benefit is not very apparent. We are anxious that where the benefit exists, all should get it. Therefore, we move that the natural growth of traffic should be something that should accrue to all undertakings. There is the complement to that. There is the natural growth of outgoings. Increases in salaries will come in any ease by the length of service. As the undertakings grow more profitable, there will be increased rates and taxes. These are the natural outgoings, not due to anything he may do. We suggest that the fair and proper thing is to give the undertakings the benefit of the growth of traffic, and to set against all that the natural growth of outgoings. It seems so eminently reasonable a suggestion that probably it will not be accepted.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment, because the only result of it I can see will be to increase the work of lawyers. Although no doubt in some cases that is a good thing, it is really a thing to be avoided. Let me put briefly what the actual effect of the Amendment will be. The last speaker said he was anxious to preserve to the railway companies any-
    1112
    thing that might accrue to them by the natural growth of traffic. Those are the words of the Amendment.
    Major BARNES: They are the words of the Government which have already been accepted. They are not my words.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is where the mistake is. The Clause provides that it the Minister exercises certain powers which result in the enhancement of the value of the undertaking, then the State is to be recouped when the undertakings are thrown back upon the shareholders If the State does anything which results in the depreciation of the undertaking then the railway company are to be paid by the Government for the depreciation. There is nothing about the natural growth of traffic or outgoings. The only effect of introducing these words would be to raise a new issue and offer an opportunity to litigious persons to go to the Courts of law to decide what is or is not natural growth of traffic or outgoings. Who is to define what is the natural growth of traffic or outgoings? It is very easy for the House to put in words of that kind, but when you come to argue the matter in the Law Courts you may have eminent counsel arguing for days and even for weeks upon that point. Therefore I hope the Government will not accept these words, which are superfluous, unnecessary, and will only lead to actions in the law Courts. Although I am extremely obliged to both my hon. and gallant Friends for endeavouring to obtain more money for the shareholders, in these circumstances we would rather do without it. We prefer to leave the Clause in its present simple form, namely, that all depends upon the action of the Minister whether or not the railway companies are to pay him something or whether he is to pay the railway companies something.
    Sir E. GEDDES: There are two points in this Amendment. One is that the State shall not have a claim for any enhancement of the value, either on capital or income basis, due to the natural growth of traffic. I confess I thought that when the Amendment was proposed it would probably be accepted by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), who speaks for the railway companies and who is chairman of one company himself. But as they feel that it would not be to their interest, I hope the House will not press it upon them. I quite agree with the right hon. Baronet that it would cause a

    1113
    great deal of controversy and litigation. As regards the second point, that the natural growth in the outgoings is not to be taken into account when we consider the depreciation in value on a capital or revenue earning basis, in all these undertakings. I think myself that from the Government point of view I would rather not have the words. It is adopting a second standard which we should have to conform to in trying to arrive at what was the real depreciation due to the action of the Government. That really is the greatest plank that the Government has in meeting the claim of the railways. They have to prove that it was due to the action of the Government, and therefore I should very much prefer not to have the second standard introduced. I want the one standard, that it is to be due to the action of the Government.
    Major HAYWARD: Under Clause 3 the powers which the Minister is to exercise cover practically all powers which can be exercised, both executive and administrative, and therefore, cannot it be said that everything that is done will be done by the Minister under those powers, and therefore come under this Clause for depreciation? If the right hon. Gentleman could remove the apprehension I have in my mind about that it would be very helpful.
    Sir E. GEDDES: I quite understand my hon. and gallant Friend's point, but anything done under those powers would have to be by a specific Order. It would be quite impossible ever to keep track of your prospective liabilities if you were to be responsible for everything that every railway or dock or light railway servant did everywhere in the Kingdom whatever grade he was. So that anything that the Minister orders will be by a specific order given. It will not simply go by default that we shall be responsible for what some unknown person does. I prefer very much to have the one standard—that we can only be charged with depreciation of an undertaking when it is due to the order of the Minister and no other standard.
    Amendment negatived.
    Further Amendment made: In paragraph (ii.), after the word "which" ["of which possession has been taken "], insert the words
    "or of any part or plant of which."—[Sir E. Geddes.]
    Major BARNES: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, ii.), to leave out the words
    "before the passing of this Act."
    This and the next Amendment are consequential. When I was at dinner I was told that the railway companies had sent out a whip asking their supporters to support an Amendment of mine. That naturally gave me a great deal of concern. I could only conclude that it was probably this Amendment, and I shall be very interested indeed to see whether I shall get support from that quarter. In this proviso it is laid down that something that is done under this Sub-section is to have no effect one way or the other on the principle on which the price to be paid for any undertaking is to be based if the undertaking should be bought by the State while it is in the possession of the Government. In other words, this, I take it, is for clearing the ground in the very remote case of the State acquiring any of these undertakings. I suppose there are some people who would like to see the State acquire the whole of these, undertakings, and I gather that this proviso has been nut in to protect the Treasury against something or other in this Sub-section affecting the principle upon which the price is then to be based. I do not want anything that is being done under this Sub-section to affect the price, if there should be acquisition later. I think it was the hon. and learned Gentleman who is chairman of the Land Acquisition Committee who said that it is important that there should be nothing, in this Bill that would prejudge the question of nationalisation. My object is to secure that the principle laid down in this Sub-section in regard to compensation should have no effect one way or the other later if it should be decided to buy. The proviso as it stands simply lays it down that one particular provision as to compensation shall not affect the price in the future one way or the other. I want to extend it so that nothing in this Compensation Clause shall have any effect in the future upon the question of price, but that it should leave the situation perfectly clear and free, so that if at some later date the State should come forward and say, "We want to buy," I do not want the State to be in a position to say under this Clause they can do this or do that, because under this Sub-section the principle has been effected. I do not want the railway companies to come forward and say the principle has been effected on which

    1115
    the State can buy. I want them to be free at that time to settle the principles which are right and proper. If the words "before the passing of this Act" are left out, all the undertakings will come in under the same conditions. I cannot see why an undertaking which is taken possession of before the passing of the Act should be treated differently from an undertaking which may be taken over later. My Amendment is that whatever undertakings are taken over nothing we do now shall affect the principle.
    Major HAYWARD: I beg to second the Amendment. This provision forms a very valuable asset to the railway companies, and the object of this Amendment is to provide that this asset shall not be an asset which shall be taken into consideration. The Home Secretary now indicates that he will accept the Amendment, and therefore, I will say nothing further about it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member (Major Barnes) stated that the railway companies had communicated with him, that they desired this Amendment to be supported.
    Major BARNES: What I said was that I had been informed by an hon. Member that the railway companies had issued a whip asking their supporters to support this Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: As the hon. Member made that statement, will he say who is the hon. Member who informed him? So far as I know, the statement is absolutely unfounded. The hon. Member must not make statements of that sort, which may influence the House for or against the railway companies, unless he is quite certain that that has been done. Apparently the only ground he has for saying that a whip has been issued by the railway companies is that some other Members told him that it has been done.
    Major BARNES: I never said that a whip had been issued. What I said was that I have been informed that it has been issued.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member has no business to make a statement of that sort unless he is quite certain that the statement is correct.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does it really matter?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I will not pursue it, but I am rather surprised that the Govern-
    1116
    have accepted this Amendment. I have not been able to gather what is its precise effect, but it was not part of what was agreed to by the railway companies, and, therefore, I do not think it should be accepted, especially as the Government have given no reason for accepting it.
    Sir E. GEDDES: The Amendment to this part of the Clause, which it is obvious from reading the Clause, was for protecting the Treasury, is, in the opinion of the Government, an improvement of the Clause. These words cannot, so far as I can see, and as I am advised, make the least possible difference to the railway company.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Major BARNES: I beg to move, in Subsection (1. ii.), to leave out the words
    "restricting claims for enhancement attributable to the exercise by the Minister of such powers as aforesaid to cases where the value of the undertaking has been enhanced as compared with the value thereof at this commencement of the period of possession."
    Sir E. GEDDES: These words were put in after a prolonged consideration and consultation between the Treasury officials and the Parliamentary draughtsmen with the very object of providing specifically for the point which my hon. Friend has in mind, that nothing whatever which is laid down by this Section shall in any way create a value which could be urged in enhancement of the price, which, if eventually this House sanctioned the purchase of any of these undertakings, would be paid. It is an intricate Clause I grant, but to my own knowledge there were two mornings of close study and consultation given to the matter, and it would not be well to make any alteration without full consideration. The object of the Clause is exactly what my hon. Friend desires, and, therefore, I hope that he will accept the Clause as it stands.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "dividend," insert the words '' or interests."—[Sir W. Raeburn.]

    CLAUSE 8.—(Power to Establish Transport Services.)
    (1) It shall be lawful for the Minister to establish and work transport services by land or water, and to acquire either by agreement or compulsorily such land or easements or rights in or over land, to construct such works, and to do all such other things as may be necessary for the purpose:
    Provided that—

    (i) if the establishment of any such service involve an original capital expenditure exceeding one million pounds, or the acquisition of land compulsorily, or the breaking up of any roads, the Minister shall not exercise his powers unless authorised to do so by Order in Council a. draft whereof has been approved by a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament, and the Order may incorporate the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the Order, being modifications of those Acts made or authorised to be made by the Development and Road Improvements Funds Act, 1909, or any other enactment, and the Order may also incorporate or apply any enactments relating to the construction and maintenance of the works in question; and

    (ii) where it appears to the Minister that the establishment of any such service could properly be undertaken by the owners of any existing undertaking, the Minister shall not himself establish the service without first giving to such owners an opportunity of establishing the service, and where such an opportunity is given to the owner of an undertaking of which possession has been retained or taken under Section three of this Act and those owners prefer that the establishment of the service should be undertaken by themselves rather than by the Minister, they may require the Minister to give them directions under that Section to that effect, but shall not be deemed to have there by concurred in those directions

    (2) The expenses of working services established by the Minister under this Section, shall be paid out of the revenues derived there from, and the Minister shall keep such accounts of the receipts from and expenditure on the undertakings and in such form, and those accounts shall be audited in such manner as the Treasury may prescribe.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
    "For a period of two years after the passing of this Act."
    This is a very important Amendment, on which we had considerable discussion in Committee, which led to a very curious situation. My hon. Friend stated that the Government had committed themselves to some provision of this sort, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Sir E. Geddes), whom I do not wish to misrepresent, admitted that there was some foundation for that statement. When we went to a Division, the Government would not vote; they did not vote—with one exception. I am not sure whether he is in the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] He will be. The result of the vote of the hon. Baronet was that it was a tie. If the hon. Baronet had
    1118
    followed the lead of his future chief, he would not have voted, and the Amendment would have been carried. Then, when the Chairman had to give his casting vote, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge got up and asked the Chairman to give his vote for the Amendment. The Chairman, however, in the exercise of his discretion, gave his vote against the Amendment, so the result of all that was that by the casting vote of the Chairman the Amendment was defeated, against the wish of the Government. The object of the Amendment is very simple. The first part of the Bill is permanent; that is the part which sets up a Ministry of Ways and Communications. The second part deals with powers that this Minister may exercise for two years over certain undertakings. Unless these words are put in, the result will be that it will be
    "lawful for the Minister to establish and work transport services by land or water, and to acquire either by agreement or compulsorily such land or easements or rights in or over land, to construct such works, and to do all such other things as may be necessary for the purpose,"
    And then the Clause goes on,
    "Provided that if the establishment of any such service involve an original capital expenditure exceeding one million pounds, or on acquisition of land compulsorily, or the breaking up of any roads," etc.
    Though he had thrown the undertakings back on the hands of the companies he could carry on all these undertakings in opposition to the companies. It is really by a side wind carrying out nationalisation. I know it will be said that in regard to railway companies that is practically impossible, because he cannot acquire land compulsorily, and that therefore it will be extremely difficult for him "to establish and work transport services by land or water." It might be that the Minister may have acquired the land before the end of the two years; there is nothing to prevent him acquiring it during the two years. In that case after the two years he could use it in opposition to existing undertakings, using the money of the State for the purpose. But suppose I am wrong and that the words I have read "or the acquisition of land compulsorily" prevented his running rival services by land, it does not prevent him from running rival services by sea, because the words are
    "It shall be lawful for the Minister to establish and work transport services by land or water."

    1119
    The Amendment limits him from doing all these things for a period of two years. I think it is evident that it is absolutely necessary that these words should be inserted. I am quite certain my statement as to what happened in Committee will not be denied.
    Sir E. GEDDES: This is a matter upon which I personally have some responsibility. On the Second Beading of the Bill, as the right hon. Baronet has pointed out, I replied to a question, or in fact several questions, on that subject at the time when I was explaining that the Government had withdrawn the acquisition powers, as to what the position would be. At that time there were in the Clause which dealt with acquisition two paragraphs (e) and (f), which we were going to retain. The first dealt with the taking on hire or purchase of railway wagons belonging to private owners, and as to that there is no dispute at all, because I said we would take powers to acquire them. The second paragraph (f) referred to establishing, maintaining and working transport services by land or sea. What I said was:
    "It is also proposed to transfer the powers under Clause 4, Sub-section (1, f), which were permanent powers, and make them temporary powers in Clause 3 and to provide that in addition during the two years the Minister shall have the right, subject to Treasury Control, to construct such works as may be necessary."
    There was a certain amount of not very clear question and answer; but I confess, in giving an answer then, I omitted to say —and I am sure the House will readily understand that it was not very easy to deal with it by question and answer—that, having constructed a service, the maintenance of that service was a matter which, at any rate, could not be so lightly set aside at the end of two years. While I confess I had forgotten that when we got to Committee, and while the facts are as stated by the right hon. Baronet, I wish to submit to the House this solution of the difficulty: that all the powers should be limited to the two years, with the exception of what is stated in an Amendment standing in my name. There I propose that
    "the Minister shall not after two years from the passing of this Act, unless Parliament otherwise determines, commence the construction of any new works, or provide equipment for any transport service not established before that date."
    This will allow the Ministry during the two years, subject to the control in large
    1120
    items of this House—because there is the control of this House beyond a certain sum of money, if roads are broken up, if land is to be compulsorily acquired—and subject to Treasury control in other matters, to start transport services and commence the construction of them. After the two years we cannot. But, obviously, if the House now decides that the maintenance and the working of transport services which are authorised during the two years must come to an end at the end of the two years, it is going to stultify that portion of the Bill altogether, and what I hope the House will do, and the Government proposes in the circumstances to leave it entirely to the House to decide whether this power, when we come to it, should not be given to enable the Minister to work and maintain transport services which it has started under proper authority during the two years and to complete any transport services, in accordance with the estimates submitted to and authorised by the Treasury, which are under construction, but not completed at the end of the two years. But, as I have said, in view of the replies I gave on the Second Reading, the Government propose to leave the matter entirely to the House to decide.
    Sir W. RAEBURN: It seems to me that under this proposal the right hon. Gentle man could acquire a fleet of steamers in the two years, or build them even, and carry on the coasting services—
    Sir E. GEDDES: I would like to correct that, because it is so easy to get the wrong impression about shipping. We cannot carry on any services at all by sea unless a railway company has actually to-day the powers given to it by Parliament to run that service. You cannot run any coasting service.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think it will be necessary for the Government to accept my Amendment, and then, when we come to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman later on, it will be left to the House to determine whether or not those words should be inserted. As far as I am concerned, if the right hon. Gentleman will consent to the insertion of my words now, I will be willing to consent to the insertion of his words later on, but it is necessary that my words shall be inserted, because if the House later on does not accept the right hon. Gentleman's words, we shall be left in the same position as we are in now.
    Sir E. GEDDES: I do not think that would be the way to give effect to the proposal of the Government, because if the words which are proposed in this Amendment were inserted at the beginning of this Clause it would govern the working of transport services, and it is to work transport services that the Government wishes to seek the authority of the House.
    Colonel GRETTON: We were assured earlier in the evening that the Government were not going to take any action under this Bill which would in any way prejudice a decision of the House of Commons or a national decision on the question of nationalisation. Apparently the Government now are proposing that they shall establish during the two years services which will be national services, and that they shall after the expiration of the two years, continue to carry on these services under powers granted in this Bill. That statement, I submit, is hardly consistent with the very explicit assurances given to the House earlier in the evening, and if the House or the country should determine at a later date that those services established for certain purposes during the two years should not be nationalised services, nothing should be in this Bill which should prejudice that decision. My right hon. Friend's Amendment ought to be inserted, and if further legislation to continue these services which have been established should be necessary, it is the business of the Government, when the question arises, to come to the House and take these powers, as the Government assured the House earlier in the evening they intended to do.
    Sir E. GEDDES: This is really a very serious point, having regard to what has been said in this House throughout the Debates on this Bill as to the necessity for doing something immediately to meet the needs of rural districts and housing. If we are to accept this Amendment it means that no transportation service can be established at all with a further vision than two years. Does any Member of this House believe that the Treasury would sanction expenditure for starting one of these transport services, which, generally speaking, the House in agreed are necessary, if there is only to be a two years' tenure, and then you have to come back, possibly to another House of Commons, to get your working confirmed? You
    1122
    would have the property, and if we are going to meet the obligation to improve transportation in those districts, and in some cases it may establish transportation, which certainly for the first two years will not pay, because there are very few transport services which can pay in the first year, we would never be able to feel we had security for more than a two years: tenure. If the House takes a decision to-day because we have this nationalisation bogey ahead of us—well, the fear of nationalisation ahead—if the House takes a decision that no new transportation service under this Bill is to be established with a longer tenure than two years, it is destroying what practically all sections of the House have agreed is absolutely an essential provision, namely, that we should be able to develop transportation for housing and for the agricultural districts. If it is decided that we cannot do that for a longer tenure than two years, I feel sure that not only the Treasury but any business man would say it is impossible to start, because, if you pass the Amendment, you are sterilising anything that would be done by the State to meet needs which we are all agreed require to be met.
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, perhaps quite unwittingly, rather misled the House as to the powers of the Treasury in these matters. The Select Committee on National Expenditure, set up recently, has taken evidence from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the leading officials of the Treasury as to the Treasury powers. There were two points that were very clear in the evidence given before the Committee. One was—and I think hon. Members generally are not sufficiently aware of it—that in no sense is the Treasury a super-Department. It is a Department on exactly the same basis as all other Government Departments, and once this House has passed a Vote for the total sum to be expended by a Department, the Treasury has no power whatever to interfere with the spending of that money, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no special authority over any other Minister. It is no good to say that if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Geddes) under the powers conferred on him by this House, started some undertaking, which he wished to set up in the course of the next two years, the Treasury would have the power to stop it. I tell him, on the evidence given before the Select Com-

    1123
    mittee, that the Treasury has no such power, and it is for that reason that an Amendment has been put down in my name with the object of giving the Treasury better control over this Department than it would have possessed in the ordinary course. I quite agree that the hands of the Minister will not, in the least bit, be tied by this provision, but while he asks the House to credit him with reasonable business, good sense, we, in our turn, must ask him to credit the House with those qualities. I am certain if, in the exercise of the duties which we all wish him to perform, quickly and efficiently, he starts transportation services of this kind in the interests of the community, the House will be the last body to say, at the end of the two years, that services which are a national benefit should be put an end to. I think it is right that the House should have a clear apprehension of what the position of the Treasury is in this matter.
    Colonel MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I am very unwilling to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, whose knowledge of transportation is probably in excess of any other hon. Member in the House. He spoke of the nationalisation bogey, but, I think, he is rather raising a bogey himself. I agree with the last speaker that any undertaking, which is reasonable and fair, and for the benefit of the country, will be supported by the House when it comes before them. I think that the right hon. Member the Minister-designate having—it is quite possible—commenced an undertaking, or several, may come to the House and say, having started these things they must go through. Those of us who are opposing nationalisation think it very necessary to maintain the control of this House over expenditure on transport, and everything else. With due respect, the suggestion of the right hon. Member the Minister-designate that he will not be able to start any undertaking unless it is clear that the House will not of necessity oppose it is a bogey. The Amendment should be adopted—for any undertaking that has been started will be ratified by the House if it is fair and reasonable, and if not it is only right that this House should have control as to whether these undertakings ought or ought not to go forward.
    Mr. SHORTT: I hope the House, and the right hon. Gentleman will not press
    1124
    this Amendment. Really it makes the position impossible. Consider the question of starting some new service, only to find that at the end of the two years it will be stopped. The Government, I would remind the House, have accepted the Amendment further down on the Paper:
    "(1) That no new transport undertaking shall be established by the Ministry until an estimate of the capital expenditure required to complete it has been approved by the Treasury."
    So that no new service will be started without the House knowing. But if for items for any new service by land or water we have to come to the House and explain it, it will not give a scheme a chance. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman is not a businesslike proposition. If you are going to restrict the working of every new service you will make it impossible. No powers then would engage in capital expenditure with the fear that at the end of two years the enterprise would be stopped just when it was beginning to go ahead. You must have the certainty that your scheme will have a chance. There is another point. It might very well be that some new transport service will be run in connection with a Ministry that has a housing scheme on foot for its men, or for the general benefit. Unless there is certainty that the scheme will go forward you may stop the housing scheme as well.
    11 P.M.
    Mr. STEVENS: I think the House has now been made aware of the difficulties of the Committee upstairs upon this matter and all matters of expenditure. The Minister-designate has been in a position for the last nine months to consider this and the other questions which are before the Ministry, but with the exception of railway wagons where, as will be seen in the next Clause he can commit the country to something between £50,000,000 and £70,000,000 if it is passed, we have not been able to get from him any idea as to any sort of service to which he refers and for which he requires money under this Clause. I am not putting it too strongly when I say that we are being treated like children. I challenge the Minister to tell us of any service he has in his mind which he can carry out during the next two years under this Clause that cannot be disposed of at the end of that period either to the railway companies, the tramway companies, or the local authorities, and that really is the point. We sat for eighteen days upstairs, and every time we

    1125
    suggested coastwise services it was said, "We cannot do that." What is it that the Minister has in his mind? What kind of transport service is it I Let him give one particular case where he can carry it out during the next two years which he cannot get rid of at the end of that period.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not want to put the House to the trouble of an unnecessary Division, and if I withdraw my Amendment will the Government move the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman? If so, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I hope the Government will now consent to adjourn this Debate, because we have made very good progress. I understand that the Leader of the House said it was not intended to sit late.
    Mr. SHORTT: I do hope the House will let us get this Clause.
    Mr. REMER: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "or water" ["services by land or water"].
    As the Government have declared it to be their policy that there shall be no shipping service, I presume there will be no opposition.
    Amendment not seconded.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Section 1, after the word "purpose" ["necessary for the purpose"], to insert the words
    "but in establishing such services due consideration shall be shown to such existing undertakings as give a reasonable service with a view to avoiding undue competition."
    In Committee the right hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking that he would consider whether words should be introduced such as I suggested. I have not had an opportunity of discussing the question with the right hon. Gentleman, who has admitted the importance of the matter, and told us it is difficult to carry out the desire expressed to protect these undertakings without at the same time hampering the Government. But I think this is a safeguard which the House will expect to be inserted. We are giving the Ministry power to establish competing systems and there should be some limit to their power to spend the taxpayers money. Unless something of this sort is put in there will be no power to prevent the Ministry using public funds in this way. I am sorry the
    1126
    Home Secretary did not agree to my proposal to adjourn the further consideration of the Bill, because not only is this Amendment important, but the remainder of the Clause also involves important questions. We are dealing with enormous sums of money, and on this question of a limit the Government have already given pledges. This will therefore involve debate. I venture again to ask the right hon. Gentleman when this Amendment is disposed of to agree to an adjournment. There are, I think—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Baronet must confine himself to the Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am very sorry. I ought not to have said what I did, but I was speaking in the interests of the House and of the Bill. I will say no more.
    Mr. RENWICK: This important Amendment requires a considerable amount of discussion by the House. This Clause gives enormous power to the Ministry to form transport services by land, water, and inland waterways. We want to know definitely how far the Ministry contemplates undertaking transport by water. The House, perhaps, does not realise that many of the difficulties under which the railways are suffering, at the present time are due to the curtailment of the carriage by coasting services run from port to port in the British Isles. Before the War nearly every port in the United Kingdom was served by coasting steamers. They carried an enormous amount of traffic. Very few people realise how much they did carry. I could give some information to the House upon that, but as I am intimately associated with the coasting service it would perhaps be rather advertising my particular line. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that it is largely owing to the curtailment of the coasting services that we have the present congestion on the railways. It stands to reason that if an enormous amount of traffic was carried "between ports in the United Kingdom before the War by sea, and that traffic now is forced upon the railway companies at a time when the railway companies are short of rolling stock, owing to that rolling stock having been sent to France, that accounts for the congestion upon the railways. I, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to say definitely what he is going to do in reference to transport by water. The right hon. Gentleman—I say it without

    1127
    disrespect to him—is a railway man and we want to know if he is going to starve the coasting service in order to feed the railways. We cannot have that. We want to have sympathy between the railways and the coasting service with a view to resuscitating the service we had before the War. It is without any hostility to the right hon. Gentleman that I ask him to state his intentions. Does he mean to use the present ships belonging to the railway companies at the present time?
    Is he going to launch out with new fleets of steamers? Few hon. Members know that nearly all the great railways are large shipowners. They have large fleets of steamers. If we are going to leave those steamers in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman without any limit as to how he is to use them, how can we tell that he himself is not going to set up coasting lines, not for the benefit of the country, but for the benefit of the railways? We want a clear definition from the right hon. Gentleman. We did not get it upstairs. We want it here. If we do not get it we shall be bound during the future progress of this measure to press him by other means and Amendments until we get something definite. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean to do with the powers we are giving him to form these transport services, and to carry on transport by land and water?
    Dr. MURRAY: I hope the answer the right hon. Gentleman is to give will be that as far as it is within his power he will do his duty by the people who are dependent upon transport by sea just as he intends to do for the people who are dependent upon transport by land. A very large proportion of the population of these Islands are dependent upon transport by sea, and I did not quite realise until this moment that it was possible for the right hon. Gentleman and his new Department to develop transport by sea in a way which will help many thousands of deserving people. The whole of the Western freeboard of Scotland, not to talk about other parts of Britain, is dependent on transport by sea; therefore, if the Government is going on to develop the transport services, these populations are deserving of as much' consideration as those who are served by railway, tramways, motor cars, or airships. So that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not entirely devote his attention to transport by railway. In my
    1128
    Constituency we are a modest people, but one of the first platforms in the policy of reconstruction for the people of the Western Islands of Scotland should be the transport services, not only in the interests of hon. Members who go there for the benefit of their health and as tourists, but of the comfort and welfare and of developing the fishing and other industries. So I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not, perhaps, give those critics quite the answer they would like, but will show that, in connection with the transport services which he is developing, and which I hope the House will support him in developing, he will see that this portion of the Kingdom will not lose his attention, and that he will do for them just as much as he intends to do for those who are served by the railways. At present even the ordinary comforts of the people of the outer islands of Scotland are very much curtailed owing to the lessened services during the War.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I hope, in the interests of bedtime, the right hon. Gentleman will respond to the appeal which has been made to him. I do not desire to oppose the Government proposal, but I think I am in the position, shared by many hon. Members, of being in a state of mystification as to the precise intentions of the Government. We merely want to know what they mean. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the words which he himself used upstairs. He admitted that the whole question was very difficult, and said:
    "If at a later stage in the Bill my right hon. Friend and I can think of any way of meeting this point we will endeavour to do so."
    All I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether in the interval since he uttered these words he has thought of a way of meeting this difficult point. If he has, will he communicate it to the House? The Amendment in Committee was almost identical in terms to this. I was not a member of the Committee. I have only read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings. We who were not members of the Committee feel ourselves at a very great disadvantage in discussing this Bill on the Report stage and I think we are entitled to consideration from the Government.
    Sir E. GEDDES: There are two points which have been raised, and my hon.

    1129
    Friend asks me to reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle. His fear is that this Transport Service Commission may be used to extend enormously services up and down the coast. I can only repeat what I have said several times already in Committee, and which will be found in Clause 22 of the Bill,
    "the expression 'transport services by water' shall not include any transport service by sea other than such as is, or could under their existing statutory powers, or any extension thereof, be established by the owners of any undertaking of which the Minister is for the time being in possession under this Act."
    That absolutely and clearly sets out that you cannot start indiscriminate sea services all over the sea. You cannot start them unless the undertaking of which you take possession under this Act has statutory authority to run them. There is no general power to run sea services. The second point, which is the Amendment now before the House is that we should insert this provision to protect existing services from undue competition. It is true that I undertook to discuss the matter with the hon. Member. I think he suggested that we should discuss it. This is not the only thing by any means that drops out after Committee. A Member is anxious to discuss things, but upon further thought he decides not to do it. I have thought the matter over when this Amendment was put down. If the House will turn to Clause 8 (1, ii.) they will see this provision:
    "the Minister shall not himself establish the service without first giving to such owners an opportunity of establishing the service, and where such an opportunity is given to the owner of an undertaking of which possession has been retained or taken under Section three of this Act and those owners prefer that the establishment of the service should be undertaken by themselves rather than by the Minister, they may require the Minister to give them directions under that Section to that effect."
    That means that if it is in any way proper for the existing undertaking to run the service which the Minister desires to run, say for the development of a
    housing scheme, he is bound, if it is proper for them to do it, to give them the opportunity of running it. Their consent to run it does not mean that they become financially responsible for it, and that they are bound to stand any loss on it on account of their consent having been given. I must explain that this is an exception to the general provision of the Bill that if an undertaking consents to carry out an Order of the Minister then it cannot claim for depreciation or loss on account of what is done under the Order. This provision exempts them from this liability, and on consideration I thought that it really gave ample protection. I hope, therefore, that the House will not pass the Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: This Amendment is very nearly identical with the Amendment which I moved upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman used the same argument upstairs which he has used now, and on page 505 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 6th May, 1919, you will find his words:
    "If before we come to the Clause or at a later stage if the Bill my right hon. Friend and I can think of any way of dealing with this point we will endeavour to do so, but it is very difficult."
    It is not quite correct to insinuate- I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not do so intentionally—that I did not say anything to him because I had forgotten the point. I did remind him in the Lobby of his undertaking and I asked him to discuss the matter with me. He said he would. It is equally true that he did not come to me after that and I did not press him on the point, because I could not find him. I am not at all sure that these words are a sufficient protection. I do not want at this late hour to put the House to the trouble of a Division, but the matter is one involving an enormous amount of money, and we may have the abuse of the use of the taxpayers' money in competition with private enterprise, which is a very dangerous thing to do.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill.
    The House divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 179.

    Division No. 56.]

    Division No. 56.]

    [11.29 p.m.

    Ainsworth, Captain C.

    Cayzer, Major H. R.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

    Chadwick, R. Burton

    Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Southend)

    Ballour, George (Hampstead)

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Hall, Capt. D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Barker, Major R.

    Davies, T. (Cirencester)

    Johnstone, J.

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

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kénsington)

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

    Bonn, Com. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich)

    Doyle, N. Grattan

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

    Bird, Alfred

    Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

    Manville, Edward

    Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)

    Foxcroft, Captain C.

    Mason, Robert

    Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C.

    Remer, J. B.

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Renwick, G

    Wood, Major S Hill (High Peak)

    Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)

    Royden, Sir Thomas

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Oman, C. W. C.

    Stevens, Marshall

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F.

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Banbury and Mr. Marriott

    Raeburn, Sir William

    Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson

    NOES

    Adamson, Rt. Hen, William

    Green, J. F. (Leicester)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Grundy, T. W,

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

    Amery, Lieut.-Col. L. C. M. S.

    Hacking, Captain D. H.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Armitage, Robert

    Hailwood, A.

    Perring, William George

    Arnold, Sydney

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Pinkham, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Hartshorn, V

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E-)

    Hayday, A.

    Pratt, John William

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Henderson, Major V. L.

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Hennessy, Major G.

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

    Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)

    Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)

    Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

    Blades, Sir George R.

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton)

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Hinds, John

    Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Brackenbury, Captain H. L.

    Holmes, J. S.

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

    Breese, Major C. E.

    Hood, Joseph

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Briant, F.

    Hope, Harry (Stirling)

    Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Seager, Sir William'

    Brittain, Sir Harry E.

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

    Sexton, James

    Britton, G. B.

    Hope, John Deans (Berwick)

    Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

    Shaw, Tom (Preston)

    Bromfield, W.

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Brotherton, Col. Sir E. A

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

    Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Simm, Col. M. T.

    Bruton, Sir J.

    Hurd, P. A.

    Sitch, C. H.

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

    Jesson, C.

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Cape, Tom

    Jodrell, N. P.

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

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Johnson, L. S.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Carr, W. T.

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)

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

    Sturrock, J. Leng-

    Casey, T. W.

    Jones, J. (Silvertown)

    Sugden, W. H.

    Coates, Major Sir.- Edward F.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander

    Swan, J. E. C.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    King, Com. Douglas

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

    Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

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

    Courthope, Major George Loyd

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Townley, Maximilan G.

    Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

    Lunn, William

    Vickers, D.

    Davies, J. A.

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Waddington, R.

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Edgar, Clifford

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

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Waterson, A. E.

    Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)

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

    Weston, Col. John W.

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Whitla, Sir William

    Falcon, Captain M.

    Mosley, Oswald

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Murchison, C. K.

    Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir Rhys (Banbury)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

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

    Forestier-Walker. L.

    Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)

    Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Gange, E. S.

    Murray, William (Dumfries)

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)

    Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

    Neal, Arthur

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

    Woolcock, W. J. U.

    Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)

    Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord-

    Glyn, Major R.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Edmund Talbot and Capt. F. Guest.

    Grant, James Augustus

    Parry, Major Thomas Henry

    Ordered,
    "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Monday next.
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
    It being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Nineteen minutes before Twelve o'clock

  VOTERS' LISTS.
  VOTERS' LISTS.
PEACE CELEBRATIONS.
  ATHLETIC SPORTS (ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY).
  ATHLETIC SPORTS (ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY).
  POOR LAW RECIPIENTS, SCOTLAND.
  POOR LAW RECIPIENTS, SCOTLAND.
INCOME TAX.
  LEARNED SOCIETIES.
  LEARNED SOCIETIES.
  NON-PAYMENT (MINERS ARRESTED).
  NON-PAYMENT (MINERS ARRESTED).
  SCOTTISH CENTRAL LAND BANK, LIMITED.
  SCOTTISH CENTRAL LAND BANK, LIMITED.
  DEATH DUTIES (VICTORY BONDS).
  DEATH DUTIES (VICTORY BONDS).
  ROADS AND BRIDGES (GOVERNMENT GRANTS).
  ROADS AND BRIDGES (GOVERNMENT GRANTS).
  LAND VALUATION; DEPARTMENT (MR. W. D. LITTLEWOOD).
  LAND VALUATION; DEPARTMENT (MR. W. D. LITTLEWOOD).
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  RAW COCOA (RE-EXPOTS).
  RAW COCOA (RE-EXPOTS).
  JAM (MAXIMUM PRICES).
  JAM (MAXIMUM PRICES).
  MILK.
  MILK.
  ARABLE LAND (CULTIVATION).
  ARABLE LAND (CULTIVATION).
  ASSISTANCE TO BLIND.
  ASSISTANCE TO BLIND.
DEMOBILISATION.
  TEMPORARY NAVAL OFFICERS.
  TEMPORARY NAVAL OFFICERS.
  MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  OFFICERS (ACCOMMODATION ALLOWANCE).
  OFFICERS (ACCOMMODATION ALLOWANCE).
  MILITARY MISSIONS (CONSTANTINOPLE).
  MILITARY MISSIONS (CONSTANTINOPLE).
  1914–15 STAR.
  1914–15 STAR.
  HAY AND STRAW (GOVERNMENT CONTROL).
  HAY AND STRAW (GOVERNMENT CONTROL).
  CANADIAN AIR FORCE.
  CANADIAN AIR FORCE.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  AEROPLANES (AUTOMATIC CONTROL).
  AEROPLANES (AUTOMATIC CONTROL).
  MARRIED QUARTERS.
  MARRIED QUARTERS.
  WOMEN'S CORPS (RAILWAY WARRANTS).
  WOMEN'S CORPS (RAILWAY WARRANTS).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DISABILITY PENSION.
  DISABILITY PENSION.
  LOCAL COMMITTEES (APPOINTMENTS).
  LOCAL COMMITTEES (APPOINTMENTS).
  TUBERCULOUS PENSIONEES (TREATMENT AND TRAINING).
  TUBERCULOUS PENSIONEES (TREATMENT AND TRAINING).
  WAR GRATUITIES (DELAYS IN PAYMENT).
  WAR GRATUITIES (DELAYS IN PAYMENT).
  NEW SCALE (OFFICERS).
  NEW SCALE (OFFICERS).
  CIVIL LIABILITIES GRANT (APPLICATION).
  CIVIL LIABILITIES GRANT (APPLICATION).
  EX-SERVICEMEN (TRAINING).
  EX-SERVICEMEN (TRAINING).
MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.
  GRETNA COMMITTEE.
  GRETNA COMMITTEE.
  VICTORIA WORKS, WINCHAM.
  VICTORIA WORKS, WINCHAM.
  MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (STAFF).
  MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (STAFF).
  AILSA CRAIG MOTOR COMPANY.
  AILSA CRAIG MOTOR COMPANY.
  EAST AFRICA (GERMAN COLONIES).
  EAST AFRICA (GERMAN COLONIES).
HOUSING.
  METROPOLITAN AREA (ADVISORY BOARD).
  METROPOLITAN AREA (ADVISORY BOARD).
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL SCHEMES.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL SCHEMES.
  MAIDEN BRADLEY, BATH.
  MAIDEN BRADLEY, BATH.
  BRICKS (STANDARD SIZE).
  BRICKS (STANDARD SIZE).
  GARNOAD SCHEME, GLASGOW.
  GARNOAD SCHEME, GLASGOW.
  PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.
  PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.
  WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL DISPLACED EMPLOYES).
  WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL DISPLACED EMPLOYES).
RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.
  SUNDAY SCHOOL EXCURSIONS.
  SUNDAY SCHOOL EXCURSIONS.
  COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS.
  COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS.
  WAGONS SHORTAGE.
  WAGONS SHORTAGE.
  THIRD-CLASS DINING COMPARTMENTS.
  THIRD-CLASS DINING COMPARTMENTS.
  RAILWAY AGREEMENT.
  RAILWAY AGREEMENT.
  GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED RAILROADS.
  GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED RAILROADS.
  DEMOBILISED FIREMAN (REINSTATEMENT).
  DEMOBILISED FIREMAN (REINSTATEMENT).
  ROLLING STOCK SENT OVERSEAS.
  ROLLING STOCK SENT OVERSEAS.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.
  IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.
  SWISS LACE CURTAINS.
  SWISS LACE CURTAINS.
  PATENTS (PROTECTION).
  PATENTS (PROTECTION).
  LEVINSTEIN, LIMITED.
  LEVINSTEIN, LIMITED.
  FUEL AND GAS OIL.
  FUEL AND GAS OIL.
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (FREE POSTAGE).
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (FREE POSTAGE).
POST OFFICE.
  PENSIONERS.
  PENSIONERS.
  POSTMASTERS (STATUS).
  POSTMASTERS (STATUS).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (COMPETENCY CERTIFICATES).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (COMPETENCY CERTIFICATES).
  NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL (SCOTTISH CLERKS' ASSOCIATION).
  NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL (SCOTTISH CLERKS' ASSOCIATION).
  TRADE BOARDS (DISTRIBUTIVE TRADES, SCOTLAND).
  TRADE BOARDS (DISTRIBUTIVE TRADES, SCOTLAND).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPUTATIONS, SCOTLAND.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPUTATIONS, SCOTLAND.
  LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FISHERIES).
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FISHERIES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Frederick Edward, Lord Bishop of SALISBURY—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

THE PEACE TREATY.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, before business begins I beg leave to inform your Lordships that to-morrow the Lord President intends to make a statement as to the terms of Peace. I accordingly propose that a Motion should be taken to-morrow at the beginning of business giving this statement precedence over the other Notices and Orders of the Day, and I trust that your Lordships will agree to this course being taken. The actual terms of the Notice which the Lord President is putting on the Paper are as follow:—
The LORD PRESIDENT—To make a statement as to the terms of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, signed at Versailles, June 28, 1919.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF TILE CHURCH OF ENGLAND (POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Debate resumed (according to Order) upon the Amendment moved by Viscount HALDANE to the Motion "That the Bill be now read 2a." The Amendment was as follows: To leave out all the words after "That" for the purpose of inserting the following words "this House is unwilling, especially in the absence of independent inquiry, to assent to legislation which would exclude the greater part of the people of England from effective influence in the affairs of the National Church as established by the Constitution, and which is so framed as to enable members of that Church to pass laws that may wholly change its character without adequate supervision by Parliament."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, the time has arrived at which it is proper that some observations should be made on this important subject by some one who speaks, in a sense which I will presently explain, on behalf of the Government. My contribution to the debate in the circumstances under which I make it will be brief in its character, but your Lordships are certainly entitled to be informed of the attitude which the Government propose to take in relation to the extremely important proposals which have been the subject of prolonged debate in this House.
The Government, after careful consideration, have decided that they are unable to support the Bill in its present shape, but they do not propose to ask the Government Whips to register your Lord ships' votes, and they do not ask any member of the Government to vote except as his own unfettered judgment on these proposals may suggest to him. Every member of the Government will, of course, vote as he thinks proper and on the merits of the arguments which have been presented to the House. It may very properly be asked, What circumstances is it that has led the Government to an attitude which may be pronounced neutral upon proposals that very greatly concern the Church of England, and, because they greatly concern the Church of England, greatly concern the State also. I should not be dealing candidly with the House if I did not say at once that just as there has been a difference of opinion among your Lordships, just as there has been a difference of opinion (illustrated even in this House) among distinguished members of the Church, so there has been a difference of opinion among the members of His Majesty's Government.
No one who has listened to this debate—certainly no member of the Government who has listened to it—can fail to have been deeply impressed by the speeches which have been made. I have been a listener of your Lordships' debates now for months, and certainly I have never listened to a debate which has been so ably conducted on all sides, and, if I may say so, in which so many remarkable and various contributions of thought have been made. I agree with what was said last night by Lord Salisbury—that, listening to this debate, no one could affect to disregard the support which the Bill has received from

93
very different sections both within the Church of England and proceeding from those who are not members of the Church of England. We should be insensible indeed to the evidence of opinion which this debate has disclosed if we did not take careful note of the fact that so many have addressed, from many angles of thought, considered arguments to the House.
It may then be asked, if such an impression has been produced upon the Government as has been produced on my own mind, how it is that the Government is unable—to use the phrase which I carefully chose a few moments ago—to support the Bill in its present shape. Upon this point Lord Emmott made an observation in his interesting speech yesterday to which I desire to refer. He said that all the criticisms that had been made were not, properly considered, criticisms which were appropriate to the Second Reading stage of a Bill, and that almost all of them were criticisms which would more naturally have been made upon the Committee stage. No one has greater experience of Parliamentary procedure than Lord Emmott, and no one is more familiar than he with the distinction between a Second Reading point and a Committee point. The observation which I now offer is made with a due recognition of his experience on these points. I have to take a different view. I am not prepared to assent to the view that either the Government, or an individual, when driven to reach a conclusion upon the Second Reading stage of a Bill, can banish from mind, in forming that conclusion, the cumulative effect of a large number of points, each of which if considered individually may be pronounced to be more properly Committee points than Second Reading points. It may well be that nine or ten Amendments may be required to bring the Bill into conformity with the views of critics. It may well be possible to contend that each of these views, individually considered, is one which can be put on Committee stage; yet it is possible to urge the conclusion that the cumulative effect of these points of criticism—unless we are told on behalf of those who are responsible for the measure that in respect of each and all they are prepared for accommodation—can and ought to be reflected in the Second Reading stage of the debate.
I listened, as every one listened, with deep respect and unbroken attention to the
94
speech made by the most rev. Primate, and I have read and re-read that speech, as indeed it was my duty knowing that it would be necessary for me to intervene at some stage in the debate. I do not think I do the speech of the most rev. Primate an injustice when I say that the driving force behind it was derived from the forcible complaint which the most rev. Primate made of the delay, the difficulties, and the disappointments which lay in the path of those great Shepherds of the Church who conceive that their charge required legislative attention and correction, and who came again and again to the Parliament of the Nation, and again and again went away with empty hands on matters which in their judgment brooked of no delay. Weighty indeed was the argument the most rev. Primate advanced on that point, and I am authorised to say—and I say it on behalf of a Government which, at the moment at least, represents a more varied and extensive range of political opinion than we have been accustomed to in the past—that applying our minds to the experience of the past (I will say a few words in a moment as to the future) there has been great ground of complaint and of grievance, and I shall be doing the Government less than justice if I do not make it plain that they recognise to-day that there is ground for what was the main complaint advanced in his forcible speech by the most rev. Primate.
I am bound to add that I do not think, if I may say so with respect, that the most rev. Primate and the Archbishop of York, who intervened in the course of the most powerful and interesting speech made yesterday by the Bishop of Manchester, were happily inspired in the particular illustration which they suggested. The Bishop of Manchester, in a speech to which your Lordships, whether agreeing thereto or not, listened with delight, was challenging the statement that many grave cases could be produced in which there had been intolerable delay. The case selected, I think, by the most rev. Primate and the Archbishop of York was that of the Union of Benefices Bill. The selection was, I think, unfortunate. I was asked by the right rev. Prelate who was in charge of that Bill to attempt to secure that the Bill should receive facilities in the House of Commons. I stated, in the course of debate upon that Bill, that it was a Bill in my judgment which in the interest of the Church ought to receive those facilities,

95
and I wrote a letter to the Cabinet in which I set out a considered argument why those facilities should be given. The matter was considered by the Home Committee of the Cabinet at a meeting at which I regret I was unable to be present, but I have been informed since that a decision was taken, not many days ago, by the Home Committee of the Cabinet that a case had been made out for that Bill by the right rev. Prelate who commended it to your Lordships' attention—that the case made out by him and recommended by me had been readily assented to by the Home Committee of the Cabinet—and I was informed that the Bill was to receive all the facilities afforded to a Government measure in the House of Commons. Therefore I think I am entitled to say, of this specific illustration taken in reply to the arguments of the Bishop of Manchester, that those who took it, if I may say so with profound respect, would perhaps have acted more wisely had they ascertained what the history of that measure had been since it left this House, after the statement by me, made on behalf of the Government, of warm sympathy and an earnest desire—
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord to say that I am most grateful for what he has said, and thankful for the assistance that he has given. The precise point of my contention was in reply to the statement of the Bishop of Manchester, that in his experience no question involving legislation had been before Convocation for twelve years, and this particular matter of the Union of Benefices Bill was then mentioned. I was not aware of the facts set out by the noble and learned Lord.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The comment which I was making is not disturbed by the explanation of the Archbishop of York, because I remember that the dialogue, if I may so call it, between the Bishop of Manchester and the Archbishop proceeded upon a further repartee made by the Bishop: Non mihi tantas componere lites; but I heard the Bishop add that at any rate that Bill had come before your Lordships twice and therefore could hardly be cited as a very convincing illustration, to which the Archbishop or the most rev. Primate replied: "Yes, but what progress has it made?" or "What has happened to it?" I have supplied the answer to that question.
96
Do not let me even attempt to give the impression that I am suggesting that this complaint can be disposed of by citing the case of one Bill, however important, which has been dealt with. I do not make that answer. But I say quite plainly that it is notorious that in the past it has been unduly difficult for the Church to obtain that consideration and that time from Parliament which are indispensably necessary if the Church is, under modern conditions, to carry out its great task. I go a little further. I say that it is not permanently tolerable. It has been tolerated perhaps too long that the Church, while it is described, and truly described, as a National Church, should find itself placed at a disadvantage in what is a National Assembly by the circumstances to which attention has been called: first of all that there has been in the past immense and growing Parliamentary congestion, and, secondly—and the most rev. Primate called repeated attention to this in his speech—that there are many members of the House of Commons who no longer are members of the Church of England in the strict sense, and who, in the language of a speaker in the debate, feel some kind of delicacy in intervening when purely Church matters are the subject of discussion.
I dismiss this part of the ease by saying, Let there be no misunderstanding. It is realised that there has in the past been a grievance. There is the most abundant readiness to discuss and consider that grievance with a view to its removal; but I think I ought to add an observation which has not been touched upon in the debate so far, and which in my judgment is extremely relevant to the main case that was made by the most rev. Primate. The conditions in the House of Commons have undergone profound modification in the last six years. How permanent that change will prove to be I do not know, and I am not rash enough to predict, but let no one be guilty of ignoring the profound change which, I believe with success, the conduct of business in the House of Commons has undergone.
We are all apt to generalise of the pre-war days. I am not bold enough to predict that the conditions which prevailed in the days before the war will not recur. I do not know; no one knows; but I can remind your Lordships of the nature of those conditions, and Lord Emmott will know them very well. I am not dealing

97
now with non-controversial legislation, but with great controversial measures, which engaged the activities of the two great Parties. Everybody remembers what happened in the Committee stage debates in the House of Commons. Everybody remembers the congestion of business. Everybody remembers the absolute impossibility of finding time for the discussion of the most urgent measures. What took place then was that on every great controversial measure the combatant forces of the two Parties were deployed. Committees were appointed, consisting on one side of those who were to defend and on the other of those who were to attack the proposals of the Government. The result was that so much eloquence, ingenuity, and perseverance in debate was exhibited that no first-class Bill ever had any chance of haying more than one-third of its contents even considered in Committee. For the moment all that has happily disappeared.
I have expressly excluded myself from the supposition that I am pronouncing any considered view as to whether the change will last. But it is very necessary to notice the effect of that change and the consequence of that change if it does last. At the present moment the difficulty is not in finding Parliamentary time in order to consider the results of Committee work that is done upstairs; the difficulty at the present time, as I am informed, is to provide a sufficient number of measures to engage the activities of those Committees which are doing their work upstairs. Critics may say that the work of those Committees is well done or that it is badly done. I do not know. I should be unwilling to suppose that it was very badly done. It has not at least the temptation of publicity to waste time in discussions of undue length, and I am at any rate disposed very firmly to maintain that the work of Committees sitting upstairs to-day is much more likely to be efficiently done than the work of Committees in the full House when the whole political forces of the Government and the Opposition were deployed to what were almost openly avowed to be partisan ends.
What inference do I draw from this? I draw this inference plainly, that no generalities drawn from our knowledge of the facilities that could be obtained from the House of Commons before the war possess the slightest value in the days which lie in front of us; and I, for one, have
98
regard to the immense volume of legislation which is on its way to this House from another place, which has not, so far as I have been able to observe up to the present, exhibited in relation to pre-war legislation any very noticeable inferiority, yet it has dealt with more complicated topics in the space of six months than under the old Party days it would have been possible to deal with in six years. As I have said, I do not claim that this review meets the whole case which was made by the most rev. Primate, but I say that he would make a very great mistake when forming anticipations of the future if he ignored the change which has taken place in the House of Commons.
But I shall be reminded—and it is true—that we are dealing here with a particular proposal. The grievance so far as it is historical is most fully conceded. I do not even—let no one say that I have exaggerated—claim that the Government is entitled to say to the Church that that grievance is removed. I do not put it so high. And if it is not certainly removed the leaders of the Church are not only entitled, but are bound, to press such matters of alleviation as may completely remove it. We have to ask ourselves what ought to be said about the particular proposal for meeting this admitted difficulty. I sum it up I think correctly if I say the proposal contained in this Bill is elaborate, is complicated, and is unprecedented. Never, I think, was old wine put in a newer bottle. I recognise at the same time that every attempt has been made to provide safeguards that may reassure those who entertain apprehension as to the result of these proposals; and I say quite plainly on behalf of the Government that though I have to make, and must make, criticisms, we realise that that body of essential thought within the Church which has devoted itself to the preparation of the Bill has made every effort which sincerity could suggest to disarm the criticism of those antagonistic to the Bill.
It must be noticed, in the first instance, that the constitution of the National Assembly, of the Legislative Committee, and of the Constitution as defined in subsection (2) of Section 1 is defined by reference. It is true, as the most rev. Primate said, that the papers have been laid before Parliament, and I do not wish to exaggerate the criticism I now make. It is only this. It is far easier to consider

99
and to amend the terms of a Parliamentary document if contained uno instrumento et uno contextu, than if by reference—a habit which I am sorry to see the promotors of this Bill have contracted from the Government. If legislation by reference is to be adopted in private Bills our difficulty will now be aggravated. But I do not wish to push the criticism further than this, that it would be obviously far more convenient if all these details, the constituents of these important bodies, had been presented to Parliament in the same paper and available at the same moment for amendment.
But I desire to make a criticism that goes further. In the first place I say—I avoid technical language, dealing with what I may call the lay constituency—I have a profound fear that, as defined by this Bill, this lay constituency will in practice be determined in numbers which in the long results will do great injustice to the whole of the Church of England over the laity of this country. I cannot, my Lords, even attempt—I have not the knowledge—to form an estimate of the numbers of those who will be entitled to make their influence effectively felt as laymen under that novel test; I do not say necessarily an indefensible test, because these matters are very difficult. I have not the material before me which would enable me to form a judgment as to how many will be the constituents in this new lay constituency. I heard a noble Lord last night put it as low as 100,000, though I think he must have been very wrong; but as far as I know, no one who has studied and worked out this subject has found himself in a position to give your Lordships an estimate which purports to be based upon any process of calculation that could be explained or justified. If any very great reduction is effected by the Bill in the number of those laymen who will make their influence felt, I confess that I, for one, should contemplate that reduction with the greatest anxiety. I can never forget what was said by one of the greatest theologians whom the Church of England ever produced, Hooker—
"There is not any man in the Church of England but the same man is also a member of the Commonwealth, or any member of the, Commonwealth who is not also of the Church of England."
I heard, as your Lordships did, what was said by the Bishop of Manchester yesterday, in an eloquent and moving passage, when he described how by spontaneous
100
impulse the members of the population went to St. Paul's Cathedral when the Armistice was proclaimed. I observe, what would indeed have been expected, that the most rev. Primate disliked as much as and perhaps more than any one in this House could have done, doing anything by legislation which would have corrected that impulse, an impulse so creditable to the people of this country and having such precious consolation to the Church of this country. I suppose that at the present moment, of the laity of this country there are millions who would account themselves qualified to take part in such rejoicings within the bosom of the Church of England.
My noble and learned friend Lord Phillimore last night, in an interesting contribution to this debate—which I am sorry was listened to by only a thin House—represented, I thought, a different angle to any that up to that point had been expressed in the course of this debate. He advanced this contention. He said, Why should any of these people"—meaning those of the laity who had not satisfied the standards laid down in ads Bill—"have anything to do with the government of the Church?" My noble friend asked a difficult question, and one which it seems to me may conceivably probe very deeply into the whole question of the establishment of the Church in this country. May I make a guarded observation on that point? I have only the right to speak as one of those who have enjoyed and deeply valued the position which the existing rules of the Church of England have made possible for those who do not technically belong to it, and it is proper, therefore, that I should speak on such a point in very guarded and very respectful language. I would say this, that while I have always been greatly affected by the difficulties of defending the establishment of the Church in a community such as Wales, where admittedly the Church was the Church of a minority, I have, on the other hand, most deeply prized and valued the maintenance of an established Church in this island in which no such question of minority arises. I may be wrong, but I thought that I detected in the speech of my noble friend Lord Phillimore, and—here again I may be wrong—in the speech of Lord Parmoor, and I am sure I saw signs of it in the writings of Canon Temple, the expression of a view which may very easily ripen into what I should think would mean alike

101
disaster and despair. The view, I think, is being expressed in terms like these: "If no better terms are obtainable, if indeed the is the last message, we prefer Disestablishment." I think it right to say plainly that I am satisfied that those earnest men who have promoted this Bill, and the main current of support which they have derived and which has carried these proposals to their present stage, are entirely averse from any acquiescence in a proposal to disestablish the Church. I recognise that, and I rejoice to recognise it, because speaking as I have already explained, alone, I should regard the separation of the Church and State in these islands as something which was to be deeply regretted.
That view makes it more than ever necessary to scrutinise most closely the conditions of the membership of the laity who, in association with the representatives of the Church, are to discharge functions of such enormous importance. I say nothing of the Legislative Committee. I have commented on the fact that its constitution is not, at any rate directly, before your Lordships, but I come to discuss the constitution of the functions of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Here I must speak very plainly. What are the conclusions in relation to the Ecclesiastical Committee? Here again I ask leave to use untechnical language, and to describe the process as I conceive the process of the Bill to be. The Assembly has the widest possible powers. No one would justify the delegation of powers so absolutely unlimited to an Assembly unless you were able to justify and make good the safeguards that are contained in the latter part of the Bill. That is and must be elementary among all reasonable men. When the Assembly or the Legislative Committee of the Assembly has remitted a matter for consideration to the Ecclesiastical Committee what happens? There are one or two sections or sub-sections of the Bill the object of which, frankly, I only imperfectly understand. Those are the sections or subsections which deal with the relations between the Legislative and the Ecclesiastical Committee. I do not bestow much time upon them, because they seem to me to be of secondary importance. But I do not quite understand why there should be power given to the Legislative Committee to recall a matter from the Ecclesiastical Committee.
But these points are secondary, and they
102
only lead up to the criticism I make which, in my view, is of a much more fundamental character, and is concerned with the constitution and functions of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I may say here quite plainly that I accept unreservedly the statement that has been made that the Ecclesiastical Committee was constituted in the hope of meeting some of the objections of those who desired that the safeguards afforded by this Bill should be complete. I cannot state my view upon the constitution of the functions of the Ecclesiastical Committee more plainly than by saying that from the constitutional point of view I agree entirely, without reservation, with the view laid down by my noble and learned friend last night. There are parts of my noble and learned friend's speech which did not carry, as was natural in so long and argumentative a speech, my complete assent, but as to that part of his speech which analyses and criticises the constitution and functions of the Ecclesiastical Committee, I agree entirely with his argument. I go further and say that I should be greatly surprised if any constitutional lawyer will defend the arrangement which my noble and learned friend assailed, and it was most interesting, and it may even prove to be very important, that in the course of the debate last night the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Salisbury—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not learned.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg the noble Marquess's pardon. I am so accustomed to dealing with so many of my noble and learned friends that one is apt to be confused. My noble friend Lord Salisbury said, in the course of the debate, that he thought it would be possible to meet the very fundamental objection taken by the noble and learned Viscount by means of Amendments, and my noble and learned friend Lord Phillimore said that he and his friends had never liked the arrangement of the Ecclesiastical Committee; and, though I have not had the opportunity of checking my recollection by reading the OFFICTAL REPORT, I think he added that he himself would have preferred that the matter should have been referred to the Secretary of State in order that he might give his certificate, which would affect the views of the Executive Government.

103
These admissions make a very great inroad into the Bill. How great the inroad is may be observed by looking on page 2 of the Bill. Clause 1 is a definition clause, but Clause 2, all the subsections of Clause 3 and Clause 4 postulate and depend upon the functions of the Ecclesiastical Committee, as defined in the Bill and as explained to your Lordships. If any great Amendment is to be made to the Bill affecting the functions of the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council that Amendment is one as to which I express no opinion whether it could be made consistently with maintaining the fabric of the Bill as drafted at present, but at least I say this, that those who are convinced as strongly as many of us are convinced that the functions conceded to the Ecclesiastical Committee by this Bill are not functions which could be harmonised with the working of our Constitution at all are entitled at least to say that on the Second Reading they ought, before they are asked to sanction the Second Reading, to be afforded somewhat in detail the alternative proposals which those who are willing to consider Amendments would be prepared to adopt.
If the Ecclesiastical Committee is modified, then indeed very little of the Bill as at present drafted is left. And the Ecclesiastical Committee surely must be modified. One really cannot in these days adopt a wholly new criterion of the responsibility of Ministers, and of the Crown. It was noticed in the course of the debate that my noble and learned friend Lord Haldane, usually the mildest of controversialists, developed a degree, I will not say of heat, but of earnestness and of vigour, that surprised and interested even those who differed from him. I myself believe, though I suspect that the noble and learned Viscount would not agree, that it was in no degree the odium theologicum—I do not believe that it was even that profound distrust of the prelacy which he inculcated more than once upon the House. I am persuaded that the noble and learned Viscount found himself in the position of an accomplished seaman who contemplates lubberly gear in a boat, and I am satisfied that it was only my noble and learned friend's sense of the most elementary constitutional doctrine which led him to the vigour with which he expressed his views—and indeed my noble and learned friend's speech was well founded.
104
What is this proposal? It is a proposal that a Committee of the Privy Council, to be set up indeed by His Majesty—although it is not so stated it must in effect be so—upon the advice of His Majesty's Ministers, shall give advice to the Sovereign. Now, observe the consequences. It is true that the advice given by this new Committee to the Sovereign is not to bear operative fruit until a resolution of Parliament or a failure of Parliament to resolve has supervened. Until there has been such a resolution, or a failure to arrive at a resolution, or to move one—until then, as a noble Lord said last night with the most perfect justice, the assent of the Sovereign is in a state of suspended animation. But that is not the gravest criticism. The gravest criticism is this, as the noble and learned Viscount said, that for the first time in our constitutional history the Monarch is to accept and to act upon advice which is given to him by a body of men who are not responsible to Parliament. Such a doctrine has only to be stated for its inadmissibility to become apparent. No, proposal so difficult to defend has ever in my recollection of constitutional practice been brought forward in this House, and, whatever other part of this Bill may survive, I cannot believe that this particular proposal will ever receive the sanction of Parliament.
I do not ignore—and I wish to be studiously fair in my expression of views on this matter—I do not ignore the fact that alternative proposals might be made carrying out the view of the promoters of this Bill which would not offend the rule of constitutional purity, and indeed of constitutional substance, which I have endeavoured to define. I think such proposals might be made. I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Phillimore last night was on the track of such a proposal, and I am not carrying the attitude of the Government further than this, that the present proposal as contained in this Bill is not one of which any responsible Government in my judgment (and I think in their judgment) could undertake the burden. I listened to what my noble and learned friend Lord Phillimore said on this point with great interest, and it well deserves the study and consideration of your Lordships. I said a few moments ago that after this stage was passed (and for the purposes of my argument I assume that it has been passed, not by the intervention of the Ecclesiastical Committee

105
but through some other process less open to constitutional objection) the next stage is that the matter is considered, or that there is an opportunity of considering the matter by laying these Papers on the Table of the House. It is indeed elementary that if you provide a serious safeguard and protection by the process of laying these Papers on the Table of the House you do minimise—it may almost be that you destroy—the criticism which is made on this part of the Bill; but everybody will agree that unless the safeguard is really an effective safeguard, having regard to the extent of the powers committed to the Assembly, grave risks are run.
Therefore I make no excuse for very shortly examining the nature and extent of this suggested safeguard. On this point I am, I think, on somewhat strong ground. Because only a few days ago my noble friend Lord Sandhurst introduced into this House certain proposals of the Government upon the subject of health. And, as presented to your Lordships, an integral part of that proposal was that certain plans were contained in it which would become operative if they had been laid on the Table of the Houses of Parliament in the prescribed period (I think forty days) and if no action had been taken on those proposals by either House of Parliament. Such was the proposal of the Government on that occasion and it was the subject of debate before your Lordships. Lord Downham spoke in the first place, and he made this observation—I quote it from memory, but I think it is accurate—that everyone knew that it was futile to suppose that any safeguard was obtained by laying proposals upon the Table of the House of Commons on condition that they should become effective if no objection were taken; that no opportunity of debating such matters arose until 11 o'clock at night, that no sufficient means for publishing such proposals was ever regarded, and it was very doubtful indeed if anyone would ever see the proposals. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, speaking afterwards in the same debate and reinforcing the argument of Lord Downham, said that Lord Downham had described the process which went on in the House of Commons; Lord Downham had shown that you could not rely upon this process; and Lord Stuart of Wortley, also speaking in the course of the debate, described the safeguard as "altogether illusory."
106
Those noble Lords may have been right or they may have been wrong when they were dealing with a proposal made by the Government, but if they were right, then—I speak from memory—I think your Lordships supported in the Lobby the view that the noble Lords pressed upon your Lordships that the method was not satisfactory. An Amendment was proposed, and I think carried, to the effect not that those proposals should become operative if the Houses of Parliament did not dissent from them, but that those proposals should become operative if and when the Houses of Parliament assented to them. Now if that course was a proper precaution to adopt, receiving as it did the authoritative support of the noble Lords whose names I have mentioned, in dealing with the topics which relatively cannot be pronounced more important than those with which your Lordships are concerned to-day—if that view were taken by your Lordships then upon a Government proposal, I cannot help thinking that the noble Marquess (I think it was Lord Crewe) who made the suggestion yesterday was well advised when he recommended to your Lordships the alternative course of providing that if these proposals received the assent of the Houses of Parliament a very great deal of the doubt and difficulty that is felt to-day upon this part of the proposals would be resolved.
I cannot help wondering whether another and a simpler method of dealing with this great problem might not have been possible of adoption, though I advance this suggestion in the most tentative and doubtful fashion for I know well how able are the men and how constant and sincere they have been in their exertions to supply the solution which has found expression in the terms of the present Bill; and I know it is little likely that one whose knowledge of the subject is less intimate and who has been able naturally to contribute far less time to its solution could arrive at a proper conclusion. But I cannot help feeling that instead of the elaborate attempts to define and to formulate the Constitution of the Church, instead of the attempt to define what I have ventured to call a laity constituency with all the consequent; apprehensions as to whether it would take from the service of the Church men who have always been entitled to think themselves members of the Church—whether it might not have been possible to treat the collection of

107
Church opinion as more of a domestic business not to be defined by Act of Parliament but its value to be weighed by the laity and the leaders of the Church. And I have wondered whether those who are the natural leaders of the Church—the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York—might not have found themselves armed with sufficient force within the Church to come to a Secretary of State—if such provision were made by Parliament—certifying to him that the whole current of opinion in the Church demands and desires certain specified legislative changes, if such proposals were made, and provided that on such certificate being obtained and the proposals being laid before the Houses of Parliament the Houses of Parliament assent, that legislation should become immediately operative. Had such proposals been brought forward, I know that many who feel a great difficulty about these present proposals would at least have given them most anxious and careful consideration.
I have had no graceful task to discharge to-day. I would very gladly have given a different answer to those who have laboured so strenuously in the service of the Church with such devoted service; but I shall have served the Government ill if—however ill expressed that which I have attempted to say on the Bill—I have failed to give the impression that they sympathise profoundly with the object which the most rev. Primate has set before himself, and that they would not grudge, even in this busy session, giving Parliamentary time if they saw a solution which would at once command the assent of the Church and safeguard the vital interest of the nation.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, will you bear with me for a few moments if I venture to point to the opinion of a large majority of the Church people in south-west Lancashire and also to the opinion of a number of younger Evangelical clergymen. Eighteen months ago the main provisions of this Bill were submitted to the rurideconal conferences in the diocese of Liverpool. In every case the provisions of this Bill were approved by large majorities in those twelve rurideconal conferences. When a few months later the same provisions were submitted to the Liverpool Diocesan Conference—one of the most democratic assemblies I suppose in England, consisting net only of all the clergy but of two representatives from every
108
parish in the diocese, directly elected—these provisions were passed also by an overwhelming majority. I think that the significance of this vote is evident. Liverpool is not famed as being a stronghold of Sacerdotus; indeed, I should imagine that it is one of the most Protestant dioceses in England; and these hard-headed shrewd North-countrymen feared no outbreak or increase of Sacerdotalism in the operation of the Bill in the future.
Why did those North-country-men approve the provisions of this Bill by so large a majority? First, because in their opinion it makes for liberty. At present in the Church of England there are grave abuses, and we cannot vet, correct them. There are serious faults to be attended to, and we cannot combat them. There are considerable changes which are most desirable in the changing conditions of the twentieth century. But we are cribbed, cabined, and confined. We have to apply to Parliament, and when we apply Parliament is too congested with work to be able to consider our needs. We are tied and bound by restrictions which no doubt were desirable and useful in the sixteenth century, but which are burdensome and, I venture to think, full of danger in the twentieth. What we ask for is a reasonable and sober liberty for what I think was yesterday called a measure of Church Home Rule, by the devolution by Parliament to the Church of rights which it has, not time to exercise, a devolution to safeguard it; and in that devolution no attempt whatever is to be made to prevent Parliament having a final control over the destinies of the Church.
Secondly, I believe these North-countrymen approved the main provisions of this Bill because it makes for justice. The union of Church and State as I understand it is, in words very familiar to most of you, "for the mutual society, help, and comfort which the one ought to have of the other in prosperity and adversity." The Church is stronger for its public recognition by the State; the State, I trust, is better for its alliance with the Church. No domination—that is the object of that union. There have been times in our history when the Church has dominated the State, and they have been calamitous. There have been days also when the State has oppressed the Church, and they have been full of mischief. To-day, when changing circumstances require some measure of re-adjustment, we

109
ask that in justice to the good work which the Church is doing that measure will not be denied.
This Bill is not, as it is said, a political manœuvre; it is not a High Church conspiracy; it is not, a disablement of half of the citizens of this country; I venture to say that it is an honest, a fair, and a well-thought-out attempt to meet a real and pressing need; and if Amendments are needed I am perfectly convinced that those Amendments will be accepted if we can be assured of justice. I speak as a member of the Archbishops' Committee from the first, as a member also of the Grand Committee appointed by the Representative Church Council. The members of those Committees were chosen with great fairness and sagacity; they represented every political opinion and all schools of thought in the Church. The discussions were long and thorough and wonderfully outspoken, and this Bill is the result. And this Bill, I feel, is not a plea for favour or for privilege, but a request for justice.
Lastly, I think our North-countrymen approved of the provisions of this Bill on the grounds of efficiency. A magnificent future lies before the Church of England, perhaps the greatest opportunity she has ever had in the whole of her great history. She is very conscious of her past shortcomings. She views them with shame and confusion of face. But she is going forward penitent and full of hope and high purpose to meet this great future which is lying before her. A new life is stirring within her, a new vision is shining before her; new forces are coming to her aid. Those who know best at present the state of her Universities and of the allied colleges assure us that they never had a finer set of material to train for Holy Order or a larger amount of such material. The men at present there are men whose characters have been moulded and whose faith has been tested by the terrible ordeal of the Great War which has passed. It is to make the work of these men effectual that we ask this House to pass this Bill, with amendment if necessary; for it is the duty of the Church of England to strengthen the soul of a great people, and to make it in the future not unworthy of its great past, and so to work that the Church will not fail to gather into it the fruits of that God-sent task which has been won for us at so great a cost, the cost of
110
death and wounds of our bravest and our best.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I should first of all like to thank my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack for the extreme consideration and lucidity with which he informed your Lordships of the line taken by the Government on this measure. I hope that before I sit down I shall be able to throw some light on certain phases of this scheme which are still dark to you. He had not, of course, had time to read the literature that exists on this subject; but I hope he will allow me to say that, so far from being discouraged by his speech, I regard it as a landmark in this great movement.
I hope that the noble and learned Viscount who moved the Amendment that we are discussing will not take it amiss if I say that I think he was an odd person to move the rejection of this Bill. This Bill is brought forward by the Church of England, and it affects every single Englishman and woman. But it affects no one else. It does not affect Scotland or any Scotsman at all. Presently my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh will, I hope, be bringing into this House a measure promoted by the Church of Scotland and affecting all Scotsmen and all Scotswomen. What would be said in Scotland if I were to get up and propose the rejection of that Bill? I do not see the difference between the two cases. And the noble and learned Viscount, having thought it right to play this part, has laid before your Lordships a presentation of this Bill and of the scheme on which it rests which was described by the Bishop of Ely, and accurately described by him, as an absolute travesty of the facts.
And, my Lords, I ought to know. I had no part whatever in commencing this great movement, but I had the honour of being selected by the Archbishops to preside over the first Committee which produced this scheme. And, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has reminded your Lordships, a stronger or more representative Committee has never met to consider any affair, whether connected with Church or State; and to suggest that the laymen, not to mention the ecclesiastics of that Committee would have propounded such a scheme as that sketched by the noble and learned Viscount is simply grotesque. When I remind you that Mr. Arthur Balfour

111
was one member and the Duke of Devonshire another, you will see that to suggest that men such as these would produce a scheme for obliterating the rights of the laity and putting England under the heel of the Episcopacy surely is grotesque.
No one can really understand this Bill unless he has had time—and I know that very few of your Lordships can possibly have had the time—to read both the original Report of the Committee over which I presided and the Report of the Grand Committee of the Representative Church Council over which the Dean of Westminster presided, but no one can judge of either Report unless he reads the whole of it. The passages selected by the noble and learned Lord who moved the rejection of this Bill are taken from their context and they are valueless unless read with the whole document. It is quite true that in that document it is stated—and I am very glad it is stated—that the origin of the Church is not Parliamentary but Divine and that the final, the ultimate, allegiance of the Church is not due to Government but to God. Having laid that down, this Report—which was the work of a. body of men the great majority of whom are opposed to Disestablishment and Disendowment (and this Bill is promoted, let me say, by that great central body of the Church that is resolutely opposed to a severance of that union which has persisted now for nearly 1,500 years)—again and again acknowledged that, while that union persisted, the State had a right to lay down the lines of control under which the Church must work; and, again and again, that Report states that every single Englishman and woman, of whatever religious beliefs or disbeliefs, has rights within the Church and in connection with the Church which it is the duty of Parliament to protect and preserve. I want to say that at the commencement because no one would have guessed it from listening to the speech of the noble and learned Lord.
The best answer that I can make to the indictment of the noble and learned Viscount and of the Bishop of Manchester is to describe what the scheme laid on the Table of your Lordships' House really is, and what is the object of the Bill. It is not a "new constitution for the government of the Church" which, I think, was the term used by my noble friend Lord Crewe. It is not that. It asks three things from Parliament. Firstly, it asks
112
Parliament to give the laity in each parish an opportunity, for the first time, of having a say in what properly concerns them in the ecclesiastical affairs of the parish, by recognising the parochial Church meeting and the parochial Church Council; secondly it asks Parliament to give the Church the opportunity of telling Parliament what changes in the law it thinks necessary to enable it to do its work properly, by recognising the measures suggested by the Church Assembly as put forward authoritatively; and, thirdly, it asks Parliament to deal with proposals for Church legislation so put forward by a different process from that from which Churchmen have learned by bitter experience that they can expect absolutely nothing. Under those three heads the whole of the request made by the Church to Parliament is covered, and let me say again, in order that there may be no misunderstanding, that there is no suggestion of any sort or kind that Parliament should abandon its present methods of dealing; with Church affairs if it chooses to use them. If this Bill became law tomorrow it would still be open to any member of the House of Commons, or to any member of your Lordships' House, or to any Government, to bring in and pass through Parliament a measure concerning the Church just as it can be done to-day.
This Bill would not confer on the Church Assembly any power of making law or changing law. It is simply an effort to get Parliament to give fair consideration to proposals put forward by the Church Assembly for changes in the law. I dwell on that because it is a very important distinction, and let me remind you now that the Church Assembly which is described in the scheme is no new body. It has been working, under the name of the Representative Church Council, for fifteen years, and its record is well known. The only change of importance in its constitution which is included in this scheme is the great extension of the lay franchise, to which I will come presently. What is the Church Assembly? It consist of three Houses, each quite distinct—the House of Bishops (that is, the members of the two Upper Houses of Convocation of Canterbury and York); the House of Clergy (the members of the two Lower Houses of Convocation of Canterbury and York); and the House of Laity. On what is the House of Laity based? How is it elected? And what is the franchise on which it

113
ultimately reposes? The franchise on which it ultimately reposes is this—any man or woman of eighteen years of age, who has been baptised and is prepared to sign a declaration that he or she is a member of the Church of England and has not joined any other religious body with which the Church of England is not in communion, has a right to be put on the roll of electors for the parish in which he or she lives. That is an immensely wide franchise. That franchise is at least as wide as the Parliamentary franchise. The total number of voters entitled to be enrolled, if they claimed the privilege, on the parish lists would not be found to be less than the corresponding number of voters in those parishes for the House of Commons. Therefore nobody can say that the basis is not an extremely wide and democratic one.
But why are there any limitations? Why should a declaration be made that the man or woman is a member of the Church of England and has not joined any other religious body with which the Church is not in communion? My noble friend Lord Finlay objected to that limitation, and he has not been the only one. "Why have that limitation?" says Lord Finlay. I say, Why not have that limitation? Lord Emmott dealt with this point I thought with great force yesterday, and I will not repeat what he said, but I should like to put it to your Lordships in this way. This is a proposal to enable the Church of England to tell Parliament where the shoe of obsolete law pinches. Who is o tell Parliament where the shoe of obsolete law pinches except those who wear the shoe. Those who have deliberately joined some other religious body, or have held aloof from all religious observances, do not know where the shoe pinches. Why should they speak for the Church on this matter! Remember, my Lords, that there is no question here of franchise and of preserving the rights of English men or women as citizens. It is only to enable the Church to tell the nation where in practice the shoe of law pinches, and I ask how can anybody tell that unless it is those who wear the shoe.
But that is not all. Consider what possible effect within the parish might be produced if that limitation was removed. When your Lordships have time to study this scheme you will see how very real is the power proposed to be given to the laity of the Church of England in dealing with
114
ecclesiastical affairs in their own parish, where at present they have no say at all in matters which concern them. It is provided that the roll of parish electors shall be open the whole year round up to within a fortnight of the parish meeting, and the intention of the framers of this scheme is that there shall be no inquisition into the opinions of those who claim, but that the honour of the man making the declaration should be trusted. The parish meeting is to take place at least once a year. On that occasion all kinds of questions may be asked concerning the ecclesiastical affairs of the parish. The fear of many excellent clergymen is that they should be unduly interfered with in their work by the kind of questions asked on those occasions. At that same parish meeting the parochial church council is to be elected, and it is permanently, according to our conception, to have a direct voice en behalf of the laity in the ecclesiastical affairs of the parish. Again I say that many excellent clergymen fear that such a council might trench on ground where their duty is clear and where the laity are not concerned.
I quite admit that the provisions both for the parish church meeting and the parish church council must be carefully safeguarded, but I am prepared on my part to run some risks in order to give the laity for the first time a real voice in the concerns of their own parish. That being so, is it not only fair to the Church in the parish and to the incumbent that he should not rim the risk of being dealt with by people who feel no obligation or responsibility as Church people at all, who never have attended church, never mean to attend church, and who take advantage of a declaration in which there is no limitation to come in and control him, and possibly override the views of those who do use the Church, and who are really practising members of the Church. I do not suggest that that would happen often, but I do suggest that it is a real danger. The occasion might arise in a somewhat rather exciting moment in the history of the parish, and I say it is a greater danger than the danger of excluding such an individual as my honourable and learned friend described yesterday from the list of Church voters. Whatever rule is made there are sure to be hard cases, and nobody knows better than my noble and learned friend that hard cases do not make good law. That is the real case for limitation such as is suggested in this scheme; that the

115
purpose for which the franchise is to be used is in respect of the Church Assembly informing Parliament where the shoe of law pinches, and where in the case of the parish the matter in question is one which only really concerns those who have used the Church, who mean to use the Church, and who acknowledge their responsibility as Church people.
The election of the parochial church council is not the only function of the electors in the matter of elections at the annual parochial church meeting. It is also proposed that on the same occasion they should elect the representatives of the parish to the diocesan conference. There are some cases where the diocese is so big that it is not possible every parish should have direct representation, but I hope one of the very first measures laid before Parliament by the Church Assembly, under this Bill, if it comes into operation, will be for the division of these dioceses which are now so unwieldy and unmanageable in size. Therefore, the scheme is that each parish should have direct lay representation on the diocesan conference, and the diocesan conferences elect the members of the House of Laity: and they elect them by proportional representation. I want to draw your Lordships' attention particularly to the provision of proportional representation, because under it it is quite impossible for any party in the Church to "collar" the House of Laity. It is quite impossible for the High Church Party, the Low Church Party, or the Broad Church Party to get hold of the whole of the representation. The system of proportional representation will make it quite certain that each party gets its fair share of representation.
The question is asked, and I think it is in the mind of the Lord. Chancellor, Why should election to the House of Laity be indirect instead of direct? There is nothing that the framers of the scheme would so much desire, if they saw their way to do it, than to have the House of Laity elected by direct representation. If any of your Lordships can suggest a method by which it can be done nobody would be more delighted than the framers of the scheme. But think what it means. It means cutting up the whole of England into constituencies, having machinery for keeping Rolls in artificial areas, and it means all the paraphernalia of a General Election, with great expenditure to the candidates going round
116
to the constituencies. Such a machinery is, I am afraid, quite beyond the means of any body in existence except the State. The proof of that is to be found in the fact that the great General Assembly of Scotland is elected by indirect election, and the Great Assemblies of the branches of the Anglican Church in the United States and the Dominions without exception are all elected by a system of indirect election—and no doubt always for the same reason. Then one point more which I wish to make about the parochial Church Councils, the Diocesan Conferences, and the House of Laity, because I want you to understand every part of this scheme.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I be excused for a moment for interrupting my noble friend? He was giving us a most interesting, clear, and full description of the provisions laid down in the White Paper before us with regard to the constitution of the Church Assembly. When I was speaking I ventured to criticise certain of those provisions, but I criticised them on the understanding that your Lordships would be able to consider them with a view to asking whether the promoters of the Bill would agree to their forming part of the Bill as it is before us. Now my noble friend describes them, but as the Bill stands we are in no position to deal with them or to alter an iota of their terms. The question I desire to put to my noble friend and the promoters of the Bill is whether they are willing that these provisions should form part of the Bill, or whether my noble friend is merely defending them in order to get a Second Reading for the Bill. It appears to me that the distinction is of the first importance, and I cannot help thinking that the vote on the Amendment of my noble and learned friend (Viscount Haldane) to be given by many of your Lordships must greatly depend upon the answer which my noble friend or the promoters of the Bill are able to give.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My noble friend is quite entitled to put that question, but I was already going to answer it. I think that, altogether apart from the answer given to that question, it is very necessary that your Lordships and the whole public should understand what the scheme is. It was, however, my full intention to give, and I shall be giving in a very few seconds, the answer to that question of the noble Marquess the Leader of the

117
Opposition. I was going to say that the members of these Councils must be communicants. That is in strict accord with all precedents. It is true also of all the corresponding Assemblies in the Church of Scotland, and the corresponding Assemblies in the Churches in the United States and the Dominions.
The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, Viscount Haldane, and Viscount Finlay, all asked the question which has been asked again: Ought not this scheme to be put as a schedule to the Bill? But ought it? In the first place, I offer to you a very practical objection. If the scheme is put into the Bill as a schedule you would have a Bill of enormous length, which would not have the slightest chance of getting through the House of Commons. That is a real practical objection. But, further, I ask you to remember what the proposal is. The proposal is for a body which will have the opportunity of informing Parliament what reforms the Church desires, but gives the Church no power to enact those reforms itself. Is it, or is it not, reasonable that the Church itself should say how that body is to be composed? Would it not be a mere mockery to pretend to give the Church such a body and then form it in a way unacceptable to the Church. I suggest to you, my Lords, that considering the wholly limited purpose for which this body is put forward this is a perfectly reasonable view, especially as I remind von that this is no new body but one which has been working in the public eye now for more than fifteen years.
It has been said that the powers given to this body in the Bill are too wide. Is that really the case? If Parliament once admits the justice of the scheme, and such a body is established, why confine its activities only to matters of comparatively small moment. Is it not wholly in the public interest, and according to the wishes of Parliament, that on the most important questions Parliament should also be informed of what is the mind of the Church. The whole question depends, as my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack so justly observed, upon whether the guarantees of control by Parliament are sufficient. Granted that the guarantees of control are wholly sufficient, then I contend that there is no ground for limiting the questions concerning the Church about Which the Church may put forward proposals to Parliament.
118
Now I come to the Bill, and those parts of the Bill which have so troubled my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and the noble and learned Viscount who moved the rejection of the Bill; that is, the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly and the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council. The Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly is nothing but a conduit pipe between that Assembly and the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council, and those clauses which my noble and learned friend did not wholly understand are of the most innocent type possible. The whole purport of those clauses is this: if the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council find there are objections to a measure proposed which have never occurred to the framers of that measure, or if that committee is able to point out that the effects of the measure go far beyond anything contemplated by the framers, then it is surely reasonable that the Church Assembly should, through the Legislative Committee, have the power of withdrawing the measure. Surely it is quite clear that such a body as the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council will throw much light even on a measure that has been carefully considered by the Church Assembly. That light may only be in the shape of a small Amendment. That small Amendment may be inserted by the Church Assembly, and then the measure can go back to the Legislative Committee, and from that Committee to the Ecclesiastical Committee, and then go forward with the Report of the Committee to Parliament. Or the criticism may be of such a serious kind that the Church Assembly at once might withdraw the proposal with the intention of bringing it forward in a new form in a new session. But there is no suggestion of secrecy. All the criticism of the Ecclesiastical Committee will be laid before the Church Assembly by the Legislative Committee of that body and will pass into public-knowledge. I hope that explanation is clear to my noble and learned friend, because I assure him that there is nothing hidden in those proposals at all, and that their sole purpose is to enable the Church Assembly to make an Amendment if necessary in a measure before it goes before Parliament, or, in the event of the criticism being a very serious one, of withdrawing the measure altogether.
Now I come to the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council, and I can

119
assure my noble and learned friend that the very last thing the framers of this scheme intended was any treason to the Constitution. Also may I inform them that the words to which they take so much exception were suggested and passed as the proper constitutional words by legal luminaries no less than themselves. This is a question of a difference between great lawyers. We were advised by one set of great lawyers that this was the right formula; we are told by another set of great lawyers that these words are a treason to the Constitution. I assure you that we laymen are wholly innocent in the matter. What was the intention of the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council? Whether the scheme is good or whether the scheme is bad, it had no idea behind it whatever except this, that no measure proposed by the Church Assembly should go before Parliament without the keenest possible examination by the best intellects that could be found in the country, and that that examination should be conducted exclusively from the point of view of the State and the rights of the English man and the English woman as a citizen.
To put it in another way, this Committee was not supposed to have any responsibility to the Church at all, but only to the State. Its function would be in a Report to state quite clearly and fully what the effect of the measure proposed is—how it affected existing law; what changes in the law it entailed; and how, if at all, it affected the rights of the State or the rights of the citizen. It was intended, in fact, that when a measure proposed by the Church Assembly came before Parliament it should come accompanied by an authoritative Report of this Committee of the Privy Council, which would give Parliament, the Cabinet, the Press, and the public more information about that measure and more knowledge of it than of any other kind of Bill ever coming before Parliament. That was the sole intention of those who framed this scheme.
Now I come to the words. The words, we were advised by most competent lawyers, were the right constitutional formula. The Report is a Report to Parliament, to the Cabinet, to the Press, and to the public of England; and we were informed by these legal advisers that the right formula of an Act of Parliament was advice to the King. If that is wrong, by all means alter it. If the right words are
120
that the Report and advice should be to the Cabinet, or to the Prime Minister, or to Parliament, by all means change the words; they are not mine, they are the words of lawyers; and I altogether dispute that it would be fair to condemn this Bill because one set of lawyers think that another set of lawyers have made a great mistake in the drafting. It never occurred to me for one single moment that anybody could doubt that the final action taken by the King could only be taken on the advice of his Ministers. It never occurred to us that anybody should doubt that, or think otherwise; and if change is required in the draft of the Bill to put that right, I certainly would be the first to vote for it. But the fault, if fault there is, is the fault of lawyers.
Having, I hope, fully explained this matter of the Privy Council, I will now deal with the procedure before Parliament. The words in Clause 4 are these—
"When the Ecclesiastical Committee shall have reported to His Majesty on any measure presented by the Legislative Committee, the report, together with the text of such measure, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within fourteen days, if Parliament be then sitting, or, if not, then within fourteen days after the next meeting of Parliament, and thereupon—
"(1) If the Ecclesiastical Committee shall have advised His Majesty to give His Royal Assent to the measure, then, unless within forty days either House of Parliament shall direct to the contrary—"
That is, pass a Resolution adverse to the measure—
"such measure shall be presented to His Majesty, and shall have the force and effect of an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified thereto.
"(2) If the Ecclesiastical Committee shall have advised His Majesty that the measure ought not to receive the Royal Assent, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon: Provided that if both Houses of Parliament within forty days so direct—"
Either House of Parliament can stop a measure recommended by the Privy Council, but it requires both Houses of Parliament to give authority to His Majesty to give his assent in the case of a measure adversely criticised by the Privy Council—
"such measure shall be presented to His Majesty, and on the Royal Assent being signified thereto shall have the force and effect of an Act of Parliament"

121
I want to make two observations about that before I pass on to consider it. In the first place there was no intention, as imagined by my noble friend, that the Church Assembly or the Legislative Committee thereof would have any influence on the Report of the Privy Council to Parliament. These private conferences were exclusively from the point of view of enabling the Church Assembly to correct a mistake, as I have already pointed out; and, of course, the Privy Council alone would be responsible for its Report to Parliament. When the words are used "advise His Majesty to assent or not to assent," I take it what it means is this—that if the Committee of the Privy Council was of opinion that the measure proposed was in any degree contrary to the interests of the State, or if it in any degree whatever impinged on or infringed the rights of the citizen, that would be an adverse Report. If, on the other hand, the Committee could give a testimonial to the effect that the rights of the State and of the citizen were not in any degree adversely affected, then I imagine that would be a favourable Report.
As the Standing Orders in the House of Commons are now, what would happen under this procedure? I think the words I am going to read are an exact and accurate description—
"The consideration of a Resolution relating to a measure laid on the Table of the House of Commons under the provisions of the Enabling Bill would be governed by the rule prescribing the interruption of business at eleven o'clock, and the adjournment of the House of Commons at 11.30 (Standing Order No. 1). By that rule, certain business is exempted from the operation of the rule. This business is called exempted business. Exempted business may be entered upon after eleven o'clock, and the House remains sitting until it is disposed of unless a Motion for Adjournment be carried. The consideration of measures under the Enabling Bill will be exempted business. For the rule is that when by an Act of Parliament a particular effect has been given to an expression of disapproval by the House of any rules or orders laid before it, then the consideration of the Address or Resolution expressing that disapproval is exempted business. (See "Manual of Procedure," edition 1904, page 31, paragraph 36, Note.)."
There are two members of this House who have had very great experience of the working of this method of procedure—Lord Emmott and Lord Stuart of Wortley. My recollection of what Lord Stuart of Wortley said is quite different from the recollection of the Lord Chancellor.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend will, perhaps, allow me to say that examined it only a quarter of an hour before I came to the House, and any recollection is fresh.
THE EARL OF SELBOBNE: Lord Stuart of Wortley said, according to the noble and learned Lord, that he thought this procedure did not give proper security. I certainly understood kiln to say that he thought it did give full security, and Lord Stuart of Wortley nods his assent. I am correct then that Lord Stuart of Wortley and Lord Emmott both, from their great experience in the House of Commons, said they thought this procedure did give full security for adequate discussion. Why did we adopt that procedure? Because at this time it was the only alternative procedure open to us to adopt. The procedure to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has called attention, and to which Lord Finlay and Lord Crewe called attention, was not in existence when this scheme was framed. I think it has only come into existence during this session of Parliament. Therefore I think we may be pardoned for adopting in our scheme the only alternative procedure of which we then had cognisance as admitted in either House of Parliament. But we have now, as pointed out by noble Lords, an alternative scheme, and that may very properly be the one which your Lordships and the House of Commons may wish to adopt.
This brings me to a statement that I think will be rather a surprise to many of your Lordships who heard Lord Haldane's speech, or the speech of the Bishop of Manchester. There was the suggestion that there was an attempt in this scheme to smuggle measures of the greatest importance and of far-reaching effect through Parliament without adequate discussion. Not one single critic either in this House or in the correspondence in The Times has drawn your Lordships' attention to the passage in the report of the Grand Committee of the Representative Church Council which I shall read to your Lordships. We ourselves, who are responsible for bringing this Bill before Parliament, have in the clearest manner possible directed Parliament s attention to this point, and asked Parliament to devise measures for making the control of Parliament over this kind of legislation effective. Why have our critics never mentioned that

123
fact? I am the first to admit that the kind of measure which may be brought to the notice of Parliament under this scheme falls into two classes. There is what I may call the ordinary measure of routine—a measure, say, for the formation of a new bishopric. I do not think there is one of your Lordships, nor the noble and learned Lord who moved the rejection of this Bill, who would not agree that the existing procedure after eleven o'clock would be quite adequate to deal with a case like that, but as I have strongly urged to your Lordships that the Church Assembly should not be precluded from bringing forward proposals of much greater importance, so I am the first to admit, and we who are responsible for bringing this scheme are the first to admit, that in those cases this might not be a sufficient method of maintaining Parliamentary control.
Will your Lordships listen to this passage from the Report of the Committee of the Representative Church Council, dated the 3rd of October last, which is public property—
"It has been brought to our notice that the method of passing legislation through Parliament as proposed by this Bill is regarded with apprehension in some quarters, on the ground that measures of importance might be passed without any opportunity for adequate discussion. We do not believe this apprehension to be justified. We are confident that important measures, exciting widespread public interest, would be sure of proper attention from the Houses of Parliament, and from the Government, which controls the time of the blouse of Commons. The apprehension, however, is entitled to attention; and the remedy, we believe, must be sought, as regards the House of Commons, from the House itself. It might be possible for the House to provide by Standing Order that Motions relating to measures decided by the Speaker to be of special importaoc—or claimed to be such by a certain number of Members—should be assured a special and convenient time for consideration. In any case there would be no difficulty in bringing this matter prominently before the House when the Enabling Bill is under discussion, and pressing for such a settlement as would allay the fears that are now entertained."
We are accused of trying to foist upon Parliament a scheme to smuggle through legislation of great importance. I think that passage by itself disposes altogether of that unworthy suggestion.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: As the noble Earl has referred to something that I said, I would ask him why, if that passage is to be taken seriously, they did not in the Bill ask for an affirmative Resolution of the House of Commons instead of leaving
124
things to go through sub silenlio. It is no use to say it is new. This procedure has been in the Military Manœuvres Act for years.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Well, I did not know it. If the noble Viscount tells me that that procedure has been in the Military Manœuvres Act for years, that is the only Act he can quote; and although I have heard almost every day of my Parliamentary life of the other procedure, I only can say that I never heard of the positive form of procedure until this session. I suggest, after what I have been able to tell your Lordships, that nothing remains of the case that this is an attempt to deprive the laity of their rights, and to hand over the whole government of the Church to the Bishops, and of the suggestion that we wish to smuggle through Parliament measures without adequate discussion, I think the most remarkable feature of this debate has been that the urgent need for adjusting the machinery of the Church to the changed and changing conditions of the time has been denied by no one in this debate. Nor has any speaker denied that Parliament cannot deal with the case under its present rules.
I have only one other assertion to controvert, and that is this—that the difficulty of getting Parliament to deal with Church questions arises from divisions in the Church itself. That is not true. There are divisions in the Church, and great divisions, and so there always will be in any body, secular or religious, in which, as is the case in the Church of England, there is free speech and free thought. But now to-day the men of extreme view on one side or another are heard by the public but the great central body of common sense Church opinion is silent, because they have no organ through which they can express their opinion. If once you give the Church the opportunity of deciding all these questions you will see that that great, silent, central body, absolutely imbued with the common sense of the nation, will come to Parliament without any hesitation with a decision on all these questions.
When every institution in the State is being reconstructed, is the Church alone to be refused the power of telling Parliament what changes it thinks necessary? The Bishop of Manchester said yesterday, "Why should not the Nonconformists have the same privilege as Churchmen are

125
asking for themselves? "Why not? In the Report of the original Committee and of the later one in most respectful terms the hope is expressed that if any change is made by Parliament in this matter for the benefit of the Church the benefit may be extended to Nonconformists, if they wish it. And the technical difficulty, which the right rev. Prelate suggested, of the number of different denominations is no difficulty in this case, because there is a body well known and greatly respected, the Free Church Council, and the Free Church Council could in such a matter in all that concerned the Nonconformist take the place of the Church Assembly.
I have been asked how this question affects disestablishment. That is much too large a question to argue to-night. But I do say without the slightest hesitation that the great majority of those who are favouring this Bill are opposed to disestablishment and disendowment. I think the only real danger that could arise in this country of disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of England would be if the young men and young women of the Church who are burning with zeal and wish to see the machinery of the Church adapted to the needs of the time found that reform under the Establishment was impossible. If they found that Parliament refused every demand, or request, or petition of theirs for the opportunity of adjusting the machinery of the Church to the requirements of the age then I believe that thousands of these young men and women would turn as their only resource to the alternative of disestablishment. And one of my strongest reasons for pleading so passionately to Parliament to give the Church the opportunity of reforming itself is this. I am one of those to whom the severance of this 1,500 years old connection would be a pang almost past expression. That may be unintelligible to many of my Nonconformist brethren. I know it is. But it is a view which many of us hold.
But there is another aspect of this case which I feel even more strongly than on the subject of disestablishment, and that is the question of reunion. I am not alluding now to the reunion of the sundered fragments of the West, nor to the reunion of the East and West; I am thinking of reunion between the members of the Church of England and those whose fathers were once members, but who left the Church and
126
became Nonconformists There is far greater chance of reunion to-day than there was twenty years ago. I do not believe that that reunion can ever be brought about by the sacrifice of fundamental principles on either the one side or the other, but what I do believe is this, that my Nonconformist fellow-countrymen will feel far more attraction to a Church, and to union with a Church, which has made every possible effort to reform itself of abuses and to make itself more fit for its divine mission, than they feel towards the Church to-day.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I venture to begin my few remarks to you upon this important subject by tendering hearty thanks to the noble Earl who has just sat down. I cannot say that I am in agreement with him in all that he has said. But I am aware of this, that to no one do we owe so much in the discussion of this all-important problem as we do to the noble Earl, unless it be to his distinguished son.
I think that all of us who have listened to the debate so far must have felt two things—first, the difficulty that has attended Church legislation in the part, and, secondly, the importance of improving the approach between the Church and Parliament. We have welcomed very heartily what we heard earlier in the afternoon, from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who explained to us that the new system of Parliamentary debate which has been initiated in the last few months might tend to the advantage of the Church as much as to the advantage of other bodies. For the Church by no means stands alone in the difficulty of gaining attention to its requirements. And we may add that these ideas of devolution which are in the air to-day may also help the Church, as they may help other bodies, if means are devised by which Parliament shall be saved from having to spend its attention upon small and local and sectional matters, and therefore have the more time to give to the larger and more important questions.
The noble Earl has referred to the question whether it is the divisions in the Church which have militated against attention in another place. There, I confess, I do not quite agree with him; and once more I was rejoiced to hear the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack

127
say that the important Union of Benefices Bill—in which I have the honour to interest myself—is to receive the support of the Government. That measure came to the Government with a recommendation that the united voice of the Church was in its favour. We have been glad to hear all that has been urged on behalf of the laity in regard to this Bill and every one is anxious that the laity should be put into such a position that they may exercise an official and a useful voice in the councils of the Church. If the Bill before us accomplished the two very desirable advantages of improving the approach of the Church to Parliament and of giving the laity such a position as we wish them to hold, I think it would have met with approval from all sections of this House. These advantages are very real, very great, and very obvious, and I confess that at first sight they seemed to me to cover the whole ground; but I do not deny that protracted and more careful consideration of the whole question has revealed to me other points which I do not think we must allow to pass from our consideration.
First of all, I doubt whether this new Church Assembly will give us the unity which the noble Earl indicated; it will no doubt give us a semblance of unity, but I doubt whether the unity will be so real as to carry full weight with it. The other day I read in another connection in The Times that the evils of an existing system are enumerated and then exchanged for so many benefits under the new; the merits of the first and the drawbacks of the second are ignored. I am afraid that in our considerations we may fall under that criticism of those who were dealing with another question. The more I consider the drawbacks of this Bill the more vivid I think they become. As I have already said, the advantages are clear and plain to the eye from the beginning, and they grow no bigger on consideration. It is said that if this Bill is passed the old methods will remain as they are. I cannot think that this is a very wise remark; because the whole point of this Bill is to induce people not to use the old methods but to employ the new ones. I do not think we can have it both ways—that this Bill does not disturb old arrangements and, therefore, is harmless, and that it introduces new arrangements which ought to make us enthusiastic about it.
I ask leave to take a point which does not lie at all outside a Second Reading
128
debate to be reserved for the Committee stage, for it vitally touches the character of the Bill and the important issue of the new powers to be given to the laity. These powers are urged—I myself am ready to urge them—in favour of the Bill. But I do not deny that when in Convocation I voted for this Bill I did so under the impression that it was much more capable of amendment as it stands than I now believe. I have elsewhere before now very closely questioned—as I question this afternoon—the wisdom of incorporating into the Bill actual executive details if the Bill is to be, as is urged, merely one for erecting new machinery. In that case one might have supposed that it would limit itself to the process of erecting new machinery. But if your Lordships look in the Appendix, Section III (10), (4) and (5), you will find that the Bill goes into such a detail as defining the powers of a Church Council as against those of an incumbent I in a way that has nothing to do with the primary object of the Bill—namely, erecting a new approach to Parliament from the Church. If you have read the Bill carefully you will find that, with very small exceptions, it is the parochial Church meeting which deals with the elections and not the parochial Church Council at all. I very much doubt whether the supporters of the Bill have accurately seen this very important distinction between the parochial Church meeting and the parochial Church council which is set out in the Appendix, and about which the noble Marquess Lord Crewe asked a question.
It does not satisfy me to say that if people have not grasped these nice distinctions it is their own fault, and they ought to have taken the trouble to do so. I think it would be really disastrous to pass a Bill which would be a potential cause of friction in every parish in the kingdom. One is glad, of course, to know that in most parishes the clergyman and his flock are on very happy and blessed terms together. But one never knows when a change may come in a parish. I feel sure that this arrangement attributing definite duties to the parochial Church council should have been left over to a later stage when the Assembly is in working; then I think it may very well have been discussed upon both sides. But why this executive detail, of what I cannot help calling in some directions a provocative character, should be placed in a Bill which sets out merely to erect a piece of machinery, I cannot follow.

129
In a vague way many of the clergy, and others too, would be in favour of the Church Council which now exists in some cases, but without at all realising the new powers to be put into the new style of Statutory Council. I believe there are some people who would say, "This is an excellent Bill because it will enable us to keep our parson in order." But I question whether that style of somewhat personal argument is one that ought to be used in advocating the Second Reading of such a grave measure as this is.
I go on now to speak of the kind of man to whom the noble Earl alluded, but somehow I seem to take rather a different view of his hopes than did the noble Earl. I speak as no Party man, but I have in my mind the silent, quiet laymen who have no sectional organisation and no Party newspapers to help them, and I am afraid that such men as these are likely to fare not well but ill in the new Assembly. Even if it is their own fault for not pushing, and if need be not fighting, it would be a disaster for the Church to lose the good will of such men, and that they should feel that in some respects the direction—perhaps the officious direction—of the Church was in the hands of an expert body which did not care very much about them.
Again, the existing franchise is, in my humble opinion, both wide and wise; but it is common knowledge that, though on the Representative Church Council the majority in its favour was decisive, yet if a comparatively small proportion of those who voted for that franchise changed their minds at a later date and voted for a narrower franchise, a very serious change would be made. And I am not speaking with unfounded fears with regard to this narrower franchise, because the vigorous words which were spoken at the end of the meeting of the Representative Church Council showed how much feeling there is still upon this point; and we are aware that a leading Bishop took it as the occasion for his resignation of his See. And I entertain no doubt either that if the narrower franchise had been carried, this Bill would still have been introduced into your Lordships' House, though it would have encountered a larger amount of opposition. I cannot feel that this generous franchise, this wise franchise, is by any means secure from subsequent alteration when the Church Assembly has been erected. I know
130
it is said here, "Trust the future"; and many distinguished men are prepared to trust the future. But the future is very apt to develop inherent tendencies, and, looking ahead, I cannot see that any list of names, however distinguished, is a real guarantee that the franchise will be kept open so as to prevent the Assembly from degenerating into en organ of denomination, and becoming unworthy of the name National.
If an attempt were made to narrow the franchise, I cannot see that we shall derive very much from the review of the Parliamentary Committee of the Privy Council. I may be confused in my mind, but I seem to understand the noble Earl to say that these internal points dealing with the polity of the Church would be decided by the Church Assembly, and it would not be for the Parliamentary Committee of the Privy Council to intervene unless the rights of citizens were to be in some way invaded. My right rev. brother the Bishop of Ely spoke yesterday of the Privy Council Committee being a grand jury. I am not certain in what sense he used the words "grand jury"; the only grand jury I have been acquainted with was when, as a young man, I used to swear in a jury when I was a Judge's marshal. And those grand juries had the habit of very expeditiously performing their duties, and, unless there was very grave reason to the contrary, quickly passed on the trial to the next stage. The whole scheme, to my mind, resembles the work of experts rather detached from common life. I do not, of course, discredit it as the work of experts, but I believe that the work of experts all over the world must, if it is to be effective, have a strong public opinion behind it.
About this public opinion we hear rather different representations from the various dioceses. My brother the Bishop of Liverpool just now explained to us the enthusiasm which was felt in his Diocesan Conference. Yesterday the Bishop of Ely spoke of the enthusiasm which was felt in East Anglia. I suppose that enthusiasm was expressed in Diocesan Conference, and I never can be quite sure that the Diocesan Conference really represents very well the laity of a district. At least I do not yet find there is much pushing to get a place upon it, and I do not find a seat upon it as yet coveted very dearly. My own experience is rather different. I do not lay stress upon it, because I think it is im-

131
possible to say what is the view taken in this part of England and in that. But last Monday I completed my septennial visitation of the diocese of Norwich, and there I was interested to discover that only in forty out of our 600 parishes had any interest been taken or exhibited in this Bill. And it may be wiser, I believe, after all, for the varying views of the Church and the disagreements within its borders to be set in neutral surroundings.
In view of the national work of the Church, I think we cannot ignore the nation, or suppose that we are dealing with a wholly ecclesiastical problem. The Church of England is much too near the nation for it to be possible for such an attitude to be taken up. If ever a nation as a whole needed Christian guidance from its own Church, which has, in its simplicity of unsystematised and informal intercourse and the spirit of imparted comradeship been bound up with its life and heart and deliberations from the very day when it could speak of itself as the English nation, it needs it now; and I believe it would be a calamity if, with the view to simplicity of organisation or from any pedantic appeal of logic, there were erected some new Church government that would in the least tend to endow the Church with some sectional coherence or adherence.
May I go on to remark—and here the noble Earl anticipated me—that we cannot say, "Never mind Disestablishment" in this connection. Others have told us that it has nothing to do with the subject, but the noble Earl has taken a different view, for obviously it does come into view as a disastrous alternative. Whether the passing of this Bill should lead the enemies of the Church to cry out for Disestablishment, or the failure of the Bill should lead those who have propounded it to urge Disestablishment from within in the way that the noble Earl suggested is possible—a threat which I think I have heard definitely expressed outside—I believe that the very worse thing which could happen to the nation is disestablishment of the Church, and that the Church would thereby eventually lose its marvellous parochial system, by which there is one man set down to every parish to whom every member of his flock may turn, and on the other hand, a man who may have a right of entry into every house within his town or village parish.
132
My Lords, I speak as one who could have hoped that the scheme would work and who could have wished it to work, and I grieve to think what labour the failure to carry it would involve, for I, too, have toiled away at it. But I think that the course of our debate has opened up a vista of clear hope. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack spoke very encouragingly of his readiness to help to provide a workable scheme. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, has said something of the same kind, and I certainly think that this debate has made clearer than ever the unfortunate disabilities which, from the point of view of legislation, our Church at present suffers from. I am not, offhand, prepared to suggest a better scheme. I never think it fair to say to a man "If you do not like this, propose something better." That would be the end in all action and literature in the whole range of life of the work of the critic. And I think in these busy impatient days our country is likely to suffer when it says, as it often does, "Take this or nothing." I would far sooner wait and discover whether the supporters of this scheme as it now stands and those who oppose it cannot lay their heads together to bring out a scheme which would work and which would be acceptable.
Now there is no better way that I can see to produce that happy result than to give this Bill as it stands a Second Reading It seems to me that to leave such a suggestion as I have made as a pious aspiration to some one who will take it up is by no means hopeful, and if the Bill receives a Second Reading, though I imagine its contents will be considerably altered, yet the Bill would give us a ground upon which to set to work. Whether it would be wise to refer it to a Select Committee or to refer it to a Committee of both Houses it is not for me to say, but I feel that if no Second Reading were given all these labours would be lost and no one would take up the cause again. Personally, if the Bill remained as it was without Amendment, I should feel that I was embarking on a perilous voyage into a newly-discovered and unexplored borderland between Church and State and I should be loth to take that voyage. If the Bill, having been read a second time, came to be so modified by the concurrent suggestions of those who, from different quarters of the House, have expressed their good will, it would be, I believe, quite a different matter I may

133
be allowed perhaps to say a personal word in conclusion. I could not possibly vote against the Second Reading, even if I wished to do so, because I owe such a sincere deference to the splendid personality of our Primate to whom, in all these matters, we are under an enormous debt of gratitude.
THE EARL OF CAVAN: My Lords, it is with the very greatest diffidence that I venture to say a few words in favour of the Bill before your Lordships, but I do so for one special reason, which is that discussions on Church matters, and what the Church was doing or was not doing, were very much more frequent during the long years of the late war, both in trenches and in messes, than perhaps your Lordships would imagine. The general tenour of those conversations, so far as I was able to judge, was that the Church was undeniably losing its grip and hold on the people and that, unless something was done, there was a real danger of a deadly indifference settling down upon the country—an indifference which, in my Opinion, would be a calamity. Therefore, I for one welcome this Bill as a perfectly honest effort to do that "something" which so many of the soldiers thought was necessary.
Speaking as one who has no strong leanings either to the High Church or to the Low Church I look upon it as unspeakably sad that the introduction of a Bill of this sort should at once become a bone of contention between the extremists in the Church. I do not believe that the promoters of this Bill had, or have, the very slightest wish for anything revolutionary. I have had very little experience of reading Bills. In fact, I frankly own that this is the first Bill I have ever read through. But it appears to me eminently reasonable and very well safeguarded. Lastly, I welcome the opportunity given to laymen to take an active part in the Church's business. This power must, at any rate, awaken general interest in Church matters in every town and village in the country, and this fact must postpone, anyhow, that deadly indifference on Church matters and that general apathy which I myself so much dread.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I think your Lordships will feel that the time is approaching when we ought to endeavour to come to some decision upon the Second Reading of this
134
Bill. In its passage, both in the Press and in some respects in your Lordships' House, it has encountered many dusty clouds of suspicions, fears and irrelevant issues, and it has been difficult always to observe very clearly the actual purpose and provisions of the Bill. I think that I must endeavour very shortly to lay some of that dust and to enable the Bill to be seen in its true proportions. If, in doing so, I have to repeat some of the points which have b en better made by previous speakers, I hope your Lordships will forgive me, as it has not been possible for all of you to be present during the whole course of the debate.
First of all let us dismiss from our mind the idea that this Bill seeks in any sort of way to change the fundamental status and character of the national Church. This is neither the hour nor the place in which to attempt a disquisition upon the meaning of a national Church. For our purpose the national Church means at least these two things—that the Church which ventures to claim so august a title is one which has, in a very peculiar degree, a responsibility for the whole people of this country; and, secondly, that Parliament owes it to the Church which, by virtue of its national position, it very largely controls, to see that this control helps and does not hinder the Church in the fulfillment of its mission to the nation. A point, has now been reached in the long relations between the Church and the State when, owing to the immense increase of the work of the Church—due inevitably both to the enlargement of the population and. I trust, still more to the enlargement of the horizon of the Church's own vision of what it owes to the nation—and owing to the equally immense increase in the work and the scope of Parliament, the old and existing methods of procedure in regard to legislation affecting the Church have been proved to be outworn and no longer consistent either with the responsibility of the Church to the nation or of the responsibility of Parliament to the Church.
The principles of Church and State have agitated mankind for centuries and are responsible for some of the most memorable, some of the most regrettable, and also some of the most inspiring episodes in the history of this country; but this is not an occasion when those fundamental principles of Church and State are at issue. What we are concerned with in this Bill is the effort, in view of existing conditions,

135
to enable Church and State the better to fulfil the great functions with which they are charged, and, therefore, we can dismiss from our minds at once the idea that, either in design or in effect, this Bill has Disestablishment in view. I venture to mention this, even after all that has been said upon the subject, because in private conversation not only with some of your Lordships but also with laymen in different parts of the country who are not present, I find there is still a lurking suspicion that somehow or other the words which were used by the noble Viscount who leads the opposition to the Bill, to the effect that Disestablishment was somehow or other involved in these proposals, still exists. It certainly is not there in design. No one could suppose for a moment that the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who has just spoken with so much weight, could possibly design Disestablishment in any measure which they put before this House.
It is equally true that if there is no look towards Disestablishment in design, there is neither any look towards Disestablishment in effect. How can it be said that this Bill in any way involves, even indirectly, the disestablishment of the Church, or the alteration of the rights which every citizen has with regard to the Church? The noble and learned Viscount answers, in his Amendment, by saying that the Bill proposes to exclude the greater part of the people of England from effective influence in the affairs of the Church. How do the people of England exercise influence upon the affairs of the National Church? It is first of all through their position as citizens in the parish to which they belong. This Bill in no way whatever affects the rights of any English laymen as regards the National Church. It is worth while to emphasise that point, because we hear even in speeches in this House implications that somehow or other the existing laity, whether they be regarded as citizens or as members of the Church, are to be deprived of some of the rights which they possess.
I know of no right belonging now to any man or woman in this country with regard to the National Church which is affected by this Bill. They will still have their vestry; still elect their churchwardens; still have their rights in the parish church to which they are attached, and I for my part would never sanction any proposal which derogated from the effective representation
136
of the affection which all parishioners feel for, even if they do not always attend, the parish church which is the centre of so ninny sacred associations in their parish. They will still have the right to the ministrations of religion which are provided by the parson of the parish. Therefore, my Lords, when we hear from the noble and learned Viscount in the course of his speech these words—
"In the parishes the clergyman ministers to every one who is not an evil-liver, who claims his ministrations. He baptises them, he marries them, and he buries them; they have the right to go to the church to the services and to be in the vestry. All these things will cease to be certainty if this Bill passes; there is not one of these rights which it does not threaten";
I feel that the noble Viscount and myself are really living in different worlds, because there is nothing in this Bill, or in the intention of any of its framers, affecting in the slightest degree the existing right of any layman in the Church or citizen in the country.
Then again, the effective influence of the people of England is also exercised by their representation in Parliament. Here again it may be worth while to repeat that there is nothing in this Bill which affects the position of Parliament as the ultimate source of the sanction which must be given to any changes affecting the Church of England in regard to its constitution, or its relation with the Statute Law of the country. As has been pointed out in this debate, Parliament still retains its own right of initiating and carrying through ecclesiastical legislation, and the only change that is made is a change of procedure in regard to a certain class of measure coming before Parliament. In its intentions, as in its very title, this Bill recognises and desires to uphold the ultimate control of His Majesty and of the two Houses of Parliament.
We are told that the Bill in some way affects, if not these legal rights of citizens or of the lay members of the Church, the comprehensive character of the Church. Eloquent words have been spoken during this debate about the need of retaining the allegiance to religion of the greatest possible number of the people of this country; of the grave danger of doing anything that would repel any one from feeling at home in the National Church. There is no one in this House who shares more fully than I do the desires that have been thus eloquently expressed.

137
There is no proposal in this Bill even affecting the religious or spiritual status of any one in this country. It is not by putting his name upon the electoral roll that a man becomes a member of the Church of England, and it is not by his refraining from claiming his place on the electoral roll that he can cease to be a member of the Church of England. Whatever his fights or his desires about membership in the National Church may be, they are not in the least affected by whether or not he desires, through participating in this representative system, to take an active part in the internal affairs of the National Church.
I think that this mistake and misunderstanding revealed itself in the speech of the noble Viscount. He mentioned the name of one who will always be remembered with admiration and gratitude in this House, the distinguished author of "The Diary of a Churchgoer"—Lord Courtney of Penwith, and said—
"Lord Courtney was one of those men who, as I shall show in a moment, if this Bill had passed could not have felt it legitimate to remain within walls which had been narrowed and which imposed a view of things which he could nut conscientiously hold."
Lord Courtney would have been perfectly able, so far as I know, to enter his name upon the electoral roll of this representative system, but if for any reason he declined to do so it would not in the least affect his position, or his right, or his allegiance to, or his welcome within, the National Church. So it is, I submit to your Lordships, a thing which we can dismiss from our minds, that in any sort of way, if I may use some words that have been used on this matter—that in any way this Bill was non-churching by exclusion from the Establishment every man or woman who does not, claim a place upon the electoral roll. I rather emphasise this point, because I think it is most important that it should be understood that it is upon quite other grounds, and by quite other means, that a man realises his membership in the National Church, than by associating himself with its actual affairs by applying to have his name inscribed upon the electoral roll.
Of course, my Lords, the noble and learned Viscount sees the danger of this narrowing of the comprehensive character of the Church of England, because in his view this Bill sets up a denomination, with episcopacy as the dominant factor. In his
138
view the danger of the Bill is that it gives further power to a dangerous prelacy. It is singular that perhaps the most active criticism of the Bill comes from another quarter, which asserts that the object and certainly the result of this Bill would be a fatal blow to the Episcopacy, as the divinely-appointed governors and rulers of the Church. Of two contradictory propositions one certainly must be false, and I suggest that the truth is not wholly in the statement of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane. I think I might describe the noble and learned. Viscount's attitude towards the Bishops in the words that were used by a very brilliant scholar and thinker of Cambridge, Mr. Henry Sidgwick, and those who knew him will know that whatever he said was enhanced by the effective stammer with which lie said it. He said that Bishops individually were among the most agreeable of his acquaintances, but Bishops collectively represented everything that he most detested. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will partially agree with the first part of that statement. The second I know he wholly agrees with.
Although that may be true, and although it may colour the noble and learned Viscount's attitude towards this Bill, it is really, as I think has been abundantly pointed out, irrelevant, to the discussion, because your Lordships will recognise that a measure which more than ever gives a very considerable place to the laity in regard to all that concerns the Church of England, and very considerably limits the power of the Episcopacy, cannot possibly justify the words of the noble and learned Viscount, to which I think attention was called in the admirable speech of my brother the Bishop of Ely. I may remind your Lordships of them, in order that you may see that not all the criticisms of the noble and learned Viscount are very damaging to this Bill. He said that if this Bill were passed the Church would pass from a democratic to an aristocratic basis, only the aristocracy would be an episcopal aristocracy. I do not think, if I may borrow the title of a work to which I owe very much in my own reading, that there is much of a "Pathway to Reality" in these words. I think they must be described as really rhetoric—high sounding words which have no relation to facts.
But there are still some who say: "In spite of all this we suspect the men under whose auspices this Bill has been very

139
specially commended to public opinion. We suspect that they represent an element in Church life which, however much you may disguise it, is narrowing in its tendencies and disposed to be sacerdotal in its views." After this debate, that can be no longer pretended, for we have had as one of the most emphatic sponsors of the Bill the Bishop of Liverpool, whom no one would suppose to be of narrowing or sacerdotal tendencies, and we know that Sir Edward Clarke is one of its foremost champions, and he would be very much surprised if he were regarded as the protagonist of a narrow and sacerdotal section.
I dismiss that point at once. As a matter of fact in all my experience of ecclesiastical matters I have never known one which commanded so surprising a unanimity of assent among men who otherwise and on other points are often sharply divided. When I think of the way in which the main proposals of this Bill have been discussed in Assembly after Assembly of the Church of England, and when I have watched with admiration the growing concentration of assent and desire which it has received, I think I am justified in saying that one of its chief titles to consideration at your Lordships' hands is the singular unanimity which it has evoked among the members of the Church of England. My Lords, when we spoke of these Assemblies we heard a reminder of the limited value attaching to the opinion of the ecclesiastically-minded layman. I am very familiar with the ecclesiastically-minded layman, and I am not, I think, more disposed to favour him than any of your Lordships, if we understand aright what it means. We all knew the person to whom the affairs of the Church, in his common conversation, occupy almost the place of King Charles' head in the conversation of Mr. Dick, and we do not think much of that type of man; but that is not in the least the type of man who, in my experience, has been concerned with either the shaping or the carrying through of this Bill to the stage which it has so far reached in the Assemblies of the Church.
When I think of my own diocese, or of others with which I am acquainted, and ask myself who have been prominent in this business, almost without exception they are men who are taking a leading part in the business of the county councils, magistrates on the Bench, able and well-
140
known business men, and in some cases representatives of the wage-earners of the country. If by the ecclesiastically-minded is meant the layman who happens to give a large part of his time and attention to the affairs of the Church to which he belongs I have yet to learn that a man's judgment loses value in proportion as it is based upon interest and knowledge.
When one hears this kind of thing which I was rather sorry to hear partially reflected in the speech of my brother the Bishop of Norwich, one wonders whether this would not be a fair analogy. It would be as if members of your Lordships' House who are not frequent in attendance in the debates, and who do not take a very active part in the political affairs of the country, were to find that their judgment was enhanced and regarded as of the greatest possible value in comparison with the judgment of those members of this House who are continually here transacting its business, but who might therefore be described as politically-minded. The fact is that here you have just the thing which has been so often desired, just the very thing that I think the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Crewe) mentioned in regard to ecclesiastical legislation—a united voice; the Church coming forward and saying, "Here is something about which we have thought, which we have discussed, and for which we care; and it is with such a united voice that we present it to Parliament." The Bishop of Norwich, who has just spoken—and I cannot but say that I think his speech would have been more helpful had it been delivered in the Assemblies of the Church before it was delivered here—is not so sure about the evidence of much unity or enthusiasm among the parishes of Norfolk about this Bill. Well, my Lords, if it has taken the Bishop of Norwich so long to make tip his own mind, I do not think he can be surprised that his clergy and laity have found it a little difficult to make up theirs. I can certainly say, and I think no one will seriously dispute it, that judged by whatever ways are possible by which you can gather and collect the united desires of the great hulk of the clergy and the laity of the Church of England, these desires are for and not against the principles of this Bill. Perhaps I may allude to this again before I close. Therefore, my Lords, you will remember, I doubt not, in deciding your vote, that this is precisely one of those occasions on which—and it is not very frequent—

141
something like a united Church asks for the help of Parliament to fulfil its work.
I pass to the Bill itself. What has been most remarkable in this debate is the unanimity with which it has been acknowledged that the present state of things as regards ecclesiastical legislation cannot go on. There is no one who has hitherto spoken who has for one moment questioned the truth of that proposition. It was acknowledged by the noble and learned Viscount; it was handsomely acknowledged by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition; and it was most fully acknowledged by the speech delivered by the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack. It has been universally acknowledged. That fact alone would make it worth while to have brought forward this Bill before Parliament. Whatever chances or even mischances this Bill may have either in this House now or in Committee or in another place, it will have been well worth while to have had it once and for al clearly laid down, in the very responsible and full manner in which the noble and learned Lord laid it down, that steps must be taken to ensure that reforms and measures which are ardently desired by the great majority of active Churchmen shall have some better chance of passing through Parliament than they have hitherto enjoyed; and I would like, on behalf of those who have been framing this Bill, to express our gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for the words he used and for the assurance which he gave.
I think it is unnecessary at this stage of the discussion to press the points which, at an earlier stage, were so fully made by the Archbishop of Canterbury. But let me put it in a very plain and, if you will, homely way. Like others of my brethren I am continually dealing with the ordinary layman who feels puzzled and irritated about the way in which things are going in his parish. He comes to me and points out, let us say, that some incumbent who though not technically within any existing legislation is obviously wholly unfitted to the sacred work which has been entrusted to him. He asks me, "Why cannot this man be got rid of?" Or he comes to me and points to some one who, though morally quite respectable, is yet incurably idle or incapable of making any kind of impression upon his people, and who yet, because of the fixity of his freehold tenure, is entitled to remain there until his church is emptied
142
of every single parishioner. The layman says to me, "What is to be done?" My Lords, it is no use for me to turn to that layman and ask him to make use of that measure of effective control over the affairs of the National Church which the noble and learned Viscount thinks that he now possesses. It would be mockery. I have to tell him, "I am sorry but that requires legislation, and legislation is the one thing that the Church cannot get." The layman very naturally replies and. says, "Well, why cannot it be altered?" It is precisely to find an answer to that question that this I Bill is brought before your Lordships.
Or, again, may I take an illustration which is borrowed from my own personal experience? It fell to me to endeavour to procure the passing of the Sheffield Bishopric Bill. I am not likely to forget the experiences which attended that enterprise. Here was a Bill which was desired by the whole of the great population of Sheffield, by Nonconformists (as far as their expressions can show) as eagerly as by Churchmen. The money was there—there was no difficulty, except that in its progress in the House of Commons the Bill was obstructed by one or two individuals and no progress could be made; and the final result by which the desire of these great masses of Church people, Nonconformists and others, in Sheffield was carried out was obtained by a method of Parliamentary manœuvre which certainly I think reflected very little credit either upon the Parliament which made it necessary or upon the Church which had to accept it.
The point does not really want labouring. It is common ground; and I think it is equally true that Parliament itself would welcome legislation of this kind quite as eagerly as the Church. It is quite plain that owing to limitations, want of time, and owing to, as Lord Emmott last night very forcibly pointed out, the very natural and generous dislike and distaste of Members of Parliament who are not members of the Church of England to show themselves active in its concerns, legislation affecting the Church has not had a chance. I take the point which the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack made, that things are not now as they were before the war, that there is different procedure. But even if the procedure was expedited so that the worst evils of obstruction were removed, there would still, I think, be the great advantage to Parliament in regard to these

143
matters to have before it a measure which, because it is brought forward after full discussion and thought by representatives of the Church, enables Parliament to deal with it with fall knowledge and in a really derisive and responsible way. Therefore I think upon that ground there is no sort of disagreement, but there is argent and indeed imperative need for a change in the legislative procedure by which Church and State are to work together in this country.
The question really is, Does the Bill reasonably and adequately meet this admitted need? Its nature has been quite fully put before your Lordships in the weighty speech of the noble Earl. The proposal is that the Church, with its representative assemblies, should consider and frame measures which it desires to become law, and should then submit them to the scrutiny of whatever body of experts on the part of the State be most competent to deal with them, and they should then be put before Parliament and become law, subject to the assent of Parliament after discussion being given or withheld.
Let me, though I do not wish to be long, say a word or two upon each of these features of the Bill, and first of all upon this National Assembly of the Church of England. I desire here to deal as frankly and as honestly as I can with a difficulty which has been expressed by the noble Marquess opposite and others. It is a criticism of the form in which the suggestion of this Assembly conies before this House. I think there has been some misunderstanding on this matter which I will try if I can to remove. I think the criticisms of the noble Marquess and others—the force of them I acknowledge—would be most reasonable if the Bill were asking Parliament to create new representative bodies for the Church, or to endow those bodies with powers of legislation. But, as the noble Earl has pointed out—and I think it is worth while to repeat it so that there can be no doubt about it—in the first place this National Assembly of the Church of England is not a new thing which your Lordships are asked to call into being. It exists in all its essential elements. It is principally composed of the Convocations of the two Provinces into which the Church is divided—the Provinces of Canterbury and York—bodies, as I need scarcely remind your Lordships, which have a constitution independent of Parliament, and a history which goes back
144
beyond Parliament itself. To these bodies, already part of the constitution of this Realm, the Houses of Laymen have been added, elected upon a representative basis. That is the National Assembly of the Church of England. This Bill incorporates or alludes to a system by which tine existing system has been improved precisely in order to make it more worthy of the limited powers which it is desired that Parliament should give it—namely the powers of initiating legislation. For that purpose it has widened its franchise, and in some way improved its procedure.
In the second place—and this I would venture to emphasise—the Church of England needs for its own sake and for its own interest a representative assembly. Your Lordships can readily understand that what was possible in the life of the Church during the eighteenth or the earlier part of the nineteenth century, is no longer possible now. The Church of England cannot be any longer merely parochial or merely diocesan in its scope. It has a work to fulfil in regard to the whole nation, and beyond the, nation to other nations overseas, and indeed to the whole world; and in order that it may express its mind upon matters which concern the public life of this country, in order that it may set forth its work here in England, it is necessary that it should have representative Assemblies of a wider scope than the two Convocations sitting separately, and with the fuller recognition than can be given merely to the Convocations meeting with representative laymen. If you consider—to mention it only in a word—what has yet to be done in the way of enabling the Church through its financial system to cope with the growing poverty of the Clergy, and the immense needs of our great populations, if you consider all that is involved in what will be universally admitted to be the need of providing a proper pension system for the Clergy, you will see that the Church of England now must have a representative Assembly of its own, through which its common mind can be ascertained and its common work set forth.
If that be so, I think it is reasonable to say that two things follow, the one that the same body which expresses the mind and sets forward the work of the Church in its own internal affairs should be the body through which proposals requiring legislation should reach Parliament; and if so, secondly, that this body should be constituted in accordance with the views and

145
the experience and the need not of Parliament but of the Church itself; and that Parliament should be asked not to decide upon the constitution of this body but whether or not the body is sufficiently representative of the Church of England to justify Parliament in entrusting it with this limited power of initiating legislation. I think this is a point the more reasonable because the Bill, your Lordships will observe, does not ask that powers of legislation should be entrusted to this body, but only that powers to initiate legislation should be given to it. And that is a very important point. There is no kind of desire to question the fairness or limit the authority of Parliament in the simple request that the Church should be allowed to arrange according to its sense of its own needs and its own work what is the assembly that meets these needs best, and we ask Parliament to use that Assembly and not to create another as an organ through which the wishes of the Church may reach Parliament in regard to legislation. That is the real explanation of the form in which the constitution of the proposed National Assembly comes before your Lordships.
I do not propose, in reference to this National Assembly, to deal with the speech, eloquent and impressive as it was, delivered by my brother, a Suffragan in my Province, the Bishop of Manchester. The Bishop thinks that the Assembly will be so dangerous that Parliament ought not even to confer these limited powers upon it. I am sorry that the Bishop is not present, but he will not mind if I allude to his speech, because it may have impressed some of your Lordships by its vigour and eloquence. By long experience I know that my brother the Bishop of Manchester is a very expert wizard in raising bogeys, and when he puts them before us—as the Bishop of Ely, I think, using another metaphor said in his admirable speech—I confess that our flesh creeps, and we seem to be seeing a vista of untold disaster impending if we do not follow the Bishop's advice. But, as with other bogeys, so these fade when the light of day or of reality is turned upon them. It is quite unthinkable that any such representative Assembly as is here contemplated would suggest measures imposing taxes upon the people of this country, or abolishing the Royal supremacy, or things of that kind. Surely the Bishop's own experience of the procedure of ecclesiastical Assemblies would not suggest that they were capable of such revolutionary spasms as this.
146
And when your Lordships remember that any decision, to be a decision of the Assembly, must be a decision of each of the three Houses, in order to justify these terrible pictures which the Bishop laid before us yesterday, we have to suppose that, first, the Bishops, and then the clergy, and then all the representative laity for a moment lose their senses. The Bishop's argument proceeds on the assumption that this ecclesiastical legislature may go mad. But I submit that the reasonable thing to do is to assume in legislation that on the whole, even in ecclesiastical assemblies, the dominant mood, if not wisdon, is at least sanity. And, moreover, to go further, these measures, even if, incredible as it may seem, they passed the National Assembly of the Church of England, would have no chance of getting the assent of Parliament unless by an impossible combination of circumstances both Houses of Parliament went mad as well. And therefore I do not dwell further upon the speech of the Bishop.
The real question is whether Parliament can recognise this body as sufficiently representative. And here I think it is important to observe that what the Church wants and, I think, with deference, Parliament wants, is the same thing. In this regard what Parliament wants is precisely not the opinion of the ordinary adherent of the Church of England who retains his own civil and ecclesiastical rights. What Parliament expressly wants to obtain is the knowledge of what those who are really associated with the life and work of the Church desire. I would submit that in regard to this Constitution it represents really both what the Church and Parliament desire, and therefore that it is not, I think, unreasonable to suggest that Parliament should be willing simply to say, "Does this body, so constituted in accordance with the needs of the Church, represent, sufficiently the mind and view of the Church to make it possible for us to give it these limited powers?"
I do not propose, after the speech of the noble Earl, to which most of you, I think, listened, to deal with the other two parts of the scheme, the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council, and the procedure of Parliament. With regard to the first I would only say this as one who has been much interested in this measure, that I entirely endorse what was said by the noble Earl, that in this matter we were guided by what we thought was expert opinion,

147
and that if the main design of this provision, namely that Parliament should not only have before it the considered desire and request of the Church but also an independent scrutiny and examination by some competent body representing the interests of the State and of the nation—if the provisions embodying that proposal can be made clearer, I am quite certain that those who promote this Bill would be most willing to accept these suggestions.
Speaking for myself, at any rate, I think that one might go further and say that it is quite conceivable that in Committee some actually better proposal of effecting this desire might be proposed and, if so, I am acre equally it would be most frankly and fully considered. Your Lordships will understand that it would be foolish to say about this or that point here and now that it would be accepted in Committee, because obviously we should wish to see it tabled and to hear it discussed; but I believe I can speak for the noble Earl and others and for the Archbishop of Canterbury when I say that if any Amendment is proposed to carry out the purposes of this part of the Bill more effectively it will be most carefully and sympathetically considered.
There remains the Parliamentary procedure, and of that I can only say that, so far as the Archbishops and Bishops are concerned, we are largely in the hands of those who have fuller experience of Parliamentary procedure. Certainly our desire is to make the ultimate assent of Parliament not in any way a form but a reality. And here again, if any amendment can be introduced which will more effectively stamp upon the Bill itself the honest and sincere desire of those who promote it that Parliament shall have a full and effective discussion, and therefore a full and effective voice, in deciding whether or not the measure should pass, we are most anxious in every way that that should be done.
This Bill, which, as I have explained, comes forward in a very remarkable manner at the request of the constituted authorities of the Church, is (if I may recall the words with which this debate opened in the speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury) an appeal to Parliament to help the Church (A England to do its work properly. In speaking as I have done I am conscious of no other desire than that. I do not think that your
148
Lordships will withhold a Second Reading from a Bill so presented, and with such an object. It may be amended; in some respects I hope it will be; but in its fundamental character I think it deserves this reception at your Lordships' hands.
If so be that your Lordships see fit to refuse even a Second Reading, I think it right to say that it would cause great bitterness of disappointment among many of those to whom for the future welfare of the Church and partly of the nation we shall have to look—the younger men and women of this generation. I think it not impossible that their thoughts might be directed towards the way of disestablishment. That is not, I think, a desire which would move the majority of your Lordships' House. But, on the other hand, if you will pass this Bill through the Second Reading and afterwards, if so be, amend it and it becomes law, then you will strengthen and give a new hopefulness and fruitfulness to the ancient alliance between Church and State in this country. Why should there be this suspicion between the Church and Parliament, if it exists? We are both partners, with the same duties to fulfil—the promotion of the truest welfare of the people of this country. It is a partnership, as you have been reminded, whose origin lies far back in the ultimate roots of the life of this ancient people. It has been responsible I will dare to say for some of the most valued elements of strength, stability and reverence in the national life. Never was that partnership more needed than it is at this unspeakably momentous period of history to which we have come.
Recall for one moment the circumstances in which we meet—on the very threshold of this new age with its incomparable responsibilities. This is, perhaps, the first effort of the national Church to adapt its life and machinery to the needs of the new time which we have reached; and these needs and demands are very great. There never was a time when more depended upon the power of moral and spiritual ideals in the life of this nation. At a time when inevitably men are seeking to grasp and to hold the things that are seen and temporal, their efforts can only be redeemed from selfishness and sordidness by a more effective reminder of the things that are unseen and eternal. That reminder cannot be given by the Church of England alone; but your Lordships will

149
understand the desire of the Church which claims to have the title of national that it shall at least have a foremost place in that great endeavour.
An eloquent reference was made by the Bishop of Manchester, and alluded to by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, to the great crowds of people who poured into our cathedrals, not only at St. Paul's but in the Minster at York, upon Armistice Day. I venture to say with all my heart that so far from forgetting those crowds it is the remembrance of them, the silent appeal of those crowds, that is the mainspring of the motives of those who promote and support this Bill. For one of our great hindrances in endeavouring to influence these multitudes and to attract them to their national Church—as I can tell from experience in East London and among the working people of the North—is precisely this, that the Church which claims
to be national seems to have no power to remedy the abuses and the anachronisms which have attended it in its long history and to adapt itself to the needs and aspirations of living men.
Give the Church a fuller chance thus to bring its system of life and work into touch with the needs of the hour and you will give it a better chance of being more truly national not only in title but in fact. It is because we believe that this measure will enable the Church better to fulfil its responsibility to the nation and Parliament better to fulfil its responsibility to the Church, that we ask your Lordships to give it now a Second Reading.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 130; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Hambleden, V.

Farrer, L.

York, L. Abp.

Hampden, V.

Forester, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)

Hood, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Knutsford, V.

Grenfell, L.

Peel, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Argyll, D.

Bedford, D.

Harlech, L.

Northumberland, D.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Harris, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Coventry, L. Bp.

Hatherton, L.

Somerset, D.

Ely, L. Bp.

Hylton, L.

Gloucester, L. Bp.

Joicey, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Liverpool, L. Bp.

Kinnaird, L.

Bath, M.

Llandaff, L. Bp.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Bristol, M.

London, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Cambridge, M.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Leigh, L.

Camden, M.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Linlithgow, M.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Methuen, L.

Salisbury, M.

St. David's, L. Bp.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Zetland, M.

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Southwell, L. Bp.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Ancaster, E.

Bathurst, E.

Wakefield, L. Bp.

Newton, L.

Bradford, E.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Northbourne, L.

Brassey, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Aberdare, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Caithness, E.

Aldenham, L.

Parmoor, L.

Cavan, E.

Annesley, L.

Phillimore, L.

Chichester, E.

Anslow, L.

Queenborough, L.

Clarendon, E.

Avebury, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Balfour, L.

Rathmore, L.

Eldon, E.

Barrymore, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Grey, E. [Teller.]

Halsbury, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Rotherham, L.

Burgh, L.

Roundway, L.

Howe, E.

Carnock, L.

St. Levan, L.

Lindsey, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Sandys, L.

Lucon, E.

Clinton, L.

Sempill, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Onslow, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Powis, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Sudeley, L.

Selborne, E.

Dewar, L.

Sydenham, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Dinevor, L.

Thurlow, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Downham, L.

Vivian, L.

Yarborough, E.

Emmott, L. [Teller.]

Waleran, L.

Bryce, V.

Erskine, L.

Wenlock, L.

Esher, V.

Faber, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Goschen, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wyfold, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Marchamley, L.

Devonport, V.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Crewe, M.

Haldane, V. [Teller.]

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

Lincolnshire, M.

Knollys, V.

Pontypridd, L.

Ampthill, L.

Rowallan, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Askwith, L.

Saltoun, L.

Dartrey, E.

Atkinson, L.

Southwark, L.

Jersey, E.

Charnwood, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Manvers, E.

Clwyd, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Denman, L.

Terrington, L.

Russell, E.

Gisborough, L.

Weardale, L.

Stanhope, E.

Wittenham, L.

Hollenden, L.

Resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THE PEACE TERMS.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, in moving that the House do now adjourn, I beg leave to repeat a statement that I made earlier during our proceedings when fewer of your Lordships were present, to the effect that a Notice has been handed in to-night giving the Government precedence over all business for to-morrow, in order to enable the Leader of the House, at the outset of public business, to make a statement on the general question of the Peace terms.
PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of July 1.]
BRIDGE OF ALLAN WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
LLANELLY RURAL DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

  LEGAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL. [H.L.]
  HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  MANSFIELD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

DOVER GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Committee (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.

TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Order of the 25th of June last committing the Bill, discharged: Committee negatived.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Sheffield Corporation.

Stretford Urban District Council.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

EAST HAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
MILFORD DOCKS BILL.
LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
SHOREHAM-BY-SEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

REIGATE CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE, AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER.
Petition for Bill.

CANNOCK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
Petition for Bill.
Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Thursday next.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for additional Provision in the
Pembroke Gas Bill [H.L.]
ought to be dispensed with, and leave given o the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional Provision:
Read, and agreed to.

STATEMENT OF RATES BILL.
Bill to be printed as amended in Committee. (No. 87.)
House adjourned at eight minutes before seven o'clock.