Sitting of 3 July 1919

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

  GREECE (CONDITIONS IN SMYRNA).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why it was necessary for Greek troops to land at Smyrna and to advance inland; and what is the Allied policy with regard to Smyrna?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil on 26th May, to which I have nothing to add. As regards the second part of the question, no statement can usefully be made at a time when the Turkish settlement is still under consideration by representatives of the Allied and Associated Powers.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman make some declaration to pacify our Moslem subjects on this question, as there is great unrest in India and elsewhere among perfectly loyal Moslems?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: There is another question relating to that matter later on.
  Lieut.-Colonel AUBREY HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Greek massacres at Smyrna have caused and are causing grave unrest in India and Egypt; and what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to allay the anxiety in these countries with regard to the future of Smyrna?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Reports of massacres are calculated to cause anxiety and distress everywhere, particularly among peoples of the same religion or race. But I have not seen any special evidence of "grave unrest" having been
  1134
  caused in the countries mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member owing to the reports in question.
  Lieut.-Colonel HERBERT: Are massacres to be no impediment to the acquisition of property in future, and can the hon. Gentleman say what other populations are to be handed over to the Greeks for massacre?

  MEXICO.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have taken into consideration the serious condition of affairs in Mexico which has now continued for about nine years; whether he is aware that there are four revolutionary leaders in the field waging guerilla war; and whether the machinery of the League of Nations enables the League to request the United States to pacify Mexico and, failing action on the part of the United States, to take such measures as may bring peace to that country?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative, and to the last in the negative.

  DANISH MACHINE COMPANY.
  Mr. MURCHISONasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Danish Machine Company, of Copenhagen, has stated in. a circular, dated May, 1919, that British traders may make inquiries of the Department as to the company's position; is he aware that the Danish Machine Company represents Alfred Schmahl, of Hamburg, whose machines it is now offering for sale; and will he say whether it is the policy of the Government to assist German firms in this way to re-establish their trade through neutral agents?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND (Department of Oversea Trade): The circular to which the hon. Member refers has been brought to the notice of the Foreign Office. The statement in the circular is probably a reference to the fact that a report on the company is in the possession of the Department of Oversea Trade, based on information supplied by the company to the Commercial Secretary to the British Legation at Copenhagen. In no other sense has the company permission to refer to the Department of Oversea Trade.

  1135
  This report was obtained for the use of British exporters. My information is that the Danish Machine Company has no connection with the German firm of Alfred schmahl, of Hamburg, which is stated to have been dissolved owing to the death of Mr. Schmahl. The Danish Machine Company would appear to have no German connections at the present time. It is certainly not the policy of His Majesty's Government to assist German firms to re-establish their trade through neutral agents.

  HUNGARY AND THE ALLIES (STATE OF WAR).
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOAREasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Allies are still in a state of war with the Magyars; and, if so, what steps they are taking to compel them to evacuate the Allied territory that they have occupied and to reduce and disarm their army?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative.
  On 14th June the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, assembled in Paris, addressed to the Hungarian Soviet Government at Buda Pesth a telegram describing the frontiers permanently dividing Hungary from Czechoslovakia and Roumania, and requiring the Hungarian Government to cease hostilities immediately, and to withdraw their forces without avoidable delay within the national frontiers laid, down by the Peace Conference.
  Negotiations are still proceeding between the various States concerned, and the Allied Governments are carefully watching the situation in conjunction with their military advisers.
  Sir S. HOARE: Have the Magyar Government taken any steps to actually and practically withdraw their troops?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes. We had a telegram this morning indicating that they are doing so.
  Sir S. HOARE: Does that mean that the army is actually withdrawing?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes. I think I may say that.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Are the Allies giving any assistance to the Czechoslovaks in the way of munitions and supply?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give notice of that.

  ITALY (LAND LAWS).
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give, in brief out-line, the salient features of the Italian laws relating to the compulsory acquisition by the State and public authorities of land required for public purposes?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Italian law of 2nd April, 1866,governing the expropriation of property for public purposes consists of 101 articles, and I regret that I am unable to summarise its provisions within the limits of a reply to a Parliamentary question. I shall be happy to show my hon. and gallant Friend a copy, of the law if he will call at the Foreign Office.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    PRE-WAR DISABILITY (INCREASED PENSIONS).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware of the delay in the acknowledgment of letters sent to his Department, quite apart from the handling of the cases, which is equally delayed; whether he is aware that these methods are causing much unrest in the country; and whether, seeing that a registered letter, sent on 2nd May, applying to his Department for a pension for the widow of Private Horace Sykes, No. 201280, l/4th Duke of Wellington's Regiment, who was recommended for a bar to the distinguished conduct medal, has not even been acknowledged, he will have inquiries made into this case?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir LAMING WORTHlNGTON-EVANS): I regret that there was delay in the settlement of this matter. The entitlement to pension has now been admitted, and the necessary formalities leading to the grant of pension will be completed as quickly as possible.
    Mr. HOGGE: Has the hon. Gentleman read the evidence of Sir Douglas Haig on the question of delays?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Of course I have read it, but I do not think any point arises out of that on this question.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Pensions Minister whether he can yet make a statement as to the possibility of increase of pensions being allowed to those who have been granted disability pensions in consequence of former wars?
    Captain REGINALD TERRELLasked the Pensions Minister whether the plight of old pre-war Army pensioners has been brought before him; and whether he is taking any steps to secure the increase of the awards they receive?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am glad to be able to inform the House that the Government decided last week to increase the pensions of officers and men disabled through service in former wars, so as to bring them generally to the level of the pensions given for disabilities sustained in the present War. I would remind the House that steps in this direction were made last year, when increases were approved in the pensions granted to seamen, marines, and soldiers totally incapacitated by war disabilities from earning a livelihood, and to those partially disabled by specific wounds and injuries. It has now been decided to extend the concession to officers, naval warrant officers, nurses, and men disabled, whether wholly or partially, through wounds, injuries, or disease due directly and wholly to war service, and actually in receipt of disability pensions on that account, and to increase their pensions to the rates for which they would now, under the present Warrants, be eligible in respect of the same disability. To the revised rates will he added the temporary bonus of 20 per cent. approved for cases arising from the present War under the same conditions.
    The House may also remember that the pensions of widows of men dying in former wars were, by the concession of last year, increased to the rates for the present War. It has now been decided that any increases in the scales of pensions for widows of officers and naval warrant officers allowed in the present War shall be extended to cases of past wars. This will affect widows of subalterns in receipt of the highest rate of pen-
    1138
    sion, and widows of officers of all ranks in receipt of the intermediate rate for war service, and the widows of naval warrant officers who died on war service.
    Further, the bonus of 20 per cent. will be added to these increased pensions and also to any existing pensions not so increased of the widows, children, mothers, and sisters of officers who died through war service. All these concessions will have effect from the 1st April, 1919.
    Steps are immediately being taken to give effect to these decisions, but the process of investigation must take a little time, and I must ask that pensioners and their friends will exercise patience. In the case of officers, nurses, and naval warrant officers, and their relatives, it is anticipated that most cases can be traced through the records of the Admiralty and War Office, but it is open to any pensioner, officer, or nurse who has a claim to increase under these conditions to apply to the Ministry of Pensions (Officers' Awards Branch), New North Street, London, W.C.
    Army warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men's cases cannot similarly be identified from records at Headquarters, and any men who therefore consider that they are entitled to the concession should apply to the Ministry of Pensions.
    Full instructions as to application will be issued in the public Press, and will also be communicated to local war pensions committees, who may be able to assist the men to make their claims.
    Colonel ASHLEY: May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and the much-abused Treasury?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the statement include the pensions of those sailors who have not fought in the War?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think I must refer my hon. Friend to the actual answer.
    Mr. HOGGE: Are we to understand that these concessions apply only to those who are in receipt of pensions, or will officers and men who are not in receipt of pensions have the ordinary rights of appeal which the pensioners or non-pensioners now have?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: They refer to officers and men and the other classes I have mentioned who are in receipt of disability pensions due to service in previous wars; no others. If the

    1139
    hon. Member thinks the matter out he will see that it would be impossible to establish a case in the other cases.

    ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS.
    Major M'KENZIE WOODasked the Pensions Minister why a man who has lost both an arm and a leg as a result of wounds received in action is not put on the same footing as regards alternative pension as one who has lost both arms or both legs; and whether he will take steps to remove such differentiation?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The provision in the Royal Warrant relating to the alternative pensions of men who have lost both arms or both legs or are blind embodies a special privilege given in cases of the severest forms of disablement, and I am not prepared to say that men who have lost one arm and one leg are in quite the same category. They are, however, scheduled as disabled in the highest degree, and are given a full disablement pension.

    OXFORD AND BUCKS LIGHT INFANTRY (PKIVATE F. J. CLARKE).
    Mr. SITCHasked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Private F. J. Clarke, No. 240930, Oxford and Bucks Light Infantry, who enlisted at Worcester on the 24th October, 1916, was relegated to Section B of the Army Reserve on 28th March, 1918, suffering from tubercular glands, and was again examined at Worcester on the 27th September, 1918, with the same result; whether an application for a pension or allowance was made to him on 27th March, 1919; and whether he is yet in a position to deal with the matter?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: An application for pension was received in this case in March, 1919, but the greatest difficulty has been experienced in obtaining any information regarding Private Clarke's military career. On inquiry from the Officer in Charge of Records, it was found that the official documents could not be traced. Unfortunately, the particulars at present available are insufficient to enable the pension claim to be decided upon, but every endeavour is being made to get the case settled as soon as possible. The local war pensions committee is being instructed to issue recoverable advances and provide any necessary
    1140
    treatment if the medical referee is able to certify that in his opinion Private Clarke's present condition was caused or aggravated by military service.

    AUXILIARY YACHT PATROL.
    Colonel BURNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider the services of those men who joined early in the War for service in the Auxiliary Yacht Patrol under the Admiralty, with a view to their receiving a gratuity, many of these men being discharged owing to illness contracted on service?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): It is presumed that the men referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend are those who were employed at mercantile, and not naval, rates of pay. On the question of gratuity, I have already explained, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, that the naval war gratuity is issuable only to men who have received naval rates of pay. The men to whom my hon. and gallant Friend refers, that is to say, the men employed at mercantile rates of pay, if discharged owing to illness specifically attributable to their service under the Admiralty, are eligible for awards of compensation under schemes framed under the Injuries in War (Compensation) Acts, 1914.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (DEDUCTIONS).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will introduce legislation to absolve a Government Department from the legal obligation to deduct 10 per cent. from the salary of ex-Service men in their employment who ire also in receipt of a disability or Service pension and whose salary exceeds £400 a year?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): A Bill will be introduced forthwith.
    Colonel ASHLEY: To give effect to the sense of the question?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Yes.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Thanks.

  IRELAND.

    EDUCATION BILL.
    Mr. T. W. BROWNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when the Education Bill for Ireland will be presented to

    1141
    Parliament; and whether this Bill will remedy the defects in the, Teachers' Residence Act, which allows a house built out of public funds to become the private property of the manager of a school at the expiration of thirty-five years?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND(Mr. A. W. Samuels): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on the 26th June to a similar question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is not in a position to make any definite statement as to the provisions of the Bill.

    TEACHERS' SALARIES.
    Mr. T. W. BROWNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will recommend the Treasury to sanction at once the permanent increases in. the salaries of the Irish national school teachers recommended in the Report of the Killanin Commission?
    Mr. SAMUELS: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will await the introduction of the Bill.

    LAND PURCHASE.
    Major O'NEILLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can now make an announcement as to the policy of the Irish Government with regard to the matter of the completion of land purchase in Ireland?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question asked on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division of Belfast on 26th May. The matter is engaging the anxious attention of His Majesty's Government. Land purchase is being carried out in accordance with the existing Statutes. A proposal to introduce further legislation at the present time would not, I am afraid, be feasible.
    Major O'NEILL: In view of the immense importance of this subject, I beg to give notice that I will draw attention to this subject this evening.

    PRISON OFFICIALS.
    Mr. LYNNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Home Office has issued a circular containing new grades of salary and a revised pensions
    1142
    scheme for prison officials in England; whether he is aware that the prison, officials in Ireland are worse paid than similar officials in England; and whether he is prepared to take steps with a view to placing Irish prison officials on an. equality with prison officials in England?
    Mr. SAMUELS: The circular referred to is at present under consideration by the General Prisons Board, who will make their recommendation in the matter without delay.
    Mr. LYNNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when the Government-intend to give effect to the recommendations, of the right' hon. Mr. Justice Dodd regarding the services rendered by the officials of the Belfast gaol during a trying period; and whether he can state the cause of the delay?
    Mr. SAMUELS: The Irish Government fully endorses the testimony borne by Mr. Justice Dodd to the faithful and loyal performance of their duties by the staff of the Belfast Prison during the trying period referred to by my hon. Friend. The question of some special recognition of the services of the staff is under consideration.

    ROAD MAINTENANCE (IRELAND.)
    Major O'NEILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any funds are being granted from Imperial sources towards the repair and upkeep of the roads of Great Britain in respect of the financial year 1919–20; and, if so, whether an equivalent grant will be made in respect of the roads of Ireland?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which was given on this subject yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. Coote).

  MOTOR VEHICLES (HEAD LIGHTS).
  Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now cancel the Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act concerning the shading of head lights on motor vehicles?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury on the 15th May last.

  ALIENS IN UNITED KINGDOM.
  Mr. DOYLEasked whether, and, if so, when, and under what restrictions, if any, late enemy aliens are to be allowed to enter this country; whether it is proposed to make any discrimination between German and other alien immigrants; what are the conditions now governing alien immigration from all countries; and whether the Aliens Restriction Act applies and will continue to apply, after the signing of Peace and after the ratification of the terms of Peace, respectively?
  Mr. SHORTT: As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, an Aliens Restriction Bill is now before one of the Standing Committees of the House, and the conditions under which aliens will be admitted to the United Kingdom are at present under discussion. The Orders in Council made under the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, will remain in force until the date to be fixed under the Termination of the Present War (Definition) Act.

  SPECIAL CONSTABLES.
  Captain MARTINasked if the special constables throughout the country may be placed upon an equality with those in the Metropolitan area and the same recognition given to them as is proposed for those who have undertaken duties in the London area?
  Mr. SHORTT: His Majesty has sanctioned the issue of a special constabulary medal for which county and borough special constables will be eligible on the same footing as those of the Metropolis. The conditions governing the award will be announced very shortly.

  BRITISH INDIANS (SOUTH AFRICA).
  Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the South African Parliament has now passed a Bill which seriously affects the rights and privileges hitherto enjoyed by British - Indians resident in South Africa; whether the Royal Assent to this Bill has been reserved; whether representations have been made by the Imperial 'Government to the South African Government pointing out that this Bill imposes grave injustice on British subjects of Indian birth, and is contrary to the letter and spirit of undertakings given by the representatives of the South African Gov-
  1144
  eminent at the Imperial War Conference; and whether advice will be tendered to His Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent to the Bill in question until such time as it may again be considered by an Imperial Conference at which representatives of the Government of India may be present?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut. - Colonel Amery): The Bill referred to has been passed by the Union Parliament, and assented to in the King's name by the Governor-General. As stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks on the 30th June it is a matter of controversy how far the Act constitutes a diminution of existing rights enjoyed by the Indians in the Transvaal, or merely prevents evasion by Indians of existing legislation. No representations were made by His Majesty's Government to the Union Government with regard to the Bill, as it was known that the Union Government were fully alive to the difficulties of the position and that the matter was being closely watched by the Governor-General, who could be relied on to do all that was practicable in the circumstances to safeguard Indian interests. The Bill pot having been reserved for the Royal Assent, the last part of the question does not arise, but I may mention that postponement of the legislation would not have been to the advantage of existing licensees and property owners as it would have left them exposed to the grave consequences of a recent judgment of the Union Courts from which they have now been relieved.

  AUSTRALIA (GOVERNOR-GENERAL).
  Mr. T. WILSONasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that at the annual conference of the Australian Labour Party in April last a resolution was carried to the effect that the time has arrived when a vote of the electors should be taken regarding the question of the election of the Governor-General of Australia, and protesting against the partisan administration of the present Governor-General; whether he has received any complaints from Australia; and whether he will have inquiries made into the matter?
  Lieut-Colonel AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the last two parts is in the negative.

  CEYLON (CASHING DRAFTS).
  Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER - SHEEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that officers cashing drafts for service and wound gratuities in Ceylon are being mulcted of a considerable portion of these sums owing to the loss on exchange; and whether he can make arrangements whereby the Government of Ceylon will cash these drafts at par value?
  Lieut-Colonel AMERY: The drafts referred to are presumably being cashed in Ceylon at the market rate of exchange. The Secretary of State fears that he cannot ask the Government of Ceylon to bear the expense of cashing these drafts at a more favourable rate.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not a fact that the Ceylon Government have to purchase many things in this country, and could not this money be used in that way, thereby relieving these officers?
  Lieut-Colonel AMERY: There is no doubt that all Governments have various means of getting money. It is obvious that if the Ceylon Government pay them this extra money they could at once bring the money back to England and make an extra 20 per cent.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these officers have to cash their drafts at a discount, and are not getting the full value?
  Lieut. - Colonel AMERY: They are getting the full market value in Ceylon rupees. If they got the old par rate, they could at once send the money home and get an increase on the transaction.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Why not pay them in English currency?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: They can, but when they change in Ceylon they would get fewer rupees than they would have received a year or two ago.

  ALEXANDRA PALACE.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he can indicate for how long a period the Alexandra Palace will be required for the use of Government officials?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): Only Departments engaged on work of liquidation
  1146
  will be housed in the Alexandra Palace. I have, of course, no control over these-Departments, and therefore cannot state-definitely the period for which the accommodation will be required.

  ROUTE MARCH (LONDON TROOPS).
  Lieut-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the First Commissioner of Works if the accommodation in Government offices along the route of march of the London troops on 5th July will be almost entirely utilised by the Government officials occupying such offices and their friends; and, if so, will he consider as to limiting this privilege to those officials who have taken an active part in the War and placing the remainder of the offices at the disposal of relatives of the London fighting troops, particular consideration being given to relatives of men who have fallen in the War?
  Sir A. MOND: With regard to the first part of the question, the accommodation in the Government offices referred to is, allocated to the heads of the Departments concerned. I am, therefore, not in a position to accede to the suggestion contained in the second part of the question, but will place it before the heads of the Departments concerned.
  Sir F. HALL: Is it right that during an important march such as this the relatives of the men who fought for the country should be debarred from having a chance of seeing the procession, and that the matter should be left entirely to-the discretion of the heads of Departments?
  Sir A. MOND: As I have pointed out to the hon. Gentleman, I have no power over the heads of the Departments concerned.
  Sir F. HALL: I am sure that a word from the right hon. Gentleman would have the desired effect.
  Sir A. MOND: If the right hon. Gentleman had done me the honour of listening-to my answer he would have known that I propose to put the suggestion before the heads of the Departments.

  CAB SHELTER (NEW PALACE YARD).
  Sir P. GOFFasked the First Commissioner of Works at what date the cab shelter in New Palace Yard will be removed?
  Sir A. MOND: The cab shelter will be removed as soon as the new accommodation has been provided. I anticipate that it will take about six weeks to provide the new accommodation, the plans of which have been ready for some time past, and the work will be put in hand provided Treasury approval, which has been applied for, is received.
  Sir P. GOFF: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a few days ago five cabs were standing outside that shelter for forty minutes, and each one of them refused a hire?
  Sir A. MOND: I have no control over the cabs.
  Sir P. GOFF: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of adding to the Peace celebrations and his own reputation by making a bonfire of that elegant edifice?

  NAVAL PROGRAMME.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the sinking of the German fleet, the programme of naval construction for this year will be modified?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. Long): No, Sir. Our new Construction Programme for 1919–20 had already been reduced to within pretty narrow limits.
  Captain BENN: Had the construction for 1920 taken into account the possible sinking of the German fleet? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman means?
  Mr. LONG: No, Sir; that has not been taken into consideration. What has been taken into consideration is that there was no chance of the German fleet being restored to Germany. It has not been calculated as possible enemies, but as a possible addition to the fleets of the Allies.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE.
    Mr. W. NICHOLSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Lieut.-Commander H. E. Sanders, Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, was demobilised on 17th February, 1919; that he applied for his war gratuity on 22nd March, and again on 23rd May, and
    1148
    that he has received no reply to his applications; whether he can state why there has been such delay in the payment of this gratuity; and whether he is aware of the general dissatisfaction at the delay in the payment of claims among the officers of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve who have been demobilised?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Owing to a misunderstanding as to the demobilisation having become effective, it is regretted that delay has occurred in this case, but steps have been taken to pay the gratuity in full to-day. As regards the last part of the question, I have no reason to believe that general dissatisfaction exists. I know that numerous letters have been received from Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve officers expressing their appreciation of the speedy manner in which their claims have been dealt with.

  MEDALS FOR MINE-SWEEPERS.
  Brigadier-General CROFTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to grant medals to all mercantile mariners who have served on mine sweepers during the War?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Regulations as to the distribution of medals are not yet completed, and no statement can be made at present. It is hoped that a definite announcement may be made in the early future.

  FLYING-BOAT CONTRACTS.
  Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, at the out break of war, the Admiralty purchased a flying boat of new and successful design, by Mr. Norman Thompson, built by Messrs. White and Thompson (subsequently renamed the Norman Thompson Flight Company in 1915), a pioneer firm, established in 1909; whether in 1915 the Admiralty placed an order with the Norman Thompson Flight Company for ten flying-boats of such size that the firm were compelled to lay out considerable money in additional buildings to their existing works; whether for twelve months after these extensions were completed in May, 1916, the Government were aware that the firm were only able to work at about one-third full output owing to constant changes in design ordered by the Admiralty and shortage of orders; and, if so, whether he will explain why

  1149
  in the autumn of 1916 the Admiralty refused to allow the War Office to place orders with the firm?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: With my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  The following is the reply referred to:
  In August, 1914, the Admiralty requisitioned a seaplane from Messrs. white and Thompson. The seaplane was an improved form of the ''Curtiss" single-engined flying-boat, of which Messrs. White and Thompson were sole concessionaries.
  Trials of this machine were successful, and as a result of the trials the machine was purchased and six further machines were ordered. A further order for ten ''America," type seaplanes, to be fitted with engines to be supplied by the Admiralty, was placed with the firm in July, 1915, tender price being finally accepted 28th December, 1015. An advance of 25 per cent. of the contract price was made with the acceptance of tender at firm's request, the firm stating that the greater part of the profits they might derive from the contract would be spent on new factory extensions and land which they were making arrangements to purchase. The firm did not state that such extensions were necessary on account of the size of the flying-boats.
  Shortly after the order was placed it was decided to fit 140 horse-power instead of 100 horse-power engines in order to improve the performances of the machines. At this time the firm had in hand eighteen S.38 type school aeroplanes; delivery of the last of these was made on 7th June, 1916. In July, 1916, an order for twenty F.B.A. flying-boats was placed with the firm. Various orders for spare parts were also in hand. In August, 1916, the War Office asked the Admiralty whether there was any objection to firm's resources being utilised for supply of spare parts.
  The ten "America" and twenty F.B.A. flying-boats were then under construction, and it was under consideration at place an order for small flying-boats of the firm's own design, in which circumstances the War Office was informed that the Admiralty orders would absorb the firm's whole output for some time.
  Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether a design of flying-boat by the Norman Thompson Flight
  1150
  Company, known as type N.T. 2 B, and officially adopted by the Air Ministry in April, 1918, as a standard naval instruction machine, was ordered in repetition from them and from other firms; whether, in June, 1917, the Air Board required the firm to increase their works for the production of one of their designs of flying-boats, type N.T. 4 A, and subsequently agreed to advance £20,000 for new buildings; whether, after placing considerable orders in the autumn of 1917 for N.T. 4 A flying-boats, the Air Board cancelled those orders in January, 1918, and gave no new orders until May, 1918, after the appointment of a receiver for the debenture holders; whether the Aircraft Finance Department of the Ministry of Munitions in October, 1918, refused the recommendation of the Lubbock Committee of the Treasury to pay off the debentures issued to Messrs. Cox and Company as security for advances and revert the control of the company in the directors; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): The answer to the first three parts of this question is in the affirmative. No such recommendation was ever made by the Lubbock Committee as is suggested in the fourth part of the question, and the fifth part does not accordingly arise.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the hon. Gentleman make an investigation into the whole transaction of the Admiralty with this particular company, and allow Mr. Thompson to appear before him?
  Mr. HOPE: Not on the information I have at present. If my hon. and learned Friend will give me any more information, I shall be delighted to act upon it, but at present his premises, I think, are wrong.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: As the hon. Gentleman's information is so meagre, will he take the steps I suggest, so as to get the necessary information?
  Mr. HOPE: I take it that it is for my hon. and learned Friend to supply me with premises on which I can reasonably act.

  MUSTARD-GAS SHELLS.
  Mr. HOLMESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he is aware that mustard-gas shells are being emptied or

  1151
  otherwise dealt with at the munitions factory at Longwith, thereby causing danger to the public health in the locality, that several persons have been affected in the streets, and that when the wind is in a certain direction the fumes penetrate into the adjacent colliery shaft; and whether he will give instructions for the work to be discontinued?
  The DEPUTY-MINISTER Of MONITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): No mustard-gas shells have been dealt with in any way at His Majesty's factory, Longwith, but a certain number of cylinders containing gas have been emptied at the factory. The information before me does not bear out the suggestion contained in the question, but I am at once sending a medical officer to make a further report.

  SMOKE BOMBS (FRUIT-GROWING).
  Captain STARKEYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he will grant facilities for smoke bombs to be used by fruit growers for experimental purposes, so that they may determine how far a smoke screen so produced is likely to ward off spring frosts from their crops; and ii he will at the same time quote a price for the bombs, which, although not producing a very saleable commodity, may yet for this purpose prove of great value and lead to a new industry?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: I shall be glad to give every facility for the purchase of smoke bombs, for the purpose suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, if I find there is any demand. Applications should be addressed to the Controller, Explosives Section, Disposal Board, Storey's Gate, S.W.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    DISCHARGE FROM EMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. G. MURRAYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he has investigated the discharge of ex-Service men from the engineering Department of the Glasgow office of the Ministry of Munitions; and whether he will take steps to prevent these dismissals and to discharge instead those who have not been serving in His? Majesty's forces during the War?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I am making further inquiries on this question. As soon as the inquiries are complete I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

    LEAVE ALLOWANCE (CIVIL SERVICE).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if arrangements have been made for temporary staffs in Government Departments to receive additional annual leave during 1919, according to the period of service; if the Treasury have stipulated that service with the Colours shall not be regarded as equivalent to service in a Government Department for tins purpose; and if he will state on what grounds temporary officers who have served in the War are prejudiced in regard to their leave allowance com pared with men who have remained at home?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The ex-soldier receives, on demobilisation, substantial benefit in respect of the period of military service, and this period cannot be taken into account again in assessing his privileges in. respect of a civil post to which he is subsequently appointed.
    Sir F. HALL: Will it lead to the ex-soldiers being given leave on as generous a scale as men on the temporary staff?

    CIVIL SERVICE.
    Mr. W. GRAHAMasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, according to present Regulations governing the admission of discharged and demobilised men to various Civil Service examinations, systematic and continuous education up to the age of eighteen years is required, on the ground that this is essential to supply the trained mind necessary for the Civil Service; whether this Regulation is unjustly penalising large numbers of competent discharged and demobilised men who happen to have engaged in various occupations after leaving school and be fore joining the forces by debarring them from entrance for such examinations; and whether, in view of the foregoing facts, he will take steps to have this Regulation withdrawn?
    Mr. BALDWIN: As I explained in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Islington North, on the 11th March last, the normal competitive examinations for entry into the higher grades of the Civil.

    1153
    Service have temporarily been replaced by a system of selection and in order to keep the work of the selection boards within reasonable dimensions, it has been necessary to prescribe some educational qualifications for candidates comparable with those possessed by successful candidates in pre-war competitions. The number of candidates who comply with this condition is very large, and I do not agree that men who do not possess the necessary educational qualifications are in any way unjustly penalised.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the position of the Treasury this. Young boys who joined the Army and were capable of passing Civil Service examinations are debarred from applying for the Civil Service because they have not been continuously educated up to eighteen, although they have fought continuously from eighteen?

    DISABLED MEN (EMPLOYMENT).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the difficulty of finding employment for partially-disabled men, he will issue instructions for the demobilisation of Queen Mary's Auxiliary Army Corps, Women's Royal Air Force, and Women's Royal Naval Service as early as possible?
    MR. SHORTT: It is not intended to disband either Queen Mary's Auxiliary Army Corps or the Women's Royal Air Force, as these two corps are able to perform duties for which women are better qualified than men. As regards the Women's Royal Naval Service, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to a question by the hon. Member for Hull Central on the 25th of June.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many forms of activities of which these men are capable just as much as women—driving motor cars, for instance? Why not put disabled men on that job?
    Mr. SHORTT: Women can serve too.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    GERMAN TRADE WITH RUSSIA.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister if there is anything to prevent Germany trading with Soviet Russia as soon as Peace is signed;
    1154
    if not, how are we to insure a fair chance for British merchants and manufacturers in Soviet Russia if the Germans are allowed to capture the markets; and, in any case, how can indirect trade between Russia and Germany through Poland be prevented?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Overland trade between Germany and Soviet Russia will have to pass through States which are at present engaged in hostilities against Soviet Russia; the second part of the question does not, therefore, arise as regards overland trade. I do not anticipate that sea-borne trade between Germany and Soviet Russia will assume large dimensions for a considerable time to come. As regards the third part of the question, indirect trade between Russia and Germany through Poland seems to me most improbable in present circumstances.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What steps are being taken to safeguard our interests in this matter, to which question I have not had a reply?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Questions relating to general policy should be addressed to the Leader of the House.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: It was addressed to the Leader of the House.

    LONDON DOCKS (CONGKSTION)
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the congestion in the London docks and the waste of shipping and loss of perishable foodstuffs occasioned thereby; whether he is aware that Hull and other East Coast docks are not in full use and that there is much unemployment in consequence; whether he is aware that the carrying trade by small coasting vessels and canal vessels is in a bad way; and will he consider talking steps to remedy this state of affairs?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of SHIPPING (Colonel Wilson): I have been asked to reply. There is undoubted congestion in the Port of London as in other of the big ports, but I am not aware that any loss of perishable foodstuffs is occurring at the present, time. Large cargoes of wool are being shipped to Hull and Immingham, and I understand that the facilities for handling such cargoes at those ports will be fully occupied. Large cargoes of timber and increased shipments of grain are also being sent to

    1155
    East Coast ports. The latest reports from Hull now show a shortage of dock labour. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the situation is receiving the earnest consideration of His Majesty's Government.
    Lieut. - Commander KEN WORTHY: May I have an answer about the coasting trade?
    Colonel WILSON: That question is receiving attention, and everything is being done to remedy the situation outlined in the question.

    IMPOST RESTRICTIONS.
    Captain W. BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether evidence given by traders before the Import Restrictions Consultative Committee is communicated to competitors or would-be competitors?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Evidence given before the Committee was taken as confidential, and treated accordingly.
    Captain BENN: Is he sure that in no case this evidence was transmitted to would-be competitors who were sent round to try and get the business that was formerly foreign business?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I could not be sure of that, but I have not heard of it.

    BRITISH ENGINEERING DIRECTORY.
    Mr. NEWBOULDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a very comprehensive directory of British engineering firms has been prepared and issued by the Department of Engineering, Ministry of Munitions; whether, in order to develop British industry and to secure the placing of contracts from abroad with British firms, he can arrange that copies of this directory are sent to the British Consuls abroad and to the representatives of overseas trade departments abroad and to any other authority which might enable those desiring engineering work to consult this list; and can he arrange for similar action within the British Empire, and particularly in this country?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As the answer is a long one, perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the Answer referred to:
    Copies of the directory are already in possession of the Department of Overseas Trade. In the compilation of the directory the requirements of overseas trade were not directly in view, and the information contained in the directory is therefore not entirely suitable for the use of His Majesty's Consuls, Trade Commissioners and other official overseas correspondents of the Department. The Department of Overseas Trade is, however, compiling and issuing for the use of its official correspondents a directory giving full and detailed particulars of the manufactures of British firms, the markets in which they are interested, the names of their branches or agents overseas, and, generally, any particulars which British firms are willing should be included, and which would be of use to the overseas officers of the Department in assisting the placing of contracts and orders with British firms. All the firms in the directory compiled by the Ministry of Munitions are being invited to furnish the fuller particulars required by the Department of Overseas Trade. Four volumes of the directory which is being prepared by the latter Department have already been issued to His Majesty's Consuls, Trade Commissioners, etc., and five other volumes are with the printers. As the information appearing in the directory which is being prepared by the Department of Overseas Trade has been obtained under the assurance that it would be used for official purposes only, it is intended to issue it only to officers abroad of the Department of Overseas Trade and the other Departments of His Majesty's Government.

    GOODS TRANSPORT (MR. GATTIE'S SCHEME).
    Mr. RAPERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what steps are being taken to investigate the claims of the Gattie Goods Transport Scheme?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It has been decided to appoint a small expert Committee to investigate Mr. Gattie's proposals. The names will be announced at an early date.
    Mr. RAPER: Will my hon. Friend give these names to the House?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I said I will announce them as soon as I know them.
    Mr. RAPER: Will they be announced before the Committee actually sits?

  OLUB RESTRICTIONS.
  Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the signing of a Peace Treaty with the German Government, he will now remove the war time restrictions upon clubs imposed by the Government by regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act?
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister whether, considering that Peace has now been signed, steps will at once be taken to remove the restriction on the sale of alcoholic liquor in working men's clubs?
  Mr. SHORTT: I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House yesterday.
  Captain ORMSEY-GORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Leader of the House said nothing about this point yesterday?
  Sir F. HALL: May I ask whether it is to be understood that restrictions which were placed on the working man's club during the War are to be continued now that we are supposed to have finished hostilities?
  Mr. SHORTT: The hon. Member must not understand anything that is not in the answer.
  Sir F. HALL: Will my right hon. Friend tell me what is going to be the action of the Government? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]
  Mr. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman make any statement in regard to the supply of whisky to clubs?
  Mr. SHORTT: I have nothing to add.
  Captain W. BENN: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a resolution passed by a meeting of all the Churches asking that the present restrictions should be continued?
  Sir F. HALL: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a resolution passed by all the working men's clubs throughout the country to the effect that the meagre supplies in the past should be increased forthwith?

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. WATERSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the hardship now existing amongst old age pensioners,
  1158
  he will either draft legislation to come into effect at once or give instructions to boards of guardians to grant out-door relief to those who have no other income than their pension, and that the relief given be no disqualification for the old age pension?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on this subject on the 1st instant to a question asked by the hon. Member for Exeter.
  Mr. WATERSON: Am I to understand that the Government has no concern in this matter, and that they merely refer to other replies, and is that sufficient for the importance of the subject?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The reply was given several times that the Government do not intend to legislate until they receive the Report of the Committee that is at present investigating the whole matter.
  Mr. WATERSON: When may we expect a Report from this Committee, seeing the hardship that is now involved?
  Mr. BALDWIN: There is a question on the Paper on that point which will be answered later.
  Mr. SWAN: In the event of guardians relieving these pensioners, will they be surcharged?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I should think probably, but I am not a law officer.
  Mr. SWAN: Will the pensioner cease to receive a pension if they do so?
  Mr. RAMSDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive the Report of the Committee which is investigating the operation of old age pension payments; whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing it before the Recess; and whether he will expedite as much as possible, in the interests of the old people, the legislation of any acceptable recommendations it may make?
  Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend understands that the evidence is likely to be completed before the Recess, but that the Report cannot be ready by that date. As regards legislation, if that be necessary, my right hon. Friend must consult the Leader of the House when the time comes.

  CIVIL SERVICE (EX-OFFICERS' AGE LIMIT).
  Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER - SHEEasked the Prime Minister whether, under the reconstruction scheme of the Civil Service Commission, the age limit for ex-officers and men is twenty-eight years in Class 1 and twenty-four in the junior appointments; and whether he is aware that those thus disqualified from competing by reason of age are in the majority of cases those who have greater responsibilities and who also have the most difficulty in securing employment?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The age limit for the reconstruction competitions have been most carefully considered and are so framed as to admit all ex-officers and men who would have been within the normal age limits in 1914or in any subsequent year since the outbreak of war. Those who were over the normal age limits in 1914 had had their opportunity of competing for Civil Service appointment before the War and, in view of the comparatively small number of appointments which require to be filled, I fear it is not possible to give such men a further opportunity.

  EMPIRE COTTON GROWING.
  Mr. SUGDENasked the Prime Minister what steps he proposes to take to encourage the growth of cotton within the Empire, having in mind that present Empire supplies are inadequate, that cotton users in this country are at the mercy of foreign suppliers, and that the subsidy supplied in previous years to the British Cotton Growing Association by the Government has ceased?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): The whole question of the measures to be taken to develop cotton growing within the Empire is being considered by a Committee appointed by the Board of Trade and representative of Government Departments, the Governments of India and the self-governing Dominions interested, and the various commercial and industrial interests concerned. I expect to receive at an early date their Report and recommendations, which will be given most careful consideration by His Majesty's Government.

  COAL INDUSTRY COMMISSION (REPORTS).
  Mr. ADAMSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have considered the Reports, of the Coal Industry Commission; and whether the Government are prepared to adopt and carry into effect the recommendations of a majority of the Commission in favour of nationalisation of the coal mines?
  Mr. SHORTT: I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to questions on this subject yesterday.
  Mr. ADAMSONasked the Prime Minister when the Bill to amend the Coal Control Agreement Act in order to give effect to the financial recommendations contained in the Sankey Reports of the Coal Industry Commission will be introduced?
  Mr. SHORTT: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
  Mr. ADAMSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the adoption by the Government of the Sankey Interim Report of the Coal Industry Com mission, he can state when it is proposed to introduce the Bill to provide for a shorter working day of seven hours for underground workers to come into operation on the 16th July?
  Mr. SHORTT: Notice of presentation of this Bill was given yesterday, and it will be introduced to-day.

  TRADE POLICY.
  Captain W. BENNasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the reasons for the delay in making public the Government's trade policy?
  Mr. SHORTT: I can only refer the hon. Member to the full statement made by the President of the Board of Trade on the 24th June.

  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  Major BARNESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state, in respect of each power company whose undertaking it is proposed to acquire under the Electricity (Supply) Bill, what amount of excess profits they have been

  1161
  allowed to retain in respect of extensions to land, buildings, and plant since August, 1914?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are precluded by Statute from disclosing information relating to the liability to taxation of individual taxpayers.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.
  Major BARNESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what grants or loans have been made to power companies whose undertakings it is proposed to acquire under the Electricity (Supply) Bill since August, 1914, out of public moneys; and if he will state the amount of each grant and loan and the name of the company to whom it has been made?
  Mr. HOPE: I have been asked to answer this question. I am circulating, in the OFFICIAL REPORT, a list of the power companies to which loans have been made through the Ministry of Munitions.
  The list mentioned in as follows:

  Company.

  Loan.

  £

  Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power

  85,000

  0

  0

  Clyde Valley Electric Power Company

  100,000

  0

  0

  Newcastle-on-Tyne Electric Supply Company

  47,726

  0

  0

  North Metropolitan Electric Power Company

  80,000

  0

  0

  Shropshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire Electrical Power Company

  270,000

  0

  0

  Yorkshire Electric Power Company

  182,000

  0

  0

  FLAX PRODUCTION.
  Major BARNESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what obligations hare been incurred in respect of the maintenance or assistance of flax production; what guarantees have been given in connection therewith: and if he will say to whom the obligations have been incurred and the guarantees given in each case, and the amounts involved in each separate case?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply to this question, but as the reply is a lengthy one I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  The following is the list referred to:
  1. The Board of Trade have undertaken to purchase from Irish farmers the unsold balance of the 1918 flax crop in Ireland. The purchase will be made at the prices fixed by the Flax (Irish Crop) Order, 1918, and the Rescutched Tow No. 2 Order, 1918, and it is estimated that the purchase price will not exceed £500,000.
  2. The Board of Trade have under taken to purchase from Irish farmers the 1919 flax crop in Ireland. The purchase will be made at the prices fixed by the Flax (Irish Crop) Order, 1919, and it is estimated that the purchase price, which is totally dependent on the amount and quality of the crop, will not exceed £5,000,000.
  3. The Board of Agriculture have contracted with farmers in Great Britain for the production of approximately 13,000 acres of flax in 1919. A reliable estimate of the purchase price of the crop is not yet available.
  4. The War Department entered into a guarantee of financial co-operation with the Flax Society, Limited, in respect of flax production in 193 8 and incurred a, liability of £300,000. The crop produced under the guarantee has not yet been realised for account of the guarantors.
  5. The Board of Trade have renewed the above guarantee on a reduced scale in respect of flax production in 1919; the nominal liability under the guarantee is limited to £200,000, but it is estimated that not more than £50,000 will be called for.
  6. Following the successful seed production operations conducted in 1918 by the War Department in Canada, the Board of Trade have contracted with Canadian farmers, through the same firm in Winnipeg, on a reduced scale for the production of 20,000 acres of fibre sowing seed at a purchase price estimated not to exceed £120,000.

  ACQUISITION OF LAND ACT.
  Major M'KENZIE WOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the records of the War Losses Commission will be available for reference by the valuers appointed under the Acquisition of Land Act?
  Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend will consider this point in conjunction with the Royal Commission on Losses.

  WAR BONDS.
  Mr. JOHN MACLEODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether trustees in Scotland who carry out the conversion of War Bonds at par without making any provision as to the premiums which are payable when the bonds mature will be exempt from all liability from claims on the part of beneficiaries for loss resulting from the premiums not having been secured; and what course trustees should follow?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I am advised that although National War Bonds are eventually repayable at a premium, trustees who hold them would not incur any liability by disposing of them at a price below the redemption figure, but not lower than the market price at the time of disposal. The tender of War Bonds for the new Loan at par is equivalent to a sale at par which is the current market price. It follows from this that trustees will incur no liability in subscribing for the Funding Loan in National War Bonds, provided, of course, that they comply with any specific stipulations contained in the terms of their trust, such as an obligation to obtain the concurrence of a beneficiary.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the date of redemption of the Loan?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid I cannot remember, but I think about sixty years; it is in the prospectus.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I think not.

  RAILWAY AND COAL INDUSTRIES.
  Mr. LAMBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is intended to take action to make the railway and the coal industries self-supporting and thus relieve the taxpayer from the necessity of providing £100,000,000 per annum in the case of the railways and £46,600,000 per annum in the case of coal?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The Government is giving the most earnest consideration to this question, and is making every endeavour to find the best method of obtaining this most desirable result.
  Mr. LAMBERT: How is it possible for the National finances to remain stable with these enormous subsidies being paid to the railway and coal industries 1
  Mr. BALDWIN: That is the problem.

  DISTRESS IN EUROPE (GOVERNMENT GRANT).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury has sanctioned the payment of £1 from the public purse for every £1 raised and spent by charitable organisations in the United Kingdom for the relief of distress in Europe; if so, if he will say within what limits and subject to what restrictions and safeguards such Grants will be made; and whether there is any precedent for such action with or without the express authority of Parliament?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The expenditure to be incurred by the Treasury under the scheme is limited to £200,000, and will be met from the provision of £12,500,000 made for loans and grants for reconstruction and relief in war areas in the Estimate for Loans to Dominions and Allies, etc., for the year 1919–20. My right hon. Friend has sent the hon. Member a copy of the official announcement which appeared in the Press on Monday last, giving full details of the scheme. With regard to the last part of the question, the Grants themselves are covered by the terms of the Parliamentary Estimate, and the condition that for each £l advanced by the State £l should also be contributed from private sources is one which is very frequently attached to Grants of this nature.
  Sir A. FELL: My hon. Friend would ask how long is the British taxpayer to be asked to do everything everywhere?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I have every sympathy with the hon. Member, and I hope it will not be long.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What precautions are to be taken against fraud in matters of this kind?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The scheme is being administered by a Committee of the Charity Commissioners known as the Official Committee for Relief in Europe, and it will apply to societies duly registered under the War Charities Act, which publish statements of receipts and expenditure.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. HERBERT: Is there any precedent before this War, and is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor

  1165
  of the Exchequer, himself made a very fine precedent by giving £5,000 to starving people who had no claim on him?

  INCOME TAX.
  Mr. RAFFANasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state what was the net yield of Schedule A of the Income Tax for the financial year ended 31st March, 1919; and how much of it was obtained in respect of mines and quarries, which are assessed under special pro visions now included in Schedule A, No. III., of the Income Tax Act, 1918?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The net receipt of Income Tax under Schedule A in the financial year ended 31st March last is estimated at £21,800,000, but this represents only about one-half of the tax that would have been collected but for the introduction in that year of the system of payment by instalments. Mines and quarries, although included among the concerns enumerated in Schedule A., No. III., are dealt with for assessment purposes under the rules applicable to Schedule D, and the tax collected from them is not, therefore, included in the above figure.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    TECHNICAL OFFICEES.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Under secretary of State to the Air Ministry if he can state what amount of technical pay, if any, it has been decided to award to technical officers in Class A of the Royal Air Force whether the same is to be retrospective from the 1st September, 1918, and will include technical officers demobilised before the decision has been arrived at; and, if so, whether an officer who would thus be entitled to additional pay can claim the same together with gratuity based on the larger amount of pay?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major-General Seely): The whole question of pay is now under consideration, and I hope to be able to give further information in a short time. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question next week.

    ATLANTIC FLIGHT (AIRSHIP R 34).
    Captain W. BERNasked the Undersecretary of State to the Air Ministry whether he can make a statement about the Atlantic trip of the airship R 34?
    Major-General SEELY: His Majesty's Airship R.34 left East Fortune, near Edinburgh, at 2.48 yesterday morning on an experimental cruise across the Atlantic. She is equipped with every known form of scientific instrument which it was considered would be of value for the trip. We are sure that much valuable information will be obtained as to the possibilities of air traffic across the Atlantic. All being well she will drop messages at Newfoundland and Halifax, and proceed to New York. I should like to acknowledge the great assistance given by the Admiralty in every respect to the Air Ministry, who are responsible for the flight. His Majesty's ships, "Tiger" and "Renown," are in the Atlantic sending and receiving wireless messages. At 6 o'clock this morning the airship was reported to be about 1,030 miles on her course, and 885 miles from St. Johns. The weather reports are very favourable, and it is hoped that she will soon get a following wind.
    I may add that what weighed with us most in deciding to attempt this flight was the hope of thereby making still closer the ties between this country and America.

  LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND).
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will consider the incorporation in the Land Settlement (Scotland) Bill of proposals to give to all tenant farmers security of tenure on the lines of The Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement made on Monday last by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, in reply to the hon. and. gallant Member for Central Aberdeen. At present I have nothing to add to this statement.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this matter? The Parliamentary Secretary made no reference in his answer to Scotland at all, and if the right hon. Gentleman does not include proposals in the Land Settlement Bill for Scotland, will he introduce a separate Bill for the purpose?
  Mr. MUNRO: I will certainly consider the suggestion.

  INDUSTRIAL LIFE ASSURANCE.
  Mr. JESSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the advisability of appointing a representative of the agents and collectors upon the committee of inquiry into the question of industrial life assurance, seeing that these people are so vitally concerned, or, if this is not possible, can he arrange for a representative of the agents and collectors to have the right to cross-examine witnesses and, where necessary, to submit re butting evidence; and if he will arrange for the inquiry to be open to the public?
  Major W. MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that a representative of the National Amalgamated Union of Life Assurance Workers has not been put upon the committee appointed to inquire into industrial life assurance, he will arrange that a representative of this union may attend the sittings of the Committee who, though not a member of the Committee, shall have full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to submit evidence on behalf of the workers?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Committee to inquire into industrial life assurance has now boon appointed, and I would refer the hon. Member for West Walthamstow to the answer given on the 5th May to the question addressed to the Prime Minister by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing, in which the composition of the Committee was stated. The Committee has decided that the inquiry shall be conducted in public when witnesses are being examined, but no person other than a member of the Committee will be allowed to examine the witnesses. An opportunity will be afforded to the accredited representative of any association of agents and collectors to submit evidence to the Committee.

  RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

    HOLIDAY FARES FOR CHILDREN.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the President of the Board of Trade if boys' and girls organisations duly authenticated by the Home Office Juvenile Organisations Committee can be conveyed by rail to camps at, in the case of those between fourteen and sixteen years of age, the same rate as cadets, and, in the case of children
    1168
    under fourteen, at the same rate as granted to those sent under the auspices of the Children's Country Holiday Fund?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This question is being carefully examined, but it is one of considerable difficulty, and I am not yet in a position to make any definite statement on the matter.
    Mr. BRIANT: Can he give an assurance when it will be settled?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I hope to be able to give an answer somewhere towards the end of next week, at any rate.
    Mr. W. R. SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade if special railway facilities can be given at excursion fares for recognised outings of children connected with the various schools of the country to the seaside, as was customary previous to the War?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Reduced fares have already been granted in the case of recognised school excursions to the extent explained in a recent reply to the hon. and gallant Member for the Melton Division, of which I am sending the hon. Gentleman a copy. As there, may in certain cases be some difficulty in conveying school excursions to seaside resorts, it would be well for the organisers of such outings to consult the railway company or companies concerned before making final arrangements to visit a particular place.

    GOODS TRAFFIC.
    Mr. ATKEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the great delays, inconvenience, and expense caused to traders by the present railway system of allocating traffic; that Mr. W. Woodsend, contractor, Nottingham, who has in hand the extension of Player's tobacco factory, Radford, is now receiving 1,000 tons of cement, at 30 tons per week, which was ordered to be delivered at Radford (Midland) Station; that the railway offered delivery at either Basford (Midland) or the London and North Western Station, Newark Street, both of which stations are £50 miles further away from the work in question; that ingoing to the Basford (Midland), which was the one selected, this cement passes through the Radford Station; that the cartage back will entail an estimated additional cost of £150 expended in unproductive and unnecessary work; that up to the present 200 odd of the 1,000 tons have been delivered; and will he see his way to instruct the

    1169
    Railway Executive to discontinue the pre-sent system of allocation, and give to the traders of the country some encouragement in their work of reconstruction by saving to them inconvenience, delay, and expense?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am looking into the particular case to which my hon. Friend refers and will let him know the result. With regard to the last part of his question. I would refer him to the first part of the answer given on the 1st July to a question which he asked on this subject.
    Mr. ATKEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the facilities which have been given to Mr. L. Tompkin, manufacturer's agent, Nottingham, by the London and North-Western Railway Company for the past eighteen months in the distribution of cement to local builders have been withdrawn; that this withdrawal involves the unnecessary use of railway trucks and causes great inconvenience to the building trade; and will he instruct the railway company concerned to renew an arrangement which has been in existence for the past fifteen years?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend was not aware of the circumstances referred to, but he is making inquiries and will let my hon. Friend know the result.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the President, of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, while passenger fares have been raised by 50 per cent., goods traffic is, in spite of the fall in the purchasing power of the sovereign, being carried at pre-war rates; whether a rise of only 10 per cent. in goods tariffs would make all British railways paying propositions and enable fares to be reduced and people to reside in the country; and whether the present low goods rates render coasting traffic unprofitable and so not only congest the railways but also prevent the development of one of the best training schools for seamen?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is the case that the circumstance that there has been no general increase in railway rates adds to the difficulties in connection with coastwise traffic. The present financial position of the railways is one that should be dealt with as soon as possible, but a 10 per cent. increase in goods tariffs would not enable fares to be reduced and the railways to be carried on without loss.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will he tell us what percentage is required? Is if not a case that the total goods rates of this country come to something over £1,000,000,000, and that 10 per cent. on that would give us £100,000,000? And would not increased coasting traffic ease the congestion of the docks?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot give my hon. Friend the figures without notice.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will he supply us with the figures?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will try and get them.

    RAILWAY DIRECTORSHIPS.
    Mr. RAPERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state how many officials of the Board of Trade have, on retirement, accepted railway directorships during the last ten years?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As far as I am aware, one official of the Board of Trade has during the period mentioned accepted a railway directorship on his retirement. In another case an official of the Board accepted an offer of a directorship made some months after he had retired.
    Mr. RAPER: Is it not a fact that the anticipation of favours to come is liable to obscure the view taken by the Board of Trade of the present unbusinesslike method of running the British railways?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think so.

    PRIVATELY-OWNED WAGONS.
    Mr. SUGDENasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will at once return private wagons to their owners which now, in the majority of cases, are being used by the Government until they become in disrepair, when they are returned to their owners without such owners having the right of recovery of cost of such repair; and will he cause such cost of repair to be paid to the owners and compensation paid to them for loss of trade resulting therefrom?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid I do not clearly understand to what wagons my hon. Friend refers, or by whom they are being used. If, however, he will give me further particulars I will look into the matter at once.

  COAL SUPPLIES.
  Mr. TOOTILLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether new regulations with regard to coal registration are under consideration; and whether consideration will be given to the advisability of abolishing the datum period principle now operating, and of securing supplies to merchants being allotted on the basis of the number of registered customers and their requirements, as the only fair method of distribution?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1919, which has just been issued, provides that every person requiring coal for household purposes shall register with a coal merchant or dealer for the supply of such coal. A consumer who has already registered, but desires to change his coal merchant or dealer, must make application to the local fuel overseer of his district before the 12th July. The question of the adjustment of coal merchants' supplies to meet the new conditions is receiving consideration.

  OIL SEEDS AND NUTS.
  Captain R. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the interests of the farmer, all restrictions likely to check the free importation of oil seeds and nuts will be removed and every facility given to increase production?
  The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): I have been asked to reply. I am doing everything in my power to encourage the importation of seeds and kernels into this country, and I know of no restrictions likely to check the supply.

  WHITE HART LANE ESTATE, TOTTENHAM.
  Major PRESCOTTasked the Minister of Health whether the London County Council have submitted a scheme for the lay-out of their White Hart Lane, Tottenham, estate involving local by-law relaxations; whether the Ministry is in communication with them in regard to this; whether the proposals of the London County Council for the further development of this estate take the form of a small town-planning scheme: and if he is aware
  1172
  that the housing proposals of the local authorities are of necessity being held up until the county scheme is finally settled?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Major Astor): The London County Council have submitted proposals for the development of their White Hart Lane estate. These proposals involve the relaxation of local by-laws, and, in effect, constitute a small town-planning scheme. Subject to some modifications which I understand the county council will be willing to adopt, my right hon. Friend is prepared to approve the scheme. I do not think that the final settlement of this scheme should delay the housing proposals of the local authorities.
  Major PRESCOTTasked the Minister of Health whether any concrete proposals have been put before the Minis try by the London County Council for the erection of houses on their White Hart Lane, Tottenham, estate; whether the Ministry's approval would be required for Government subsidy if the London County Council desired to erect houses on this estate and count them as part of their scheme under the new Housing Acts; whether any suggestion of this kind has been made by the county authority; and whether they could legally include, this estate as part of such a scheme, in view of the County Councils Act of 1912, which gives them power to develop it irrespective of local by-laws?
  Major ASTOR: No concrete proposals for the building of houses on the White Hart Lane estate have yet been submitted by the London County Council. If provision of houses on this estate is included in a scheme under Clause 1 of the Housing Bill when passed, and the proposals are approved, the houses would be taken into account in determining the amount of subsidy to the county council.

  VILLAGE HALLS.
  Major BREESEasked the Minister of Health whether expenditure on the erection of village halls would be sanctioned by him under Section 2 (i) of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1903, or otherwise, especially having regard to the recommendation on this subject contained in Section 4 of the Report of the Advisory Council of the Ministry of Reconstruction?
  Major ASTOR: Parish councils (and parish meetings, if invested with the necessary powers by the county council) are empowered under Section 8 of the Local Government Act, 1894, without requiring sanction from the Minister of Health or any other Government Department, to provide rooms which may be used as recreation rooms or reading rooms provided that such rooms are also used for meetings of the parish council or parish meeting and for the transaction of parish business. These powers can also be conferred on any urban district council. If the Public Libraries Acts have been adopted, expenditure may be incurred in fitting up such rooms as reading rooms and providing newspapers and other literature. The sanction of the Department is, however, required as to the raising of a loan to de fray expenditure on the provision or equipment of such rooms.
  Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: Will the cost of the erection of these halls be provided by the rates?
  Major ASTOR: Yes; the local authority may be authorised to borrow money.
  Sir A. YEO: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman propose to take any steps to wake up councils to get their schemes into operation? It is about time they did.
  Major ASTOR: I do not think that arises out of this question.

  WELSH BOARD OF HEALTH.
  Brigadier-General Sir O. THOMASasked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed to give representation on the Welsh Board of Health to the executive committee of the Welsh National Memorial Association, to the North and South Wales nursing associations, and to the executives of North and South Wales soldiers' and sailors' disablement committees?
  Major ASTOR: As I stated in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member on the 30th June, the Board is not yet complete, but I may point out that Section 5 of the Ministry of Health Act requires the persons constituting the Boards to be officers of the Ministry, and that this requirement excludes the possibility of adopting the principle suggested in the question as determining the nature of future appointments to the Board. The important bodies referred to in the ques-
  1174
  tion will probably be asked to suggest suitable names of persons for membership of the Consultative Council of the Ministry of Health in Wales.
  Sir O. THOMASasked the Minister of Health what was the amount of the total remuneration paid to those commissioners of the Welsh Insurance Commission, now transferred to the Welsh Board of Health, during the period of War; what time was devoted by them to the specific duties of the Commission during that period; what is the salary to be paid to the chairman, members, and officers of the Welsh Board of Health already constituted; and what further salaries, if any, are to be paid to the members of the Board yet to be appointed?
  Major ASTOR: The remuneration of the three members of the Welsh Insurance Commission, who have now been appointed members of the Welsh Board of Health, was at the rate of £1,500, £ 1,200, and £1,000 per annum, respectively, and, no change has been made in these rates on their transference. The whole time of the Commissioners was very fully occupied with Health Insurance work, except in so far as they undertook various forms of temporary war work from time to time. The point in the last paragraph of the question has not yet come up for decision, and no decision has been taken on it.

  SICKNESS RATES (ORGANIC INDUSTRIES).
  Mr. J. DAVISONasked the Minister of Health whether he is able to submit statistics for the United Kingdom showing separately the sickness rates obtaining in the great organic industries, such as agriculture, chemical trades (including gas-workers), mining, metal trades, textile trades, and miscellaneous trades, for the years 1913–?
  Major ASTOR: My right hon. Friend regrets to say that statistics do not exist at present in this country as to the sickness rates prevailing in the several organised industries. In so far as information exists at all on sickness rates, as, for instance, in the records of friendly societies and of approved societies under National Health Insurance, it does not afford any guidance as to the rates prevailing in the several industries, because those bodies are not organised according to occupation.

  HOUSING.

    HEIGHT OF ROOMS (LANCASHIRE).
    Mr. TOOTILLasked the Minister of Health whether he has received any representations from Lancashire local authorities regarding the possibility of allowing an increase, in the regulation height of 8 ft. for rooms in working-class dwellings to be erected; whether he is aware that in houses now in occupation the height of the rooms is generally 9 ft., in view of the necessity, owing to the damp climate, for clothes to be hung up to dry in the living room; and whether he will consider the advisability of allowing the local authorities some latitude in this matter?
    Major ASTOR: My right hon. Friend has received a small number of representations from local authorities in Lancashire in favour of an increase in the height of rooms. He thinks that, ordinarily, the general rule should be observed, but he will be willing to consider cases where there are special circumstances on their merits.

  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (FINANCE).
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Minister of Health whether, on account of the deficiency in the Metropolitan Water Board Fund, he has received from some local authorities within the Metropolitan Water Board area resolutions asking for the appointment of a Special Committee or Departmental Committee to inquire into the finance and methods of the Metropolitan Water Board; and does he propose to take any action?
  Major ASTOR: Yes, Sir; that matter is now under consideration, but my right hon. Friend cannot yet make a statement.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Will he be able to make a statement at an early date?

  EX-SERVICE MEN (CORNWALL INSURANCE COMMITTEE).
  Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER-SHEEasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the Cornwall Insurance Committee in appointing to an assistant-clerkship a member of their staff employed by them only during the War though eligible for
  1176
  military service under the second Military Service Act, thereby passing over a senior member of the permanent staff who had returned from almost five years' service with His Majesty's Forces; whether the Commissioners are prepared to intervene to prevent an obvious injustice being done to a man by reason of his service to the country; and what general instructions have been issued by the Commissioners in regard to the employment of ex-Service men?
  Major ASTOR: My attention had already been drawn to this case. The Cornwall Insurance Committee in a matter in which they had complete discretion, and over which the Commissioners had no control, have promoted to the post of assistant clerk to the committee a man of fifty years of age who, they considered, had better qualifications for the post than the shorthand clerk and typist on their staff, who had resumed duty in his former position after military service at an increased salary. The whole of the facts, including the shorthand clerk's military service, were fully considered by the committee. It is not competent to the Commissioners to instruct committees as to the employment of ex-Service men, and they were satisfied that these bodies were, and are, fully alive to the special claims of these men.
  Colonel BURN: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman assure us that, where possible, preference will be given to ex-Service men?
  Major ASTOR: The authorities have been asked to do this. In this particular case the central Department could not compel them to do it.

  STATE REGISTRATION OF NURSES.
  Major HURSTasked the Minister of Health whether he is able to state by what date he will bring in his promised Bill for the State registration of nurses?
  Major ASTOR: My right hon. Friend is not in a position to add anything to the statement made by him in the course of the Debate on this subject on Friday last, to which I would refer the hon. and gallant Member. The matter is being carefully considered.

  PRIME MINISTER.
  After Questions, the. Prime Minister (Mr. Lloyd George) entered the House and was warmly greeted, Members rising in their seats.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ADAMSON: May I ask what will be the business of the House next week?
Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): On Monday we shall take the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill (continuation of Report stage), and, if time permit, other business on the Order Paper.
On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
On Friday, the Third Reading of the Acquisition of Land Bill.
Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Will the Noble Lord tell us how many of the Orders are to be taken to-day?
Lord E. TALBOT: I hope the first two Orders, and, if possible, any others in the order in which they are on the Paper.
Sir F. HALL: When will the Post Office Estimates be taken?
Lord E. TALBOT: I cannot say.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on Government "Business be exempted at this day's sitting from provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[MR. Shortt.]

HOUSING AND TOWN PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 130.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 130.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 119.]

GOVERNMENT WORKS AT CIPPENHAM.
Report from Joint Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 131.]

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).
Sir Harry Samuel reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Workington Corporation Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed
Bedwellty Urban District Council Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. John Williams; and had appointed in substitution (for the consideration of the Electricity (Supply) Bill): Mr. William Graham.

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Sir Samuel Roberts further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Mr. Bartley Denniss.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

BILL PRESENTED.
COAL MINES BILL,—"to amend the Coal Mines Acts, 1887 to 1914, with respect to the hours of employment below ground," presented by Mr. SHORTT; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 120.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PEACE TREATY.
    TWO BILLS INTRODUCED.

      PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH.
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George)—whose rising was the subject of a. general ovation. Members standing and cheering: I have to lay on the Table of the House, and to ask the leave of the House to introduce, two Bills to enforce the most momentous document to which the British Empire has ever affixed its seal. There are two Bills which I shall have to ask the leave of the House to introduce. It is unnecessary to obtain the ratification of Parliament to a Treaty, except in one or two particulars. The ratification is for the Crown, but there are certain provisions in the Treaty of Peace, signed last Saturday, which it is necessary to obtain an Act of Parliament in order to enforce. Therefore, I propose to ask leave to introduce a Bill in the usual form to enable His Majesty
      "to make such appointments, establish such offices, make such Orders in Council and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out the said Treaty, and for giving -effect to any of the provisions of the said Treaty."
      That is the usual form, I believe, in which measures of this kind have hitherto been couched. It is also necessary to have an Act of Parliament in order to obtain the sanction of Parliament to the Convention between His Majesty and the President of the French Republic. That Convention has already, I believe, been laid on the Table of the House, and, I hope, has already been circulated

      TRIBUTE TO COLLEAGUES AND BRITISH EXPERTS.
      Before I say a word about the character of the Treaty, and about the purpose which animated those who negotiated it, I should like to be able to say how much we all owe to the experts who assisted in the preparation of the Treaty, and my colleagues, more particularly in France, who were associated with me in its preparation. I cannot say how much I personally owe, and how much I am certain the nation owes, to the Foreign Secretary (Mr. Balfour), whose ripe experience, acute intellect, and brilliant pen have been invaluable in the preparation of the
      1212
      various parts of this great document. I should also like to recognise the services rendered by my right hon. Friend and colleague the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), for the great tact with which he initiated, negotiated, and put through all the terms of that great labour charter which is now incorporated in this Treaty of Peace. I mention them particularly because, although other Ministers from time to time rendered very great assistance, these were there throughout, and devoted the whole of their time to this great task. I should like also to be able to say how much we owe to the Prime Ministers and other members of the great Dominion Governments for the assistance which they gave—Sir Robert Borden, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Massey, and General Botha. They took part in some of the most difficult Commissions, notably the Territorial Commissions for the adjustment of the extraordinarily delicate and complex ethnical, economic, and strategic questions which arose between the various States throughout Europe. They, in the main, represented the British Empire on many of these most difficult Commissions. We owe a great deal to the ability and judgment with which they discharged their functions.
      I should not, however, be doing my duty if I did not recognise how much this country owes to the great body of experts who have taken part in the various, the innumerable, Commissions that have been working in connection with the preparation of these documents. We are rather apt in this country, I think, to depreciate our public servants, and to treat them as rather overpaid and under worked servants. They are neither overpaid nor underworked. Quite the reverse. I cannot tell the House the measure of admiration won amongst the foreign delegations—I think it is right the country should know the admiration won amongst the foreign delegations—by the work of the British experts on the various Commissions. It was a matter of common knowledge and common talk how efficient they were, how skilful: and a good deal of this Treaty is the direct work of public servants of Great Britain on these world Commissions, where they really actually took a lead. They have done arduous, very arduous service—service of a very high order—and we all owe them a deep debt of gratitude and appreciation—and, let me add, admiration—for their splendid work. These British experts have met

      1213
      the experts of the whole world on equal terms, to say the very least. I feel it may duty to make that acknowledgment.

      STERN, BUT JUST TREATY.
      4.0.P.M
      The last time I had the opportunity of addressing the House upon this Treaty, its main outlines had been settled. I ventured then to call it a "stern, but a just Treaty." I adhere to that description. The terms are in many respects terrible terms to impose upon a country. Terrible were the deeds which it requites. Terrible were the consequences that were inflicted upon the world. Still more terrible would have been the consequences had they succeeded. What do these terms mean to Germany? Let us look at the matter quite frankly. In 1914 you had an Empire which possessed the greatest army in the world —the greatest army, probably, the world had ever seen. It had taken nearly two centuries to perfect. It was a perfect and a powerful striking machine. It was the terror of the world. You had only to visit France or any other country to realise how Europe trembled—it is no exaggeration to say so—how Europe trembled—at the tramp of this mighty machine. It rendered the word of Germany potent. It has now been reduced to the size of a force quite adequate to maintain the peace in Germany, but not equal to disturbing the peace of the feeblest of her neighbours, not even of Czecho-Slovakia. There was a navy, the second in the world. I have heard grave debates in this House which gave the impression that this navy might successfully challenge our own, the greatest Navy in the world, and might enable that terrible army to invade a land which had not been invaded for hundreds of years. That was not so many years ago. Where is it now? The colonies of Germany covered about 1,500,000 square miles. Stripped of the lot! Territories of the size and of the- wealth of, say, Scotland and Wales, torn from her side. They ought never to have been there. They were torn from her side, and their populations now form an integral part of other lands. Her Mercantile Marine is scattered. The ruler who for thirty years spoke for her pride and her majesty and her might—now a fugitive—is soon to be placed on his trial before the tribunals of lands which, on behalf of his country, he sought to intimidate.
      They are terrible terms. Her war debt, which was no mean one, is more than
      1214
      doubled in order to pay reparation to those to whom she has done damage. I am not minimising the terms. If hon. Members want to exercise their imagination to realise what the terms mean, they have only to apply the terms to Great Britain, and they will begin to realise what they mean. There is no doubt that they are stern. Arc they just? Let us examine separately those which have been challenged.

      TERRITORIAL ADJUSTMENTS.
      Take the Territorial terms. In so far as territories have been taken away from Germany, it is a restoration. Alsace-Lorraine—forcibly taken away from the land to which its population were deeply attached. Is it an injustice to restore them to their country? Schleswig-Holstein—the meanest of the Hohenzollern frauds; robbing a poor, small, helpless country, with a pretence that you are not doing it, and then retaining that land against the wishes of the population for fifty or sixty years. I am glad the opportunity has come for restoring Schleswig-Holstein. Poland—torn to bits, to feed the carnivorous greed of Russian, Austrian, and Prussian autocracy. This Treaty has re-knit the torn flag of Poland, which is now waving over a free and a united people; and it will have to be defended, not merely with gallantry, but with wisdom. For Poland is indeed in a perilous position, between a Germany shorn of her prey and an unknown Russia which has not yet emerged. All these territorial adjustments of which we have heard are restorations. Take Danzig—a free city, forcibly incorporated in the Kingdom of Prussia. They are all territories that ought not to belong to Germany, and they are now restored to the independence of which they have been deprived by Prussian aggression.
      I should like to say one word before I quit the problem of Poland, because there has been some discussion about it. However unjust it was to take Polish populations and put them under German rule, it would have been equally unjust to take German populations and place them under Polish rule—and it would have been equally foolish. Whether for strategic or economic reasons, it would do nothing but produce mischief in Europe. Europe has the lesson of Alsace-Lorraine, and it would be folly on our part to create any more Alsace-Lorraines in Europe. It would have been a wrong not merely to

      1215
      Germany but to Poland; it would have been a wrong to Europe. Perhaps in fifty years' time Poland would have had to pay the penalty of the blunder committed by the Allies in this year. For that reason the British Delegation—and I have no hesitation in claiming a share in it—resolutely opposed any attempt to put predominantly German populations under Polish rule. I think Poland will have good reason to thank us for the part which we took in that action. But take all these territorial adjustments. I ask anyone to point to any territorial change we made in respect to Germany in Europe which is in the least an injustice, judged by any principle of fairness.
      I come now to the question of reparation Are the terms we have imposed unjust to Germany? If the whole cost of the War, all the costs incurred by every country that has been forced into war by the action of Germany, had been thrown upon Germany, it would have been in accord with every principle of civilised jurisprudence in the world. There was but one limit to the justice and the wisdom of the reparation we claimed, and that was the limit of Germany's capacity to pay. The experts of all the great Allied countries examined with very close attention that question, and they arrived with fair unanimity at the approximate limits of the reparation which could be recovered from Germany, and under the Treaty we have never exceeded nor fallen short of their verdict. We have set out certain categories of damage which Germany has to repair; damage to property on land and sea; damage for loss of life amongst civilians—that includes the damage sustained by the relatives of those gallant sailors who lost their lives in the merchant shipping of this country; damage for the loss of shipping and of cargoes; and also the damage which is represented by the pensions and the separation allowances paid by each country in respect of casualties in the War. Is there anything unjust in imposing upon Germany those payments? I do not believe anyone could claim it to be unjust. Certainly no one could claim that it was unjust unless he believed that the justice of 'the War was on the side of Germany.
      I come to another condition— disarmament. Having regard to the use which Germany made of her great army, is there anything unjust in scattering that army,
      1216
      disarming it, making it incapable of repeating the injury which it has inflicted upon the world?

      GERMAN COLONIES.
      I come again to the Colonies. I am running rapidly through the points which have-been challenged as indicating undue harshness to Germany. In some of the Colonies-there is most overwhelming evidence that Germany had cruelly ill-treated the natives. If, in the face of that evidence, we had restored those Colonies to Germany—especially having regard to the part which the natives have taken in their own liberation—and thus given Germany an opportunity of effecting reprisals, it would have been a base betrayal. And it is not merely the treatment of the natives. Take the other use which Germany made of her Colonies. South-West Africa she? used as a means of stirring up sedition and rebellion against the South African Colonies. The other Colonies she used as a base for preying upon the commerce of all countries in those seas. It would have been folly on our part to have restored those Colonies to Germany. We should under those conditions have widened the area of injustice in the world—it is already wide enough—and given renewed opportunities to Germany for possible future-mischief.

      EX-KAISEK'S TRIAL IN LONDON.
      Take another condition—the trial of those who have been responsible for the War. I think it is essential, if wars of this kind are to be prevented in future, that those who are personally responsible for them, and have taken part in plotting and planning them, should be held personally responsible. After all, millions of gallant young men have lost their lives, and there has been terrible suffering, in the War; and one or two men have in the main been responsible for engineering it. They ought to be held responsible. Therefore we have decided upon an exceptional course, and a pity it is that it is exceptional. Had it been done before there would have been fewer wars. We have decided that the man who undoubtedly had the prime responsibility for the War, in the judgment, at any rate, of the allied" countries, should be tried for the offence he committed in breaking treaties which he was bound in honour to respect, to which he was a party, and by that means bringing such horrors upon the world. The allied countries have decided quite

      1217
      unanimously that the tribunal shall be an Inter-Allied one, and that it shall sit in London for the trial of the person supremely responsible for this War.
      Mr. HAYDAY: Then the Kaiser looks like getting to London after all. (Laughter.)
      The PRIME MINISTER: I hope the House will grant me some indulgence, as I am not quite up to the mark. The same thing applies to punishment for offences against the laws of war. There is a longer category than the House may imagine. Some of them are incredible— I could not have believed it had it not been that the evidence was overwhelming. I should not have thought any nation with a pretence to civilisation could have committed such atrocities. I am not going into the categories, and I should not care to enumerate them, but they ought to be punished. Officers who are guilty of these things in a moment of arrogance, feeling that their power to do what they please is irresistible, ought to know in future that they will be held personally responsible. War is horrible enough without committing these unlicensed infamies upon rules which are quite cruel enough as they are. Therefore the persons responsible must be tried. They will get a fair trial, all of them—an absolutely fair trial. It is due to the honour of the allied countries that the trial should be fair. Our credit stands behind a fair trial. We have to show that we are a civilised people, and we will try them according to the methods and rules of civilisation. They will get fair play, and they have no right to more. What injustice is there in that? What undue harshness is there in it? It is the averting of it, and making it impossible for the future.
      What are the other acts of injustice which are provided for in this Treaty? It is getting rid of the Bucharest and Brest-Litovsk Treaties—treaties that made the populations of Rumania and of large tracts of Russia the mere slaves of German greed and rapine. Is that unjust? Is it unjust that we should, in our economic terms, make it clear that Germany is not to take advantage of wanton destruction of the trade machinery of her rivals in Belgium and in France, in order to get ahead in the competitive race for business? Money does not put that right. You cannot get machinery in a year or, perhaps, two years, and meanwhile Germany, which has never been devastated,
      1218
      would be going a head. We had to put in clauses for protection against that. What injustice is there in that?
      I have heard that our conditions with regard to the great international rivers of the Continent are unjust, because we have put them under international control. Why not? They are rivers which pass not merely through Germany, but through Poland and through Czecho-Slovakia, and they pass through Belgium. Is it right that, purely because part of these rivers go through Prussia, they should have the power to strangle the economic life of these young countries higher up the river? These rivers are not for Prussia. They are navigable right up Poland and Czechoslovakia, and they must remain navigable. Yet I have heard it said that it was an injustice because we say: "You will not be allowed to suffocate the lives of these young countries by giving complete power to one riparian owner to make it impossible for the others to carry on their business." Those are some of the conditions I have heard described as unjust, and I ask anyone to point out in respect of any of these main conditions a single act of injustice, or anything which in a perfectly impartial court would not have been adjudicated upon in exactly the same sense as that in which the Council, which sat for six months in Paris scrupulously examining all these conditions, decided them.

      NOT VENGEANCE—DISCOURAGEMENT.
      Then I am told, "Oh,, yes, take them individually and they may be quite fair, but the cumulative effect is so crushing that you ought to have taken that into account." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I will deal with that. That is a criticism, and I am prepared to meet it. They say it may be just, but is it wise? I agree that justice ought not to be merely tempered by mercy, but it ought to be guided by wisdom. If these conditions do not meet that test, I agree they fail, although we could defend each individual decision upon its merit's. Let us examine them. There were three alternative methods of dealing with Germany, bearing in mind her crime. What was that crime? Germany not merely provoked, but planned the most devastating war the earth has ever seen. She planned it and prepared for it for years. She deliberately embarked upon it, not to defend Herself against assailants, but to aggrandise herself at the expense of her neighbours. I cannot think of a

      1219
      worse crime, certainly in the conditions of Europe as they were. They knew there were millions of armed men in other lands, and they deliberately hurled 4,000,000 of their own youth against millions in France, millions in Russia, and possibly millions in the United Kingdom. They knew not how far it would extend. They lit a fire: they knew not what it would devour, what it would scorch, what it would burn, what sufferings would be caused, or what would be the desolation. They recked it not.
      There were three methods of dealing with that crime. It cost millions of lives. It cost actually in the expense of the War for all lands £30,000,000,000, with all that that represents In possible happiness for the human race. But that is not all. The sufferings of that war will not pass away until this generation vanishes. We know what it is in hundreds of thousands of households. It is not merely the gallantry of the young fellows who gave their lives in a grave hour, but it is the households that will suffer tortures as long as they draw breath. All that planned, plotted, deliberately embarked upon! That is what happened when they failed. What would have happened had they succeeded? The world is rocking and reeling under the blow, a blow that failed. I do not know when it will recover. I have seen something of Europe, and I have heard more, and I do not know when that blow will come to an end. That is the blow that failed. Had it succeeded, liberty in Europe would have vanished, and that is more precious than even precious lives. It would have altered the whole character of Europe, and you would have had a military tyranny throughout the world. That is what would have happened had the blow succeeded. That is the cumulative effect of the crime.
      There are three ways of dealing with that crime. One was to say, "You tried, you failed; go, and sin no more." [An HON. MEMBER: "Here, hear."] Hon. Members may think that that is a good way of doing it, but let us see what it means. I am not afraid of examining that. Do not let us imagine, because it looks ridiculous, that there are not people who believe in it—I mean outside this House. [An HON. MEMBER: "And inside it too."] You have got to answer it. Had that happened, you must remember that Germany suffered less than her victims.
      1220
      Louvain is not in Prussia. France is not in Pomerania, the devastated territories are not in Brandenburg. Look at that land of desolation and wilderness. I have traversed it pretty well from one end to the other. I felt it my duty to do so, in order to know with what I was dealing. That is not across the Rhine. Go across the Rhine. There are no devastated cities and no scorched plains there. The country is whole; the factories are there, the machinery is there—their own and other peoples—and if you had done that Germany would have been better off than the people she had victimised. The cost of the War would have been less, because she would have had a perfect military machine. She would have said, "Look at the triumph of militarism! We have kept all this devastation from you. France is paying more now than we are" Why to have done that would have been to put a premium on militarism. The point I do not think is worth arguing.
      Let us take the second. The second is to go to the other extreme—to treat Germany as Rome treated Carthage, or, may I say, Prussia treated Poland—destroy her national existence, tear her to pieces, fling one piece to one conqueror, another to another, and a third to another. Fling the bits to the winds of heaven, and have done with them. That is how Prussia treated Poland. It was not merely a crime, it was a blunder, and after a century and a half Poland reappears a formidable and bitter foe. She had 20,000,000 population; Germany had 60,000,000. It is not merely that it would have been a wrong and an injustice, but it would have been a folly, and I am glad that we have not soiled our hands with Prussian methods in dealing with Prussia.
      What is the third method? To compel Germany, in so far as it is in her power to restore, to repair, and to redress. Yes, and to take every possible precaution of every kind that is in our power against the recurrence of another such crime—to make such an example as will discourage ambitious rulers—yea, and ambitious peoples—from ever attempting to repeat this infamy. That is not vengeance. It is discouragement. The crime must be marked. The world cannot take these risks again. I said that Germany failed. I shudder to think how near she got to success. When you are thinking of the terms of peace you must think of making it impossible for any country to repeat an

      1221
      experiment of this kind without running the most terrible risks to her destiny. Every delegate entering the Council felt in his heart the supreme need for imposing terms that would make not merely rulers, but nations, shrink from attempting a crime of this kind again. That was the principle upon which we proceeded.
      But it is said, "Are you not punishing Germany for the crime of her rulers? Well, I am sorry to have to answer this, but I must. If Germany had been committed to this War against the will of her people, I say at once we ought to have taken that into account in the terms of peace. But was that so? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] The nation approved, the nation applauded; the nation had been taught to approve and to applaud. From the Baltic to the Boden See the nation was united and enthusiastic behind this enterprise. It was not like the unity and enthusiasm of France to repel an invader on French soil. It was an enthusiasm which was at its highest when German troops were marching through Belgium. Supposing that the German Chancellor had returned from the Peace Conference with a Germanic Peace—Belgium added to the Fatherland, the mines of Briey added to the mineral wealth of the Rhineland, the British Fleet surrendered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never!"] Well, I agree it requires some imagination, but I ask my hon. Friends to accept it for the moment. Supposing there had been a Peace of that kind—the British Mercantile Marine taken away, the British Dependencies added to the German Colonies, huge indemnities imposed upon France and Great Britain for a war they never provoked, and into which they entered against their will—
      Mr. SEXTON: They would have had to 'kill us all first!
      The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friends now will see what we averted. That was what Germany was after. But suppose these things had happened. The mere fact that Belgium was a helpless country, and was not capable of invading Germany or any other land, that France was more pacific than ever, and that Great Britain had not the slightest desire to enter into war with any land, would not have prevented the German people as a, whole receiving these terms with delirious joy for the triumph of German firms. I should have been glad had it been possible to say that this was a war which had been entered into against the
      1222
      will of the German people. But it was not, and therefore it is essential that nations must know, if they enter into unprovoked wars of aggression against their neighbours, what may lie in store for them when defeat falls upon their arms. I therefore have no hesitation in challenging anyone, either inside ox outside this House, to point to a single Clause in this Treaty that is not in accordance with the stern and highest demands of justice and fair play.

      GUARANTEES FROM GERMANY—DISARMAMENT.
      The next question that is asked is, "What are your guarantees for the execution of this stern Treaty?" I need hardly assure the House that this gave us very great concern, and that we thought a great deal about it. We were determined, at any rate, that this Treaty should not be a scrap of paper. What are the guarantees? The first is the disarmament of Germany. The German Army was the foundation and corner stone of Prussian policy. You had to scatter it, disperse it, disarm it—to make it impossible for it to come together again, to make it impossible to equip such an army. The first step we took was to reduce the German Army from 4,000,000 to 100,000—quite adequate for the maintenance of the peace in Germany. Then came the question whether that army should be a voluntary army or a conscript army. The British Delegation had no hesitation in proposing that it should be a voluntary army, with a long term of service. I will tell the House why we came to that conclusion. The first proposal was that there should be a conscript army of 200,000 men. That would have meant that in ten years you might have had 1,500,000 trained men in Germany, and in twenty years you might have had 3,000,000 armed trained men. As everyone knows, that was more or less the method by which the army which overthrew Napoleon was created in Germany—by their short terms of service passing the youth of the nation as rapidly as they could through the machine. That we did not think was disarming Germany. Therefore we strongly advocated a long-service army, which would leave the mass of the population untrained, and make it impossible for the Germans to raise huge armies, even had they got someone else, to equip them. There was always that possible danger— that, although they might not be able to do it themselves, they might be in alliance with a country which could equip them. On

      1223
      the other hand, if they had not the trained men, it would have taken time at any rate to accustom them to the use of arms. We had always our own experience and the experience of America. Although we had in 1914 a very considerable force, scattered over the Empire, it was a force equipped rather for defence than for offence, and, in spite of the fact that you had in the British Empire pretty nearly 1,000,000 armed men in 1914, still we were not able to put in the field an army which you could reckon upon to face a great Continental army until 1916. Why? It took time to train and to equip—to get the necessary officers, and to make ready. You could not wage a war of aggression under these circumstances.
      That is why we felt that as long as you forced the German Army down to a small number, so long as you had not in Germany great numbers of men who had received even six months' training, Germany could never take part in a war of aggression. That is what we want to avoid. Those who have read the Treaty know the steps we have taken to make it impossible for Germany to have great factories and arsenals which at any moment she could turn on for the equipment of a great force. I know very well from experience that, though you can convert and adapt to warlike purposes machinery used for peaceable purposes, it takes time, and that makes a war of aggression impossible. We, therefore, regard the disarmament of Germany—the reduction of her army, the destruction of her arsenals, the taking away of her guns—as one of the foremost guarantees for peace which you could exact in the Treaty. The same thing applies to her Navy.

      UNPROVOKED ATTACK UPON FRANCE.
      Then comes another guarantee, the guarantee to which I have already referred, in regard to which I propose to ask the leave of the House to introduce a Bill, and obtain the approval of the House —that is the United States and British guarantees—-in the event of a wanton and an unprovoked attack being made upon France. I do not suppose that any section of the House would object to that. It is to be entered into with the approval of the League of Nations. But the League of Nations is an experiment, and France has within living memory twice been invaded by Germany. She is, with a population of 40.000,000, facing a very hostile popula-
      1224
      tion of 60,000,000 or 70,000,000, and France has legitimate reason for feeling a nervous apprehension. When Britain has gone-home, when America has left 3,000 miles between her and the coast of France, and when those gallant men from the Dominions who have fought so bravely on French soil—the Australians and the men of New Zealand, South Africa, and Canada, who won the deepest affection in France—have departed, France sees herself there with only the Rhine between her and this foe which has trampled upon her ruthlessly, and torn her flesh twice within living memory. Therefore France says, "We would like to know that you, Britain, that you, America, who helped to emancipate our soil, are still behind us if there is any wanton aggression." I invite the British Parliament to say, "Yes."
      An HON. MEMBER: That shows a lack of faith in the League of Nations.
      The PRIME MINISTER: I do not agree that that is a lack of faith in the League of Nations. On the contrary, the League of Nations will be of no value unless it has-behind it the sanction of strong nations, prepared at a moment's notice to stop aggression. Otherwise the League of Nations will be a scrap of paper. I know it is said that this binds you to engage by the side of France in war with Germany, if ever it should happen. No ! It only engages us if there be wanton provocation on the part of Germany. That is clearly and distinctly stated in the document itself. If there be a wanton attack on the part of Germany—which I do not anticipate, because I think Germany has had enough —I cannot imagine anyone hesitating for a moment to come to the aid of that gallant country which has suffered more than any other country in the world from this wanton aggression. I, therefore, propose to invite the House of Commons to sanction and approve that agreement.

      RHINE ARMY OF OCCUPATION.
      What is the other guarantee? The other guarantee is the Army of Occupation. There are some who attach more importance to that than others. The French people, very naturally, would like to feel, at any rate until Germany shows evidence of good will—evidence that she means honestly to execute the Treaty—that they have that force on the Rhine. But I am perfectly certain of this: that France doe not wish to keep an Army there for a. single day beyond the absolute necessity

      1225
      of the case. Because there is peril in an Army of Occupation. There are unfortunate possibilities in an Army of Occupation. France does not desire to keep an Army there merely in order to be able to occupy German cities. If Germany shows her good will, if Germany gives the necessary guarantees for the execution of the Treaty, then France is quite prepared to reconsider at the proper moment the question of occupation. The second matter, which is a very important one in respect of occupation, is its cost. We are indirectly interested in that, inasmuch as we are interested in Germany paying her instalments of the indemnity. We do not wish to impose upon Germany any unnecessary expense that would be a first charge upon a fund in which we are just as much interested as any other country. Therefore we have had an understanding with France that the moment the German Government carry out their undertaking with regard to disarmament, the cost of the Army of Occupation shall not exceed 240,000,000 marks a year. I do not know what the value of the mark is to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Three pence!"] At any rate, I think that is a satisfactory arrangement, and I propose to put on the Table of the House a document signed by M. Clemenceau, President Wilson, and myself, which notifies that arrangement. That does not require any sanction. It is simply an indication on the part of France of her intention.

      LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
      5.0 P.M.
      I come to the last and the greatest guarantee of all—that is, the League of Nations. Let me say, with regard to the League of Nations, that that great and hopeful experiment is only rendered possible by the other conditions. I want the House to realise that thoroughly. Without disarmament, without the indication which this War has given that the nations of the world are determined at all costs to enforce respect for treaties, the League of Nations would be just like other Conventions in the past —something that would be blown away by the first gust of war or of any fierce dispute between the nations. It is this War, it is the Treaty that concludes this War, which will make the League of Nations possible. The world has had a great fright. We all remember what used to be said by the great military writers, and what was believed by everybody, as to the length of the next, great war. It could not last longer
      1226
      than six weeks—three months, perhaps. That was the conviction of everybody at the beginning of this War—it would be very sharp, but it would be short. The nations could not go on beyond a few months. That was the conviction of Germany. She would never have entered upon this War had she known it would last so long. The world knows now that the conditions of modern warfare, with its ponderous armaments, with its trundling heavy machinery, rather conduce to lengthen war. The world is frightened. It also realises the peril of small disputes. A little quarrel about a murder in Bosnia, and the world is aflame. There are many things the world has realised and is prepared to take into account and to provide against. This League of Nations is an attempt to do it by some less barbarous methods than war. Let us try it. I beg this country to try it seriously, and to try it in earnest. It is due to mankind that we should try it. Anything except the horror of the last four and a half years! If you must come to that, well you must, but do let us try this. Take Article 12 of this Covenant:
      The Members of the League—
      which means the nations of the earth—
      "agree that if there should arise between them any dispute likely to lead to a rupture, they will submit the matter either to arbitration or to inquiry."
      Then I think nine months elapse. Supposing that had been in existence in 1914, it would have been difficult for Germany and Austria to have gone to War. They could not have done it, and, if they had, America would have been in on the first day, not three years afterwards, which would have made a great difference, and made all the difference. You could not have had the War in 1914 had the League of Nations been in existence. With. this machinery I am not going to say you will never have war. Man is a savage animal. You have only to go to the field of Verdun—which is a narrow circle where about 3,000,000 of men were engaged in deadly conflict for five months, and where the earth is like congealed human savagery —to see what a terrible being man is when he is roused. If it avert one war, the League of Nations will have justified itself. If you let one generation pass without the blood of millions being spilt, and without the agony which fills so many homes, the League of Nations will have been justified.

      1227
      I beg no one to sneer at the League of Nations. Let us try it. I believe it will succeed in stopping something. It may not stop everything. The world has gone from war to war, until at last we have despaired of stopping it. But society with all its organisations has not stopped every crime. What it does is that it makes crime difficult or unsuccessful, and that is what the League of Nations will do. Therefore I look to it with hope and with confidence.

      ADMISSION OF GERMANY TO LEAGUE.
      But they say why do not you let Germany in at once? Well, I thought a good deal about that, and had I thought it would have been better for the peace of the world, I would not have minded the clamour. But I do not think it would be better for Germany either. I think you must let some time elapse. It is very difficult to forget some things. It is difficult, especially for France. It is rather difficult for us, but it is especially difficult for France. More than that, I am not sure that, if you introduced Germany now, before all the questions that remain for settlement have been disposed of, you would not open up a field for intrigue, mischief and dissension, and harm would be done. It would be a mistake, in my view, for Germany to come in immediately. The date when Germany comes in depends on herself. She can accelerate it. If she places obstacles in the way, if she shows that the same old spirit animates her, she will put off that date. But if Germany shows that she has really broken with her past, if she shows that the fires of war have really purified her soul—if she shows, at any rate, that she realises that her policy for the last 150 years was a bitter mistake, then Germany can accelerate the date. I am hoping that she will find this mistake, and that she will realise that her defeat has been her salvation, ridding her of militarism, of Junkers and of Hohenzollerns. She has paid a big price for her deliverance. I think she will find it is worth it all. When she does, Germany will then be a fit member of the League of Nations. The sooner that comes about the better it will be for Germany and for the world.

      ALLIES' MANDATES.
      With regard to the mandates for the Colonies, it was decided in the negotiations that the German Colonies should be disposed of, not by way of distributing
      1228
      them among the conquerors, but rather by way of entrusting them to great Powers-to be administered in the name and on behalf of humanity; and the conditions under which these mandates were entrusted to the various countries differed according to the particular territory disposed of. For instance, South-West Africa, running as it does side by side with Cape Colony, was felt to be so much a part, geographically of that area that it would be quite impossible to treat it in the same way as you would a colony 2,000 miles or 3,000 miles away from the centre of administration. There is no doubt at all that South-West Africa will become an integral part of the Federation of South Africa. It will be colonised by people from South Africa. You could not have done anything else. You could not have set Customs barriers and have a different system of administration. The same thing applies to New Guinea, part of which is already under the administration of the Australian Commonwealth. You could not have had that part under one system of administration, and the next part under another. It is so near the Australian Commonwealth that it was felt that it ought to be treated as if it were part of the Australian Commonwealth. That does not apply to Togoland, the Cameroons, or German East Africa, and, therefore, there was a different system of mandate set up there.
      But if hon. Members will look at the conditions of the mandates they will find that they are the conditions which now apply in respect of British Colonies throughout the world—freedom of conscience and religion, prohibition of the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or of military and naval bases, the prohibition of the military training of the natives for other than police purposes, and the defence of territory. We have never raised an army for aggressive purposes in any of these Colonies. Equal opportunities for trade and commerce—we have allowed that in all our Colonies without distinction. So you find that the conditions of the mandate described here are the conditions which we ourselves have always applied in respect of British Colonies throughout the world. Under this mandate the responsibilities of the British Empire have been enormously increased. Something like 800,000 square miles have been added to the gigantic charge already on the

      1229
      shoulders of this Empire, a charge which has undoubtedly been fulfilled in a way that has won the wonder of the whole world. There have been constant references to British administration — its efficiency, its fairness, its gentleness to the natives, the manner in which it won its way, the confidence that it established everywhere—that was a common matter of observation throughout the whole of this great Conference in Paris.

      LABOUR CONVENTION.
      The other great condition of Peace is the Labour Convention which has been added to this document. That is a matter of very vital importance to the future industrial conditions of the world. It is intended to secure better and more uniform conditions of labour. When you bear in mind that at least three-fourths of the armies which won this great victory were drawn from the working classes of the various nations, you feel that they have won a right to a corner of their own in this great Treaty, and I am very glad that, largely through the negotiations of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes), this charter has been added to the Treaty. Competition is becoming keener, and the markets of the world have been invaded from low-paid countries, where the conditions are very degraded, and the mere existence of these conditions in other countries made it difficult to effect improvement in our own, notably with regard to child labour. I hope, that by means of the machinery set up in this document, it will be possible to establish some permanent means by which you can raise the level of labour throughout the world, without the countries that are treating labour well being handicapped in the neutral markets, where they have to compete with lands in which labour has inferior conditions. That is the great purpose of that great charter, and I have no doubt these conferences, representing not merely workmen, but employers of labour, as well as officials of Government Departments, will in themselves promote goodwill and a better understanding among the nations of the earth.

      BRITAIN'S PART IN WAR.
      The victory, the fruits of which are (scheduled in this Treaty, has been a tremendous achievement, but no country has had a greater share in that achievement than the British Empire. I make no apology for referring to that, because I am a little afraid we have not informed
      1230
      the world—I am not sure that we have informed ourselves—as to the splendid part which this great commonwealth of nations known as the British Empire has had in thi3 the greatest achievement in the history of the struggles for human freedom. Let me give one or two figures. I wonder how many men here at the centre of government know the number of men raised by the British Empire for its Army and its Navy in the War. Seven million seven hundred thousand men! The amount raised by loans and revenue for the conduct of the War runs to £9,500,000,000. That is the biggest contribution made by any country. The total casualties of the Empire have been over 3,000,000. Without its Navy, without its great Mercantile Marine, where should we have been? I had to refresh my memory as to these gallant sailors who, without demur, without fear, without delay, responded to the call of duty, and kept the traffic of the world going, fed the Allies, supplied the Allies, gave strength to the arm of the Allies. Fifteen thousand of them have been killed. The Mercantile Marino and the Navy kept the seas. Without them the War would have collapsed in six months. In the last two years of the War—1917–18—and here is a fact that is little known in this country or abroad—the heaviest fighting, judged by casualties, was undertaken and carried through by the armies of Britain, even in France. In addition to that, whilst we were carrying the heaviest share of the burden there in the matter of hard, ruthless, relentless fighting, with British doggedness and resistlessness, the armies of Britain had the whole burden of the attack upon the Turkish Empire, and that Empire was brought down crumbling to the dust by the strength of British arms. I think we are entitled to call attention to these things.

      UNITED EFFORTS NEEDED.
      It is a great record for a country which at the beginning of the War had only an army that was treated with contempt. It shows—and I want to say this with emphasis—what can be achieved by a great people united and inspired by a common purpose. Let us rejoice over the victory, but let us rejoice as men who are not under the delusion that all our troubles are over, but rather like men who feel that the first and the worst of our troubles are past, and that the spirit, courage, and resolution which enabled us to overcome these will also enable us cheerfully to face what

      1231
      is to come. Let us not waste our strength prematurely in fighting each other. The time will come when that may be quite necessary in order to keep us in trim. But do not let us do it prematurely. We are not out of our troubles yet. We have no strength to spare if we are to save— and I say this in all solemnity—this country from sinking under its burdens and its wounds. The ravages of war have to be repaired. The revelations of war have to be profited by in trade, in industry, in commerce, in the health of the people, and in their housing conditions. We want to make the most effective use of the resources of this land and of the Empire. We want to make all reasonable men contented. Unreasonable men you will never content, even if you place them in Paradise.

      SPIRT OF PATRIOTISM.
      Here let me refer to the Victory Loan. We lent thousands of millions to sow the seeds of victory. Do let us lend hundreds of millions to garner in the harvest, so that it shall not rot on the fields. The losses of the War will take a deal of repairing. Reparation is not a matter of receiving German instalments. That is a small part. We must each and all give 6uch instalments of strength, of good will, of co-operation, and of intelligence as we can command. The country needs it, every grain of it. The strength, the power of every land has been drained and exhausted by this terrible War to an extent one can t hardly realise. The nations have bled at every vein, and this restlessness which you get everywhere to-day is the fever of anaemia. There is a tendency in many quarters to assume that now we have won the victory, and Peace is established, all will come right without any effort, that plenty will spring up unaided from the blood-stained ground, and that all that is left is the scramble. Let us first of all see that there is something to scramble for. What have we got? Output diminished, cost of production increasing. That is exactly the opposite road to the one which leads to prosperity. Even Bolshevik Russia is beginning to realise that that method of procedure is one which brings nothing but hopelessness, and it is gradually trying to escape from it. Let us think together, act together, work together. I beg that we do not demobilise the spirit of patriotism in this country. Keep it in the ranks until the country has won through to its real victory. That
      1232
      spirit alone won us the War. That spirit alone can bring us a real and a glorious triumph.
      Mr. ADAMSON: We have had a very interesting statement from the Prime Minister, and we welcome the decision of the Government to have the terms of the Treaty considered in the form of a Bill. I do not intend to intervene for more than a few minutes. I am sure that not only am I expressing the gratification of the members of the Labour party and of myself that at last, after nearly five years of war, the Peace Treaty has been signed, but I believe I am at the same time also expressing the gratification of the whole of the people of this country. While I am strongly of the opinion that the Prime Minister could have lightened his labour and his responsibility by giving the people and their representatives a greater share in the fixing of the Peace Terms, at the same time I want to take this opportunity of paying my tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has devoted himself to the settlement of this most stupendous task—a task which, I think, is greater than has ever confronted the head of any democratic Government before. With reference to the terms of the Treaty, Labour has always insisted that Germany must make full reparation for the wanton destruction done in all the Allied countries. But there are certain features of the Treaty with which neither I nor the Labour party agree. For instance, we do not agree with the exclusion 'of Germany from membership of the League of Nations after she has ratified the Treaty. We want to see the League of Nations become at the earliest day a League of Nations, and not a league of the Allied countries.
      The PRIME MINISTER: Hear, hear!
      Mr. ADAMSON: Again we regret very much that the Treaty does not contain the machinery whereby Conscription would, be abolished in the Allied countries as well as in Germany. Neither do we agree with all the territorial adjustments. When the Prime Minister was giving us that interesting and eloquent explanation of his the referred to certain territories that had been taken from Germany, and justified what had been done by the fact that these territories did not belong to Germany originally. With that I think the House and the country will be in general agreement, but there are territories that are dealt with in the terms of the Peace

      1233
      Treaty which are of a different character from those described by the Prime-Minister. Again, Labour would have liked to see the question of armaments dealt with in the machinery of the terms of peace in the way certain other matters have been dealt with.
      The PRIME MINISTER: It is in the League of Nations.
      Mr. ADAMSON: But not exactly in the way that Labour would like. There are other matters contained in the Peace Treaty with which we are not in agreement, but we will reserve our criticism of these matters until the Second Reading of the Bills which the Prime Minister has intimated, and all I want to say further to-day regarding the matter is that I hope, now that the Treaty has been signed, that the German people will realise that the only chance of a peaceful and orderly development from the old conditions to the new is for them to try to give effect to the terms of the Treaty, while we on our part meet that effort in a spirit of reconciliation. I hope that the spirit which animated the Prime Minister while he was dealing in his speech with the question of the League of Nations is the spirit which will animate the whole of the British people, at least in their efforts to make war an impossibility in the future, and to carry out the ideal which animated our people at the beginning of this terrible conflict, to make this a war against war. If that ideal is to be realised in all its fulness, Britain and Germany must forget, as rapidly as they can, all that has occurred in the course of the last five years, and I hope that, so far as we are concerned, if we show a proper spirit in trying to carry out the terms of the agreement that has just been come to, we will meet them in a spirit of magnanimous reconciliation, and do our best to make their task as light as possible.
      Sir E. CARSON: I only desire from these benches to say a few words of gratitude to the Prime Minister for the greatest achievement in history, which he has done so much to bring about. I do not believe that the nation has yet realised all that we owe to the Prime Minister for the last four and a half years. I had the honour of serving in the Cabinet with him in the very darkest days of our country's history in this War. His patriotism, his courage, and his genius in carrying on the War were the greatest contribution that any
      1234
      man in the whole country has given to the War, and I believe that when the history of our time comes to be written, it will be said of the Prime Minister that, so far as the organisation at home went, which meant so much for success in the field, the nation owes him a debt of gratitude, and history will say of him that he did more than any other man to preserve the liberties of the world. May I also say upon this occasion—because it is a great occasion—that I do not forget, and I hope the House does not forget, the burden that was born in the early days of the War by Mr. Asquith when he was Prime Minister? He had an unprepared country to deal with. He had very great difficulties to contend with in bringing the nation to a full sense of its obligations in the War. He suffered a personal loss, a terrible loss, and when he went to the other side of the House, when he left the Government, he showed an example of patriotism which many might well copy. My belief is. that the greatest achievement of this War may turn out to be the League of Nations. I remember that I was criticised during the War for criticising at that time the League of Nations. As the Prime Minister said to-day, and I believe said truly, unless you had gone on with the War until you had crushed Prussianism, you never could have had an effective League of Nations, and I say that the League of Nations is, therefore, only possible because our soldiers in the field have given us victory. If those sacrifices that have been made turn out to have been made for the purpose of organising an international institution which will put an end to war, I think that the nation and the country will bear with equanimity the terrible sacrifices which every household has endured, and so I say let us seriously back the League of Nations.
      If it does nothing else it can do this—it can make peace more fashionable than war. But the League of Nations, like every other system of jurisprudence, must grow from infancy. It must grow from day to day in strength and understanding, and do not let us be led away by expecting too much all at a moment as the result of the League of Nations, for remember that one failure by the League of Nations may put back its ultimate and great fruition for many years, and therefore I say that it is only by an honest and genuine support, and not by merely lip-service, that you can build up the necessary international organisation. I

      1235
      desire to make only one other observation. The Prime Minister has made a most eloquent appeal for unity—for continued unity. I think he said, "Do not let us demobilise our patriotism too early." I believe that there never was a greater necessity for unity, unity of purpose, of effort and of understanding each other than there is at the present moment, and I cannot but express my regret that, at a time when the Prime Minister was winning through the results of the War and producing this great charter of the world's freedom, we had the constant misrepresentation, pinpricking, and unfair criticism to which he was subjected. [HON. MEMBERS: "From the Tories!" and "From his Friends!"] What the Prime Minister said is perfectly true. You have to reconstruct a devastated world. You have to reconstruct a world worn out in men and in machinery and to rebuild all that has been destroyed, and I believe that you will never do that unless, at all events for a time, you get rid of this insane idea of getting back into political fights. Our fights are still national fights, and it is only by keeping them so that we will do our duty to those who have sacrificed their lives for us, and build up, on what they have won, a sure structure for our people.
      Motion made, and Question,
      "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for carrying into effect the Treaty of Peace between His Majesty and certain other Powers,"
      put, and agreed to.
      Bill ordered to be brought in by the Prime Minister, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Balfour, Mr. Barnes, and Sir Gordon Hewart.
      TREATY OF PEACE BILL,—"for carrying into effect the Treaty of Peace between His Majesty and certain other Powers," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 121.]

  ANGLO-FRENCH TREATY (DEFENCE OF FRANCE).
  Bill for approving a Treaty between His Majesty and the President of the French Republic, ordered to be brought in by the Prime Minister, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Balfour, Mr. Churchill, and Sir Gordon Hewart.
  ANGLO-FRENCH TREATY (DEFENCE OF FRANCE) BILL,—"for approving a Treaty between His Majesty and President of the French Republic," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 122.]

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Government of India Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords."—[colonel gibbs.]
  Colonel YATE: I rise to object on behalf of the provincial governors of India. When this Bill was first brought in by the Secretary of State for India, I put a question to the Prime Minister as to whether it would be within the powers of the Joint Committee of both Houses on the Government of India Bill, after the second reading, to introduce an Amendment to give effect to the alternative proposals submitted by the majority of the provincial governors in India in opposition to the system of diarchy embodied in this Bill. The answer was, "It is certainly our intention that this should be within the competence of the Committee," and the Bill has been drafted with this in view. As the House will remember, the majority of the Provincial Governors have objected to the principle of diarchy advanced by the Secretary of State and have made an alternative proposal, and I feared that that alternative proposal might not get a proper hearing before the Committee. The Leader of the House, however, reassured me, and I mentioned this when the Bill came before the House on the next day. I stated that I was satisfied with the assurance given me by the Leader of the House, and in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Government of India Bill I went on to say that I hope the Bill would now go forward as quickly as possible, that we all wished to see this Bill brought forward on the basis of the announcement of August, 1914. I emphasised further to the Leader of the House the great importance of the Joint Committee which had to thresh out the Bill. I pointed out that the Committee had a most serious inquiry to undertake. I said:
  "We do not know what their Report may be. It may throw back India into chaos."
  I also added:
  "I appeal to the Leader of the House to sea that on this Joint Committee all views are im-

  1237
  partially represented and that all parties may have an equal chance of giving evidence before it, especially those Members of provincial Governments of India who have experience and knowledge of the Government of India,, and whose representations would be of first rate value."
  The Governors of the Provinces in India are the men who have the real experience of what India requires. The Secretary of State, as we know, has only the experience of two cold weather tours in India. I was as a Governor of a Province in India myself, and I am the only one here who is able to speak a word on their behalf. I openly supported their view in opposition to the system of diarchy introduced by the Secretary of State, a system never heard of in the world before, and one which almost all these experienced men have decided against. I would ask the Leader of the House to consider what chance these Governors of Provinces have of getting their opinions adequately dealt with in the Committee that it is now proposed to set up?
  In the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, with the exception of the Secretary of State and one other Minister, I think there were ten hon. Members who spoke. I myself, I think, was the only one who spoke in favour of the alternative system proposed by the Provincial Governors. One other or two others committed themselves in no way. The remaining speakers committed themselves definitely in favour of the proposals of the Secretary of State. Of the seven men to be appointed to this Committee, six are professed supporters of the Secretary of State in this, principle of diarchy. They cannot give an impartial opinion on this matter because they have already stated that they are in favour of the Bill's proposal. I and possibly one other Member spoke against the proposal, but I and that other Member have been deliberately left out of this Committee, and the Secretary of State has selected six men who are absolutely pledged to support him in it. Then, finally, he has gone and put himself on it. I wish to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister that, so far as I am aware, it is an unheard of thing for a Secretary of State to appoint himself to a Committee of his own. Secretaries of State and their assistants have been present and watched their Bills, but they were not members of Committees and they did not vote. Here is a Committee which is to be, in fact, a Judicial Committee, deciding on evidence that is to come before it, and the right hon.
  1238
  Gentleman the Secretary of State is not only the advocate, but the judge and jury as well. Can any one of the Provincial Governors in India consider that the proposal he supports has had a fair hearing, when he has been appointed to go before a Committee of which six out of seven members are prejudged to vote against him? It is an impossibility. So far as impartiality is concerned, the nomination of this Committee is a mere farce. We have heard of packed juries. We have here a packed advocate, a packed judge, and a packed jury as well. I, therefore, lodge my protest against it, and ask the Prime Minister definitely to reconsider this matter, and to appoint a Committee of men who are not prejudged to vote one way or the other, but who will hear the evidence in an impartial spirit and will give their judgment accordingly.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I think I can lay before my hon. and gallant Friend a certain number of arguments which may at least modify his feelings. This Committee was not nominated by me; it is brought before the House on the authority of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Our desire was to get a Committee as representative as possible of the; House on this particular subject. It is quite true that the majority of the representatives from the House of Commons expressed a preference for one sort of scheme in the Debate, and just because the Debate was an indication of the feeling of the House so it seemed that those responsible for the nomination of the Committee found that in order to represent the House they had to appoint a majority of the same colour as those who expressed their view on Second Reading. The minority is represented. The Committee represents all parties. The Leader of the parties in opposition nominated or suggested their own members. That accounts for two out of the seven members. My hon. and learned Friend expressed a strong preference on Second Reading against diarchy. He was chosen because he expressed that view, and also because he had always taken a great interest in Indian affairs in this House. That accounts for three members. As to the others, they all took a part in the Debate. They all have studied the subject. Two of them have spent long years in India, and one is the only representative of the Civil Service of India in this House. There-

  1239
  fore they seemed to those responsible to be entitled to nomination. In regard to myself, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that he is quite wrong. In every precedent that I can find, with one exception, on a Bill going to a Select Committee the Member of the House in charge of that Bill was a member of the Committee.
  Since the Bill was read a second time I have received suggestions for Amendments in it. Before the Committee I want to move Amendments to the Bill, and it seems to me that I could be of great service if the House will agree to my nomination, for the simple reason that I can be a link between the Committee and the Government of India. I can see that their views are considered. I am the representative by my office not only of the Government of India, but of the local Governments. Nobody is pledged to any system. I have stated over and over again that I am guided by a whole hearted desire to get a Bill which will be sound. I have stated that I do not think we ought to do less than is proposed in the Bill, but any alternative method will be equally welcome, both to the Viceroy and myself, if it carries out the pledges which I think we have made in the past. The hon. Member asks, "What about the local governors, where are they?" I would remind him that the seven Gentlemen nominated from this House are to sit with seven representatives of the House of Lords. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman has noticed their names. We have Lord Selborne, Lord Midleton, Lord Sydenham, and Lord Crewe, all of them, I think, with experience of Indian affairs, and certainly not parti pris in favour of this Bill. In the proposed Joint Committee we have submitted to the House names which are not
  unrepresentative of the two Houses and of the feeling in the two Houses. There are two Liberals, one Labour representative, and five Conservatives. Looked at from that point of view it cannot be said that any influence that I have had to bring to bear has been weighted in favour of my own party. Looked at from the standpoint of the views of the House on Indian affairs I do not think it can be said that they are not represented proportionately. May I add for my hon. and gallant Friend's satisfaction that there is in this country to-day probably the most eminent of all the five local governors, Sir Michael O'Dwyer. He has come home opportunely at the conclusion of his term of office, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that as the local Governments are not represented in either House except by the Secretary of State, and as the local Governments are not represented on the Committee any more than the Government of India, care will be taken that their views are represented before the Committee. The Government of India is not in agreement. It has suggested modifications from which with great respect I and my advisers have differed. The local Governments, if they had been asked, could not have suggested a better witness from their point of view than Sir Michael O'Dwyer.
  Therefore there is no possible chance that the Committee, which I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend has been chosen with are, will not represent all points of view from both Houses, and there will be every opportunity of receiving the views of all parties.
  Question put,
  "That the Government of India Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords."
  The House divided: Ayes, 336; Noes, 23.

  Division No. 57.]

  AYES.

  [6.0 p.m.

  Adair, Rear-Admiral

  Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Bonn, com. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich)

  Briggs, Harold

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)

  Brittain, Sir Harry E.

  Allen, Col. William James

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

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Arnold, Sydney

  Betterton, H. B.

  Bromfield, W.

  Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Brown, J (Ayr and Bute)

  Astor, Major Hon. Waldort

  Birchall, Major J. D.

  Bruton, Sir J.

  Bagley, Captain E. A.

  Bird, Alfred

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Blair, Major Reginald

  Burdon, Colonel Rowland

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. N. (Gorbals)

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Butcher, Sir J. G.

  Barnett, Captain Richard W.

  Bowles, Col. H. F.

  Campbell, J. G. D.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Cape, Tom

  Barrand, A. R.

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Brackenbury, Captain H. L

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Breese, Major C. E.

  Carr, W. T.

  Bellairs, Com. Carlyon W.

  Briant, F.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

  Carter, W. (Mansfield)

  Hanson, Sir Charles

  Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

  Casey, T. W.

  Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

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

  Haslam, Lewis

  O'Connor, T. P.

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

  Henderson, Major V. L.

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

  Chadwick, R. Burton

  Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)

  Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)

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

  Howart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Parker, James

  Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

  Higham, C. F. (Islington, S.)

  Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

  Cheyne, Sir William Watson

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.

  Parry, Major Thomas Henry

  Chilcott, Lieut.-Com. H. W. S.

  Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)

  Pearce, Sir William

  Clough, R.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

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

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

  Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Hope, Harry (Stirling)

  Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Hope, John Deans (Berwick)

  Pinkham, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles.

  Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Conway, Sir VV. Martin

  Howard, Major S. G.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)

  Hudson, R. M.

  Pratt, John William

  Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Prescott, Major W. H.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

  Hume-Williams, Sir Win. Ellis

  Purchase, H. G.

  Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff)

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

  Raeburn, Sir William

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)

  Hurd, P. A.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

  Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

  Ramsden, G. T.

  Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

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

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Dalziel, Rt. Hun. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Raper, A. Baldwin

  Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H,

  Jesson, C.

  Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Jodrell, N. P.

  Roes, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)>

  Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)

  Johnstone, J.

  Reid, D. D.

  Davits, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)

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

  Renwick, G.

  Davies, T. (Cirencester)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

  Richardson, sir Albion (Peckham)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander

  Richardson, R. (Houghton)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall).

  Dean, Com. P. T.

  Kidd, James

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Dennis, J. W.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)

  Dixon, Captain H.

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Rodger, A. K.

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Knights, Capt. H.

  Rogers, Sir Hallewell

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Rowlands, James

  Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

  Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

  Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund

  Edge, Captain William

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

  Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

  Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

  Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

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

  Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)

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

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)

  Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)

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

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

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Lonsdale, James R.

  Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander

  Lorden, John William

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Seager, Sir William

  Farquharson, Major A. C.

  Lunn, William

  Seely, Ma],-Gen. Rt. Hon. John

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)

  Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Lynn, R. J.

  Shaw, Tom (Preston)

  FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.

  Lyon, L.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

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

  Foreman, H.

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

  Simm, Colonel M. T.

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Sitch, C. H.

  Forster, Rt. Hon. H, W.

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

  Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Spencer, George A.

  Galbraith, Samuel

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

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

  Macleod, John Mackintosh

  Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville

  Gardiner, J. (Perth)

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

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

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

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

  Stanton, Charles Butt

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

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Maddocks, Henry

  Stevens, Marshall

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

  Sturrock, J. Long-

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Sugden, W. H.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Martin, A. E.

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Glyn, Major R.

  Mason, Robert

  Swan, J. E. C.

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh)

  Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.

  Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)

  Gray, Major E.

  Mitchell, William Lane-

  Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

  Green, A. (Derby)

  Moles, Thomas

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

  Green, J. F. (Leicester)

  Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

  Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)

  Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar

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

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

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Mosley, Oswald

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

  Griggs, Sir Peter

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tickler, Thomas George

  Grundy, T. W.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Tootill, Robert

  Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)

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

  Townley, Maximillian G

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

  Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Guinness, Capt. Hon. R, (Southend)

  Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Hacking, Captain D. H.

  Murray, John (Leeds, W.)

  Waddington, R.

  Hallwood, A.

  Murray, William (Dumfries)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Neal, Arthur

  Wallace, J.

  Hallas, E.

  Newbould, A. E.

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)

  Waring, Major Walter

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

  Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.

  Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

  Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)

  Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Warren, Sir Alfred H.

  Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

  Woolcock, W. J. U.

  Waterson, A. E.

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

  Worstold, T. Cato

  Watson, Captain John Bertrano

  Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

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

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

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.

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

  Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

  White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

  Wilson, w. T. (Westhoughton)

  Young, William (Perth and Kinross)

  Whitta, Sir William

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson

  Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Capt.

  Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

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

  F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.

  NOES.

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Oman, C. W. C.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Hayday, A.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

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

  Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Campion, Col. W R.

  Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill

  Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud

  Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

  Jones, J. (Silvertown)

  Cohen, Major J. B. B.

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Col.

  Courthope, Major George Loyd

  Morgan, Major D. Watts

  Yate and Lt.-Col. Meysey-Thompson.

  Foxcroft, Captain C.

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

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolved,
  "That the Government of India Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords."
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
  Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Bennett, Sir Donald Maclean, Mr. Secretary Montagu, Captain Ormsby-Gore, Sir J. D. Rees, and Mr. Spoor were nominated Members of the Committee.
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
  Ordered,
  "That four be the quorum."—[Colonel Gibbs]

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Major Astor): I beg to move
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The House earlier this afternoon considered probably the most important Bill it will have before it at any time in its history. The Bill which I am now asking the House to give a Second Reading to is probably one of the smallest it will have to deal with this Session. But though it is a small Bill it is a necessary—in fact it is an essential—Bill to prevent a real injustice being done. This is not in any way an attempt to amend the Insurance Act of 1911. The whole object of the Bill
  1244
  is to maintain as far as possible the status quo. Hon. Members are aware of the change that has taken place in money values, and because of that change a large number of people who in 1911 were earning round about £160 are now earning something like £250. The original Act, which, as the House will remember, made insurance compulsory for non-manual workers with a low income, would, unless this Amendment were made, drive out of insurance very nearly 1,000,000 insured persons. That is to say, that unless the House passes this Bill, as from 30th June last a number, which is estimated at from at least 500,000 and probably 1,000,000 insured persons will be driven out of insurance and lose the advantage of all the contributions they have made at different times. I want to emphasise the fact that the whole object of the Bill is to maintain the status quo—that is to say, to continue in insurance the people who have contributed to it to carry out the intentions of Parliament in 1911.
  I know very well that there are hon. Members who even now are not converted to the advantages of the original Act, but this is not the time to discuss that. We are not trying to improve or to patch up the original Act. In drafting this Bill, we have given every attention to maintaining the status quo as far as we are able to, and we were guided in selecting the figure of £250 instead of £160 by the award of the Conciliation and Arbitration Board for Government employés. That is the figure which they selected, and the Government felt that they would be wise to take that figure. If the Government had attempted to change £160 in order to meet the in-

  1245
  creased cost of living, they would probably have selected a higher figure, and I hope hon. Members will appreciate that if we had based our figure on the cost of living, probably the figure in the Bill would be over £250. I am certain there is no hon. Member or group here who would want in any way to inflict any hardship on the insured persons concerned, and it would be a real hardship if, having contributed over a considerable period towards insurance, anything up to a million persons were to lose the benefit of their contributions, and that would happen as from 30th June last unless this small Bill were passed. The Bill itself refers to Sub-section (g) of the second part of the First Schedule of the 1911 Act, where the excepted person from insurance is one who is employed otherwise than by way of manual labour at a rate of remuneration exceeding in value £160 a year. It is the duty of every employer to see that his employés, if they are non-manual workers and earning not more than £160, are treated as insured persons. Owing to war bonuses and other reasons, the remuneration of these people has increased. Employers have been in doubt as to whether or not to treat their employ£s who were insured before at a rate of remuneration under £160 as insured persons when their remuneration went up. I am now talking of non-manual workers. We got them to carry on. We did not know when the point first arose how long the War would continue, whether the bonuses would continue, or whether the rates of wages would continue at the high level, but it has now become essential to pass a Bill to regularise the situation.
  There is a considerable difficulty in ascertaining and defining exactly what is the difference between a manual and a non-manual worker, and there are cases I could quote in which a man sometimes is a manual worker and at other times is a non-manual worker. A ticket collector, if he punches tickets only, I believe, is a non-manual worker, but if he helps to move a brake occasionally during the day he becomes a manual worker, and it is therefore exceptionally difficult to define exactly whether a man is a manual or a non-manual worker, and it is therefore the more necessary to pass this small Bill. A large number of influential deputations speaking on behalf of insured persons have been received. Only the other day I was asked, in the same way as a little previously the Leader of the House was
  1246
  asked, to receive a most influential deputation to put the case of injustice in which these million people would be placed unless the Bill were passed. I told them that the Bill would be coming this week before Parliament, and I am perfectly certain hon. Members have only to appreciate the intention of the Government to maintain the status quo to realise that a real injustice would be done unless it were passed. There are a certain number of people who in 1914 were non-manual workers and taking a little over £160 whose incomes are now not gone up above £250. To that extent, and as far as they are concerned, new people would be brought into insurance under this Bill. As far as we are able to tell, that number is practically negligible, and if I had to give the House a figure i should estimate it at something like twenty or thirty thousand, whereas if the Bill were not passed about a million people would be affected. As far as we are able to ascertain, more people, owing to the increased rate of remuneration, will be leaving insurance than will be brought in, and as far as we are able to estimate, the total number of people insured after the passing of this Act will if anything be rather less than it would have been according to the original intention of the Act of 1911.
  I want to say one thing affecting the medical aspect. I know my hon. Friends here representing the medical profession want to know why the Bill is now introduced, and they will also probably want to know what their position is going to be in the near future. I know that they have doubts, some of them, as to the need for passing this Bill at this particular moment, and I have tried to explain to them, as I have tried to explain to deputations, that as far as insurance is concerned the date of 30th June is. crucial, that it was essential to get this passed now, and that we could not postpone the Bill because of that date, which is due to a medical contract. My hon. Friends know that during the War the doctors have received a war bonus. They know that at the present moment and for some time past the Department have been discussing with representatives of the medical profession the rates of remuneration for the future, and that at once raises the whole problem of the nature of the services to be rendered in return for the remuneration. I do not want to go into that, because that particular point is not

  1247
  raised here to-day, but I merely want to tell the House that the whole subject is being carefully considered by the Department in consultation with the people concerned. As a matter of fact, if this Bill were not passed, a large number of medical men who deal with insured persons would lose their patients, their clientele. I hope that, as soon as they appreciate and realise that, none of those outside will wish to oppose the measure.
  I have received deputations from medical men. There was one point which was raised, and that was the bringing into insurance of that very limited class to which I referred just now, some 20,000 or 30,000 people, so far as we are able to estimate, who will for the first time be brought into insurance. I told the deputation that we did not want to bring these people into insurance, but that we found it administratively impossible to exclude them, for reasons with which I will not trouble the House at the present moment. We tried to frame a Clause which would exempt them. We were not able to do so. I asked my hon. Friends to do the same, and I want to repeat now what I said then, that if in Committee they are able to put down an Amendment which carries out their intention, which carries out what we would like to include in the Bill, we will be prepared to accept it. But we can only put into the Bill provisions which can be administered, and that is the only qualification which I make. [An HON. MEMBER: "Re-draft the Bill."] It is no good redrafting the whole Bill. We 'have drafted a Bill in order to carry out the intentions I have been trying to explain to the House, and it is the only way, so far as our draftsmen are able to see, that we can do it. If my hon. Friend can produce an Amendment in Committee which remedies the exceedingly small point which he has in his mind, then I say we would be prepared to accept it. I want to ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading to prevent a real injustice being done to a large section of the community, and to maintain, as far as possible, the status quo; that is to say, to carry out the intention of Parliament when it originally passed the Act in 1911.
  Major FARQUHARSON: I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there exists at the present moment a necessity for some such Bill, and I am quite sure that the whole community, with the medical profession as well, will agree
  1248
  that people who are now insured persons, and nave been for some time insured persons should not lapse their insurance benefits because of the altered values of money. The primary object, I take it, the one essential and final object of this Bill is simply to prevent individual persons lapsing from insured benefits. From that point of view I am heartily in support of the Bill, but I have to find fault with both the text and with the effect of this Bill. The text is so framed that the annual income is taken as a basis for determining that certain people shall now be in insurance who have not been in insurance before; in other words, the insurance limit, which was fixed by Statute some years ago at £160, is now, by a stroke of the pen, to be put up to £250, and thereby a large number of entrants into insurance benefits are legalised by Statute. I have not the slightest objection to everybody and anybody obtaining insurance benefits, but remember the position we are in now was standardised and fixed by Statute. The doctors made certain definite binding contracts that they would attend people whose incomes did not exceed £160. Those contracts are now in existence, and are passed in review at the end of each year. Why does the Government now, by a simple Statute, absolutely destroy the sanctity of a contract which exists between the Government through its agents, the Insurance Commissioners, and the medical profession? This Bill has been brought in without the smallest consideration on the part of the medical profession. The medical profession does not desire to exclude people from medical insurance, but it does-desire that where those services are part of something which the Government are-bartering for something else, they must be considered. The medical profession has-a right to stand upon the sanctity of a contract, and to demand that that contract shall not be violated and destroyed, and that they shall not be penalised for the benefit of any section of the community. It is all very well for the Government to come down here with altruistic feelings towards the insured persons, but the whole history of the relations of the Government to the medical profession since the Insurance Act came into force has been one series of incessant instances of nothing else than betrayal and of depriving them of every penny they can. I am goaded into this by what the hon. Gentleman said with regard to the war bonuses. I had no desire to make reference to the financial aspect of

  1249
  this, but he told the House that the doctors were evidently making themselves rich on the war bonus.
  Major ASTOR Major ASTOR dissented.
  Major FARQUHARSON: That was the inference. Let me say that bonuses were only given to the poorest of the poor of the profession and on condition that they tabulated income from all sources. Is there now an occupation in the whole of this country which has had to submit to the ignominy to which this occupation has submitted in the last Government? We had for years and years been allowed 2s. 6d. for notifying an infectious disease. In 1916 some officious person said, "We will exploit the medical profession and save a lot of money to the State; we will strike out this miserable 2s. 6d. for giving a professional opinion upon a professional document and sending it to an official, and will make it Is. "I say that is an outrageous attitude to take up towards an honourable profession which deserves well of this country, and has served it well throughout the War and puts up with a great deal more than it deserves to put up with. I will just take this question from the point of view of the panel practitioner. The Government has contracted with him at the present time to do certain definite things under certain definite rules. This has been departed from. I do not wish to make odious comparisons, but there is an historic phrase called "A Scrap of Paper." Why should the Government regard a contract of service with an honourable profession as very much like that miserable, historic scrap of paper? I think it is most deplorable—most odious. Take the case of a non-panel practitioner—the middle-class non-panel practitioner attending people for small fees. By this Clause all these non-manual workers, such as clerks, will be compelled to be insured. The hon. Gentleman estimated that the number would be very few, but I defy him to give us the means whereby he has arrived at these figures. It is the merest conjecture. The number may be very large or it may be very small, but, on the one hand, the Government is destroying a contract of service with the panel practitioners, and, on the other, destroying a great many practices of men working hard for a miserable livelihood.
  I do not want to elaborate the point, but I do beg at this time, when great schemes of medical service are coming before the country, that this is a most
  1250
  inopportune time to tamper with a contract of service. There are great schemes before the country, and the Government should postpone this Bill until those schemes are matured, when the whole question of the unified medical service, insured persons, and dependants comes up. Instead, they adopt this policy of pin-pricking and grinding down and sweating of the medical profession. I appeal to the Government to accept some modification of this Bill which will enable at least a postponement of new entrants into insurance, and for the whole scheme of medical insurance to be considered. When great schemes are before the country and the Ministry of Health is just coming in, the Government does not want a. sweated and disloyal medical profession. The profession, I am sure, is absolutely desirous of shouldering its responsibilities, to convert a C3 population into an A1 population, and will do so if treated squarely. But it is not just for the Government to adopt this attitude; it is not wise, and I tell this House that if this policy is continued towards the medical profession by the Government, one and all, the great majority of honourable thinking men, having to fight for their living, will inevitably drift into the ranks of trade unionism. [Hon. Members: "You are now!"] I do appeal to the Government. It is not asking for much. It is something which could easily be done but for the inflexibility of this Bill. This Bill has been, cunningly drafted so as to be incapable of modification, and so drafted that, when modification is applied to it, it becomes an administrative impossibility. Whichever way you approach this Bill you get up against difficulties for which there is no possible remedy. I suggest that the whole thing should be redrafted. If the Bill simply confined itself to the purpose for which it was brought into existence, namely, to secure that no person shall lapse from insurance to which he is now entitled, that meets the whole situation. But there is an oblique result, a sort of sideway sequence in this Bill, opening the door to a great many people coming in. I assure the hon. Member you cannot estimate the numbers which will be enabled to come into benefits at the expense partly of the medical profession. The medical profession does not wish this question to be approached in this way. It is part and parcel of a far greater question, and I do appeal to the Government to be both just and wise, if they cannot be generous, to the medical profession.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words,
  "this House declines to proceed with a measure which increases the number of persons compelled to make contributions towards the funds administered by the National Health Insurance Commissioners without guaranteeing acceptable medical service to all insured persons and without establishing the principle of free choice both by patient and medical practitioner."
  I hesitated to rise before to move this Amendment standing in my name on the Paper, lest I should have narrowed down the area of discussion, but I think it is clear from the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down that what I had in mind is very much what he has in mind, but approached from different points of view. He has approached it from the point of view of the medical practitioner, and I do think that in the preparation of this Bill it is fair to say that sufficient attention has not been paid to the point of view of panel doctors and also of non-panel doctors. I approach it from the point of view of a very considerable body of men in my Constituency who, at the last election, when I was thinking of quite other things, recalled to my mind the Insurance Act, and revealed to me that the administration of the Insurance Act in my Constituency was far from satisfactory, and that if a Bill were to be passed such as is now proposed, that grievance, which I think is a just grievance, would not merely not be redressed, but would be aggravated, and the area of the grievance widened. What is the fact? The fact is that the intention of Parliament in the original Act, Clause 15, Sub-section (3), has not been carried out. That is to say, the National Health Insurance Commissioners, and the Committees set up under that Act, have not provided acceptable medical service to insured persons where those insured persons are either unwilling or unable to make use of the services of the panel doctors. In my Constituency, a very considerable proportion of the working men have formed an association. They are all poor men—a good many of them Post Office servants. They all go and consult the doctors who are not on the panel. Efforts have been made to get the doctors on the panel; those efforts Have failed. Under these circumstances, under the original Act, it is really the duty of the Insurance Commissioners, under Section 15, Sub-section (3), to provide something in lieu of medical
  1252
  benefit under such arrangements as the panel system. It is perfectly clear, from the Regulations issued on the 10th of January, 1914, Part II., No. 14, Sub-section (6), that this should be so. Let me read the provision:
  "The Insurance Committee may allow insured persons resident in the county, whether individually or collectively, in lieu of receiving medical benefit under the arrangements made by the Committee, to make their own arrangements for receiving such treatment."
  What is the result? The result is that in the town of Stafford a few panel doctors have far more patients than they can pay attention to, and the remainder of the doctors get nothing from the Insurance Committee or the Insurance Fund. Still, they are dealing with over 700 insured persons, and these have to pay twice over. It is perfectly clear that is a, grievance which has to be redressed. It was the intention of Parliament, when the original Act was passed, that such a grievance should not be possible. I do say we cannot and ought not to extend the principle of insured persons unless the hon. and gallant Member in charge of the Bill is prepared to carry out the original intention of Parliament as expressed by the Act of 1911. I hope my hon. Friend will not think I am in any way hostile, either to the principle of insurance or anything like it, because I remember being rather gibbeted at the time as being one of the five Conservative Members—I think he was one of the others—who voted for the Bill on the Third Reading, whereas a considerable number of our colleagues either voted against it or abstained from voting. He will realise that it is not in any hostile spirit that I have moved this Motion. I do so simply because there has been a breakdown. Unless the grievance which has been created is removed from this Act by the Government, I think it will be very bad, and will increase the grievance both for the doctors and for a large number of insured persons. Instead of being to the credit of the Government, this matter will be to their discredit.
  I quite realise that owing to the rise in wages we have to do something. When that principle is invoked, I would remind hon. Members that if the insured persons are to be considered with respect to wages the doctors ought to be considered too. Prices have gone up to them in just the same way as they have to the insured persons. It is only fair that their case should be further investigated. I hope

  1253
  that when I bring to the attention of hon. Members the fact that in my Constituency about 700 insured persons have banded together to form a Protest League against the way he is administering this Act, he will examine into their grievance, and if legislation is necessary he will accept an Amendment to this Bill so that their grievance may be removed. Thus insurance may work its way, as I hope it will, for the benefit of the health of the people.
  Captain ELLIOT: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The Amendment is one I am not entirely in favour of, in view of the statement as to the people making contributions. Not all the people who will come under this Act will be compelled to contribute, because, so far as I can see from the Clause, a certain number of people will be entitled to get a certificate of exemption. They, therefore, would not come under the Act. However, the broad principle remains that but for this Act a million people will drop out of insurance. A small number of people—I think 25,000—will be enabled to get certificates, and consequently will not need to come under the insurance. The main point I wish to make is simply this, that the insurance services just now, from a medical point of view, are not satisfactory. I think it is an unsound scheme, an unsound idea, to carry out an extension of this scheme just now. If there is a grievance, we ought to do our best to remove it when and where we get a chance. Here we have the chance to remove an undoubted grievance of the people of this country being compelled to make contributions towards medical benefits which are not satisfactory and which are not carrying out the original intentions of the Insurance Act. Great services under the Insurance Act axe still being given for charity as they were before. The services of consultants, surgeons, and so on, are being rendered as they were rendered before. I do not think that is a fitting way for service to the sick of this country to be rendered. I would draw the attention of hon. Members opposite to that point.
  The only other point is that it seems to me very important—I do not know if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has heard of this extraordinary departure—but when Labour Members go to ask for a further increase in the exemption limit for the income Tax it seems to me they will have
  1254
  an unanswerable case that the Government recognise the facts by a statutory declaration that £250 now is equivalent to £160 before the War. I do not know whether this has been done with the consent of the whole of the Government, but an Act that establishes that principle and an Act which affects, as the Under-Secretary himself said, over 1,000,000 people, is not the harmless, simple, innocuous, trivial little Act which he wished us to believe when he moved the Second Beading of the Bill.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I hope this Amendment will not be pressed. I might oppose it on one or two grounds. The first is that, undoubtedly, in most parts of the country, though possibly not in Stafford—the town so ably represented by my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment—but in other parts of the country, the Insurance Act is giving satisfaction to the insured. This devoted service has proceeded in the face of many difficulties, and largely-thinned ranks owing to the War, of the medical fraternity. The class which is being particularly hard-hit at the present time is the non-manual worker with a low income. This is intended to benefit him, or will include him in his benefit. Anything we can do to help the struggling shopkeeper, or the clerk at the present time with an income of £250 a year, or round about that figure, the better. The only criticism I am here to make will be that it is not put up, say, to £300, because living is more than doubled in price. There-is also a most acceptable point in the Bill which the Government has introduced, and I must congratulate the Government upon their courage in having recognised that a man earning £250 a year is a poor man, that he needs the help of insurance. This is a most valuable concession. I hope my hon. and gallant friend in charge of this Bill will particularly bring it to the notice of the Chancellor of Exchequer. For that reason alone I hope the Members associated with us on this side of the House will support the Second Reading. I was interested in the indignation of my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for one of the Divisions of Leeds, where he told the Government of the hardships of the medical practitioner at the present time and threatened that the doctors would form a trade union. They are in a trade union.
  HON. MEMBERS: No!
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, in the most and exclusive union in the country.
  HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
  Captain ELLIOT: But they do not strike!
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: They have threatened to strike in the past.
  Captain ELLIOT: Your unions do not only threaten.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not belong to any trade union. We all know that doctors "ought to be remunerated much better on account of the same increased cost of living which makes this Bill necessary. I am sure hon. Members on this side of the House are only too glad to support any motion the Minister of Health, which I think I may now call him, will bring in to increase the fees chargeable by panel doctors, for I think it was recognised that they have a hard case, and that it should be done. But let us get this through first, and I am sure the medical fraternity will have the good wishes of the Government very quickly when their case comes up.
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: There are many points in this Amendment with which I find myself in agreement. I do not, however, think it will be advisable that the Amendment should be carried at the present time. It seems to me, however, necessary that something of this sort should be passed now. Therefore I certainly shall support the Second Reading of the Bill. I think the Minister in charge, when it goes to Committee, ought to be prepared to consider very favourably certain Amendments, some of which may be of a drastic character. The Bill is founded on the assumption, and it really is only an assumption, that £250 now is, and will remain permanently, the equivalent of £160 before the War. That is by no means certain, and it is a question which requires very careful consideration. Of course, it might also be said that, if an employed person's salary has increased from £160 to £250, that might be considered as a reason for his being exempted from the Insurance Act, and for his being able to pay a doctor the charges which he might make, because it is certainly not to be supposed that the doctor's income has increased in the pro-
  1256
  portion of £300 to £160. I should also like to draw attention to the fact that, when the original Bill was passing through the House in 1911, there was a strong effort on the part of nearly the whole of the medical men to make the limit £104, and the £160 was only carried by the strength, of the Government majority. All these questions, therefore, require to be very carefully considered. Then it has been pointed out, and it is acknowledged by the Under-Secretary for Health, that if this Bill is carried as it now stands it is certain that a considerable number of persons—he said 25,000—who do not wish to be insured will be compelled to come under the Act, and can only be kept out of its provisions by making a claim to the right of exemption, which probably is a difficult process. For all these very strong reasons, I think the Bill ought to be very carefully considered in Committee. I should like to emphasise what has been already mentioned, namely, that the minimum limit of income exempting anyone from Income Tax still remains at £160. I think there ought to be some close connection between that limit and the limit for insurance. I say again that, whilst I am prepared to support the Second Reading of this Bill, I think that very important and drastic changes should, be made in it.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. WARREN: I profoundly hope that this Motion will not be persisted in, not only for the reasons which have already been advanced, but because of a position which is causing the greatest possible difficulty, and in a sense chaos, so far as the administration of national health insurance is concerned. It will be within the recollection of the House that the measure provided for ail manual workers, and also for those not engaged as manual workers within a limit of income of £l60. The House is bound to recognise, as all reasonable men recognise, that the economic value of money has changed, and that £160 in 1911 is practically not worth £80 to-day. Therefore, there has been an earnest desire that the income limit should be altered. What is the effect upon the approved societies of this country? Whilst much can be said regarding the doctors, I would have the House bear in mind the important part that the approved societies have played in the administration of national health insurance. They have not always been able to make their voice heard; they have not been able to combine in a trade union, and

  1257
  have not always been threatening the Government and the Commissioners as to what action they would take unless they got constant increases in pay. They have, [however, played a valuable and most important part, and this House is indebted to them for the manner in which they tackled this question of national health insurance in. early days, and brought within its operation, within a very measurable distance of time, the millions of persons who were supposed to come in under the Act. The conditions in respect of wages in the case of those men and women who are not manually employed have altered, and at the moment the approved societies are confronted with the fact that a very large number of their members, according to the Act of 1911, are now outside the Act, and what to do with them has almost passed their comprehension, because it is open to those persons now, with their present income, to remain outside the Act, unless at the speediest moment this short Bill is passed increasing the income limit. Not only has chaos been caused by the alteration, so far as regards the determination of what people were really to be insured, but it has had the effect that a large number of per-eons for the time being have fallen out of insurance, and consequently the approved societies have been depleted of an exceedingly meagre administration allowance. I hope that within the near future the House will hear something on the question of bow the approved societies of the country have struggled during these last eight or nine years. Whilst demands have been conceded in other directions, the allowance which was provided for them under the Act of 1911 has been gradually whittled away, and they have been administering this great piece of machinery at a starvation rate. I hope, therefore, that the Motion will be withdrawn. It is of paramount importance that at the earliest moment those persons who come within the meaning of this Act should realise that the change in the economic conditions brings the income limit up to £250. The approved societies of the country will be profoundly grateful to this House for dealing with this question at the earliest possible moment, because it will remove some of their difficulties, and enable them to go on working with smoothness and with the success that has characterised them up to the present. In the hope that the Motion will be withdrawn, I will refrain from dealing in detail with one or two matters mentioned
  1258
  here, particularly as to the principle of free choice both by the patient and by the medical practitioner. I do not know that that is seriously in question. I have not learned from my experience—and the House will pardon my saying that I have had some little experience of this matter-that there has been any want of freedom of choice on the part of the patient, or that there has been any great want of freedom so far as the medical practitioner is concerned. But that is by the way. You will be acknowledging the service of approved societies, you will be removing a difficulty, and you will be assisting in the administration of national health insurance if this Motion is withdrawn, and the Bill as now presented is allowed to pass.
  At this point a woman in the Strangers Gallery rose and protested against the sending of troops to Russia. She was removed by an attendant, and, other strangers having also interrupted, Mr. SPEAKER ordered the gallery to be cleared.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: I hope the Motion will be withdrawn. Many of the doctors have benefited by this Act. I am inclined to think that if a ballot were taken of the doctors of the country they would vote in favour of continuing the Bill. I say without hesitation that many of the working classes have benefited by the Act, and I also say that many doctors have benefited. Some of them are better off now than ever they were before. I think we ought to give the Bill an opportunity of going to Committee, where it may be amended and made a better Bill than it is at the present time.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I did not catch, in the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill, any statement as to its bearing on the general financial question. I hope he will be able to tell us whether it will involve any great increase in the burden on the national finances which arises out of national health insurance. It is, of course, obvious that, while the Government may by legislation interfere whenever an economic change in the value of money has any particular effect on this or that body of the community, they do not and cannot interfere with the constantly growing burden of those with small fixed incomes. The effect is to create great injustice. There is gradually growing up a process, at which legislation which adds to national expenditure constantly aims, whereby persons

  1259
  with small fixed Incomes constantly feel a greater burden. They have to pay, like everyone else, the increased cost of living, and they have to meet a gathering weight of taxation. On the other hand, they get nothing out of these numerous advantages given to other classes of the community. I think the House ought, apart from the direct bearing of this Bill, to have constantly in mind that it is most undesirable that we should always be adding to the financial burdens of the country. Constructively it works a great injustice on those who have suffered from the change in the value of money.
  Major ASTOR: I will reply first to the question of the Noble Lord. The whole object is to maintain the status quo, and to prevent a million people losing the advantages of the contribution. We do not believe there will be any more people under insurance after the passing of this Bill, and we do not believe there will be any additional charge on the Exchequer. I hope very much that my hon. and gallant Friend will not press his Motion. I think he will find on reading it that it is already met. The new persons who will be brought in will have the right of claiming a certificate of exemption, and so I think his whole point is met. I listened with great care and attention to what he said about a certain number of insured persons in his constituency. That, however, appears to be not a matter of legislation, but of the administration of the Insurance Act. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health and I will go into it very carefully and see whether anything can be done to meet their wishes. I do not say that it can be; it is a matter of administration; but we will go into it very carefully. I think my hon. and gallant Friend will be the first to agree that, because there is a grievance among a certain number of his constituents, it will create a far greater grievance to drive a million people out of the benefits of insurance. I do not want to repeat what I have already said, but the Government would not have brought in this Bill if it had not been urgently necessary. We were up against the fact that unless this Bill is passed nearly 1,000,000 people will lose the benefits from insurance to which they have contributed. The Government would not have brought in this measure under any other circumstances. I welcome this
  1260
  opportunity of paying a tribute to the splendid services which the medical profession has rendered to the wounded in France and England during the War. We all realise that, and we realise, also, the extent to which we can count upon the medical profession in the future in. the administration of the Ministry of Health. With that brief explanation, I hope the House will now give the Bill a Second Beading.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: After the fair way in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has met me and his promise to look into the case, and the fact that this Bill is absolutely urgent and necessary in the interests of a large number of insured persons, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, and I hope this measure will go to a Committee, where we shall have an opportunity of amending it if necessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee ['Progress].
  [Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the enactments relating to the Housing of the Working Classes and the Acquisition of Small Dwellings in Iceland, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred by any Government Department—

  (a) when acting in the place of local authorities in preparing and carrying out schemes under such Act;

  (b) in recouping losses incurred by local authorities; and

  (c) in contributing to costs incurred by public utility societies and housing trusts and other persons."—[Mr. Samuels]

  Amendment proposed: At the end, to add the words "but such amount shall not exceed the sum of ten million pounds."—[Sir Frederick Banbury.]
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (LEATHER MEASUREMENT) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now lead a second time."
  This is a small measure which, I think, will be of considerable benefit to the leather trade. It is desired by that trade, and it is brought in after hearing the views of deputations from the Federation of the Hide and Leather Trade, the Hide and Tanners' Federation, and the Boot and Shoe federation, and it has also been approved by the London County Council. During recent years it has become the practice to sell leather more by measure than by weight, and some 4,000,000 ft. of leather are now sold every year by superficial measure. Hon. Members will readily understand that it is not a very easy thing to ascertain exactly the true measurement of a hide, owing to its shape, and it is desirable that those who buy and sell should have some form of measure sufficiently accurate to be relied upon. There are two different kinds of machines in use which, in the opinion of the authorities at the Board of Trade and the county council, are reliable machines, and the object of this Bill is to apply Section 6 of the Weights and Measures Act of 1904 to such machines —that is to say, as soon as they are approved they may be certified, having been tested, and then they may be inspected at some future date. It is thought that if some of these machines are certified by the Board of Trade it will give satisfaction both to the buyer and seller, and will gradually lead to measurement only being done by these approved machines. For these reasons I hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading, and, indeed, pass it as soon as possible.
  Bill accordingly read a second time.
  Resolved,
  "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. Bridgeman.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
  [Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (LEATHER MEASUREMENT) BILL [Lords].

    CLAUSE 1.—(Wireless Telegraphy 'Requirements.)
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understand the Government will not press the Committee stage now, and I beg to move,
    "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not wish to press the matter now if the Committee desires further time to consider the Bill, although I do not think it will make much difference.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I hope the Government will not press this matter. It is a very great violation of all forms of the House to take the Committee stage immediately after the Second Reading.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to move,
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This Bill is one which will be welcomed by the House, and I can explain it in a very few sentences. Its object is to extend the strategical requirements, as to wireless telegraphic installations on merchant ships, and it is proposed to require every passenger steamer and every cargo vessel of 1,600 tons gross and upwards to have wireless telegraphic installations and such watchers as may be necessary. Rules will be made by the Board of Trade in consultation with the Postmaster-General. The Board of Trade may also exempt certain vessels from the operation of the Act. This measure is necessary because the only requirements now on the Statute Book are those contained in the Merchant Shipping Act of 1914, and that Act is not in operation because its operation has been postponed to the 1st January, 1920. During the War, under the Defence of the Realm Act, smaller ships have been required to be fitted with wireless installations, and this has been found to be a very great benefit in the saving of ships. The Admiralty are strongly in favour of this Bill, and if it had been in force at the beginning of the War a very large number of ships might have been saved which have been lost. It will be plain to hon. Members that at such a time as the outbreak of War this increase in the number of ships fitted

  1263
  with wireless telegraphy would be an immense advantage. We also think this will be an advantage in time of peace for the safety of ships in distress, who would be able to get their messages passed on to other ships, and so make their position known to a larger number of ships that might come to their rescue. Those are the main features of the Bill, and I hope the House will agree to the Second Reading.
  Mr. CHADWICK: The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman show the extraordinary value of this Bill, and although it is one which I can support in every way, I must say I consider 'it to be totally inadequate. When Committee is reached I shall propose Amendments to reduce the tonnage of ships which the Bills applies from 1,600 to 500. I am speaking on this matter of wireless as a shipowner. I am very sorry the line I am taking on this question is in conflict with that of my shipping friends, both in this House and outside, but before I was a shipowner I was a sailor, and it is the welfare of the seamen and of passengers for whom the seamen is responsible with which I am concerned at this moment. If wireless is such a valuable life-saving medium that it is to be fitted to any ship of 1,600 tons, then, in the name of common sense, why not fit it to any ship that can be usefully called up to the service of a ship in distress? Perhaps 500 tons is the limit of the class of small ship to which it would really be of much use to fit the wireless. One advantage of the wireless at sea is that the ship keeps within continual communication with the outside world, and at any moment she is able to communicate with the land or with any other ships with a wireless installation. I have argued this with shipowners for ten years past, and up till now, and until the Defence of the Realm Act of 1916 was passed, or until war's necessities forced ships to be equipped with wireless, there has been no legislation compelling the installation of wireless. The shipowners have been amazingly reluctant to my mind to adopt the most modern, the most wonderfully scientific invention and the greatest life-saving medium known. As the result of that awful "Titanic" disaster—the one outstanding case of the loss of a ship—an international convention was formed which made certain recommendations for the equipment of wireless, but instead of
  1264
  insisting that ships should be fitted with it, they filled them up with boats and rafts and lifebelts. When a man goes into the water in a boat or on a raft, even under the most favourable circumstances, it is a very serious position indeed. What I want to provide is that every ship shall be able, when in distress, to make her position known. Again, I want to call to mind the loss of the "Titanic." That vessel sank in a flat calm sea, after being three hours afloat after her accident. If this Clause for fitting ships of 1,600 tons with the wireless had been in operation then, who knows how many ships might have been called up in those three hours, so that every one of those 1,400 people might have been transferred to something larger than a lifeboat. They certainly would not have perished with cold at night.
  One can give a long list of accidents involving loss of life that might have been avoided. This Bill is a somewhat belated action on the part of the Board of Trade. This should have been done years ago. It is no use blaming anybody. The shipowners are just as much to blame as the Board of Trade, but, for Heaven's sake, when we are going to do this thing let us do it properly. It is no use complaining of the cost. I was the first cargo shipowner in Great Britain to fit my ships with it. I know what it costs, but I am prepared to produce figures to show that tramp owners with experience can fit their ships with wireless as an ordinary commercial practice. The great objection of shipowners to wireless is the cost. But by a reasonable and intelligent use of it they would soon be able to recoup themselves that cost. It means, in the first place, a reduction in the marine insurance premium. If you had the wireless installed on all ships, naturally the result of a system by which you can give the actual position of a ship at sea, and in the case of the adoption of the fog wireless it is impossible for ships fitted with the installation to come into collision in a fog— would be a reduction in insurance premiums, and with a very small percentage of reduction it would be possible to pay for a year's wireless. Then a ship with wireless will always be able to warn her agents at the various ports well ahead what she is going to do, and she can get her bunker coal, her dock ready, and her labour ready. The whole machinery can be arranged well ahead. Time is saved, and it may easily be calculated how many

  1265
  days saved will pay for a year' s wireless. But even should it cost the ship £400 or £500 a year, that ought not to weigh in the scale against life. I am, therefore, very anxious that this House should seriously consider the value of wireless in every ship as a medium for being called up to ships in distress. I think we ought to put out of our minds any question of cost. After all, that is negligible. There are, I believe, certain objections with regard to the carrying of operators, but possibly one operator in a smaller ship would be quite enough. I certainly support the Bill as far as it goes, and I want its provisions extended.
  Lieut-Commander KEN WORTHY: I would like to associate myself with what has been said by the last speaker, and I would like also to protest against taking the Committee stage of this Bill at once. I am sure we all welcome the measure. I do not think I can go quite so far as the last speaker in supporting the installation of wireless on ships with so low a tonnage as 500. Wireless is a little overrated, and I do not think you will find that on a ship of 500 tons or under it would be much good. I am not a ship-owner at all, but most of my Constituents are employed by shipowners, and, in view of the fierce competition which now obtains among the class of tramp steamer, I think it will be found that the compulsory fitting of the wireless would be too much of a financial burden. I do not wish to pursue that point too far. It is rather a matter for the Committee, and I am certain that if it would pay ships below 1,600 tons to instal the wireless there is nothing in this Bill which will prevent them doing it. I see one danger in this Bill, and it is in the provision that a ship cannot go to sea unless she is provided with operators. Now these wireless operators will be organised into a trade union—indeed, I am told they already are—and I would like to know if a ship of 30,000 tons is to be held up because the wireless operators are on strike? Of course, that is a matter of law, and it may be all right if the point is in the discretion of the Board of Trade, but I am going to propose to the President of the Board of Trade that in a case of that sort he should consult the Joint Seafarers' Council which has just recently been set up. That body might be of the greatest assistance in solving a problem of that kind and in dealing with other labour questions. A ship can go to sea
  1266
  without operators, but she cannot go without engineers and crew. It is doubtful, however, whether the captain should be at liberty at his own discretion to start without an operator. There is one most valuable concession in this Bill for which we should be grateful to the President of the Board of Trade, and that is that the responsibility is not to be put on the master of the ship alone. This is a unique proposal. The owner is also to be made partially liable and I think the Committee will see the wisdom of strengthening that principle. I am sure the Bill will commend itself to the common sense of the House.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD Of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): I beg to move,
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  It is a short Bill, its object being to amend Section 1 of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1917, but though short it is not unimportant. It is designed to give power to the Court to deal with cases which otherwise might involve intolerable hardship where contracts have been entered into before the 1st January, 1917, and which are likely to be changed by a modification of conditions rendering it really impossible for them to be carried out in their original form. The Bill is intended to give discretion to the Court to set aside if satisfied and even to annul contracts. The measure has been strongly urged upon us by many traders who have examined the conditions very carefully and I feel sure in my own mind that the powers which are asked for under the Bill to be granted by Parliament will prove of the greatest use in preventing injustice in many cases and indeed almost intolerable hardship to members of the trading community.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  CITY OF LONDON POLICE (re-committed) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

  CITY OF LONDON POLICE (re-committed) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of Provision Relating to Expenses.)
    The liability of the mayor and commonalty and citizens of the City of London to defray out of their revenue and possessions a fourth part of the expenses of the City Police Force shall cease, and the limit on the rate which may be raised for the purposes oil the expenses of that force shall be increased from eightpence to thirteenpence, and, accordingly, the enactments mentioned in the first column of the Schedule to this Act shall have effect, subject to the Amendments set forth in the second column of that Schedule.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Committee will be obliged to the Undersecretary of State for the Home Department if he will explain this Clause. Apparently certain expenses are to be put on the general rates. I do not know anything about this Bill—probably it was introduced before I came here. Another question which might be cleared up was whether the Bill is going to weaken the power of the mayor, commonalty and citizens of the City of London in any way over the police. If so, that should be considered, and some explanation given. The cry outside is that the police are being turned into a military force. I do not share in that cry, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain if this Bill does anything of the sort.
    The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): In answer to the questions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I may say that this Bill was properly introduced into the House quite recently. It went through Second Reading, and was referred, as are all Bills of this kind, to a Select Committee, which has considered it. No petitions were urged against the Bill. The Select Committee amended it and recommitted it to the House. Now it comes before us in Committee of the Whole House. There is no Amendment on the Paper of any kind to the measure, but a manuscript Amendment has been handed in by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) which will be moved in due course. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the Bill does not interfere with the
    1268
    present powers of the Corporation of the City of London in reference to their City Police, who, as the hon. and gallant Member will realise, are a quite distinct body from the Metropolitan police. The Bill simply brings the City of London into line with all other parts of the country which now have their police supported, as to half, out of the rates, and, as to the other half, out of Exchequer Grants. I hope that explanation will satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not wish to move any Amendment, and must apologise for my ignorance of this Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Short Title.)
    This Act may be cited as the City of London. Police Act, 1919.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have received notice of a manuscript Amendment by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, but he is not here.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words
    "and shall become operative as from the 31st day of March, 1919."
    1 wish to move this in t lie absence of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). He was unable to remain in order to move It. I think I shall be justified in saying that the reason for his absence is that it is the anniversary of his wedding, and I am sure we all join in, congratulating the respected Member for the great City and a most doughty exponent of stern economy on the anniversary of his wedding and wish him many happy returns of the day. I appreciate his presence, but I am bound to say I generally appreciate his absence more. Everyone who stands at this Box has a healthy respect for the right hon. Bayonet. The object of the Amendment is to fix the date on which this Bill becomes operative as the31st March, which is in the City of London the commencement of their financial year, as it is in this honourable House. This Bill was. promised by the late Home Secretary (Lord Cave) to the City of London last November. It is fair that we should meet their wishes and have the Bill commenced on the 31st March last.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended (in Committee and on re-committal), considered; read the third time, and passed.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Sanders.]
  Major O'NEILL: I rise to draw attention to a matter with regard to which I asked a question this afternoon, namely, the urgency for the completion of land purchase in Ireland. The question which I asked to-day was twice postponed at the request of the Government, and naturally, in view of that, I had some reason to suppose that they were considering the matter with a view to taking some action and giving me a favourable answer. Instead of that, the answer which I received was merely to the effect that the matter was engaging the anxious consideration of the Government, that it would require legislation to carry the question further towards its completion, and that at the present time legislation would not be feasible. This question of land purchase is one of the most pressing questions that exist in Ireland at the present time. It is a point upon which all representatives of Ireland are agreed, be they Nationalist or Unionist. I may say that the only reason why Nationalist Members are not present this evening to support me is that, so far as I know, they were not in the House to-day, and I was unable to give them notice that the matter was coming forward. The hon. Member for the Falls Division of Belfast (Mr. Devlin) raised this identical question a short time ago and pressed the Government upon it, but received no reply more satisfactory than that which I received to-day.
  I should like briefly to put before the House the position with regard to this matter. It is pretty generally known that in 1903 a large and comprehensive Land Act for Ireland was passed, the object of which was to transfer the ownership of the agricultural soil of Ireland from the
  1270
  landlords to the tenants. That Act, brought in by Mr. Wyndham, was greeted, and rightly so, as a great charter for the benefit of the agricultural community in Ireland. As a result of it land purchase underwent a great and beneficent revolution. Practically speaking, it began to become operative, and became rapidly a matter which would soon be completely carried out. Since those days the matter hung fire owing to the change in the financial situation, and owing also to an Act which was passed in 1909, which practically put an end to any possibility of completing the matter, due to its entirely inadequate and unsatisfactory financial provisions. The result is that at present land purchase is practically dead. It is not moving forward in any respect. The first reason for that is the complete change in the value of money. When the Wyndham Act was passed money could be borrowed by the Government at 2½or 3 per cent. To-day it can only be borrowed at 5 per cent. Also the landlords, the sellers, could not possibly accept payment in depreciated land stock, which had sunk far below its par level. Land stock, for the purpose of payment, was to be treated at its par value. That was the position of the matter when the Irish Convention dealt with it. Of all questions which were before the Convention in Ireland none were regarded as more pressing than this question of land purchase. A Committee of the Convention was appointed to consider it, and they made a unanimous recommendation. With regard to that recommendation, the Prime Minister wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Convention in January, 1918, in which he used these words:
  "Finally the Government have noted the very important Report which has been prepared on the subject of land purchase and on which a unanimous decision has been reached by the Committee of the Convention set up to consider this subject. If this Report commends itself to the Convention, the Government are prepared to introduce into Parliament, as part of the plan of settlement, a measure for the purpose of enabling Parliament to give effect to the recommendations of the Convention on the subject of land purchase."
  Of course the Convention on its main grounds broke down, and there was no question of any immediate settlement. Therefore, the question of land purchase was allowed to drop. But now it is vitally important that quite irrespective of any larger settlement, whether that is coming or not, this matter should be pro-

  1271
  ceeded with, as the Prime Minister in his letter to the Chairman of the Convention stated that in his opinion it was most vitally desirable.
  It is not a big matter that remains to be completed. On 31st March, 1917, the position with regard to land purchase was as follows, according to the figures which were laid before the Committee of the Convention. The land which was sold, or which had been agreed to be sold, amounted to 410,000 holdings of an acreage of13,500,000. Unsold there remain 5,750,000 acres, or, roughly, 30 per cent. of the agricultural area in Ireland. The holdings which remained unsold were roughly 50,000 and the purchase price of those holdings was estimated to be from £12,000,000 to £16,000,000. The total purchase price estimated to complete the whole matter, both with regard to tenanted and untenanted land, was put, roughly, somewhere in the neighbourhood of £70,000,000. That figure to complete this vast beneficent reform does not in any respect represent hard cash. If it did, I should be the first to realise that, in existing circumstances, it might be a difficult matter; but to complete land purchase no one is asking the Government to present £70,000,000 to Ireland or to any body of people in Ireland.
  1272
  It simply means that the figure which represents the value of the land is really that, and, of course, the transference of that from the landlords to the tenants is primarily purely a paper matter. What it would mean would be that the Government would have to create new stock, and, of course, in present circumstances it would have to be 5 per cent. stock, and they would pay the present owners of the land not in cash, but in that 5 per cent. stock at face value. No money would pass, and with regard to the interest they would have to pay to those who invested in that stock, not a penny of it would be taken from the pockets of the taxpayers. It is a productive expenditure which will pay its own interest, just as if the railways were nationalised, and so long as they produced revenue to pay the interest on whatever bonds were created, that would not be a question of asking the Government for any money, but it would simply be a paper transaction under which the interest would pay the annual dividend.
  Notice taken that, forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members nut being present,
  The House was adjourned at Seven minutes after Eight o'clock till Tomorrow

  LIQUOR TRADE (CABINET COMMITTEE).
  LIQUOR TRADE (CABINET COMMITTEE).
  ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD.
  ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD.
  TEXTILE INDUSTRY (TAXATION).
  TEXTILE INDUSTRY (TAXATION).
  TEA DUTY.
  TEA DUTY.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  MILK PRICES.
  MILK PRICES.
  HAY SUPPLIES.
  HAY SUPPLIES.
IRELAND
  WILSON NATIONAL SCHOOL (RAPHOE).
  WILSON NATIONAL SCHOOL (RAPHOE).
  COUNTESS MARKIEVICZ.
  COUNTESS MARKIEVICZ.
  MR. DE VALERA.
  MR. DE VALERA.
  WESTPORT MURDER CASE.
  WESTPORT MURDER CASE.
  GALWAY CONVICTION.
  GALWAY CONVICTION.
  NAVAL OFFICERS (LEAVE).
  NAVAL OFFICERS (LEAVE).
DEMOBILISATION.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  MEN CALLED UP AFTER MEDICAL REJECTION.
  MEN CALLED UP AFTER MEDICAL REJECTION.
  LOW CATEGORY MEN.
  LOW CATEGORY MEN.
  1914–15 MEN (EGYPT).
  1914–15 MEN (EGYPT).
  JERLINGHAM CONCENTRATION CAMP, BOULOGNE.
  JERLINGHAM CONCENTRATION CAMP, BOULOGNE.
  ARMY POSTAL SERVICE, EGYPT.
  ARMY POSTAL SERVICE, EGYPT.
  NORTH RUSSIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
  NORTH RUSSIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
  WAR DECORATIONS.
  WAR DECORATIONS.
  OCCUPIED GERMANY (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  OCCUPIED GERMANY (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  WAR OFFICE (CLERICAL LABOUR).
  WAR OFFICE (CLERICAL LABOUR).
  POSTAL AND CABLE CENSORSHIP.
  POSTAL AND CABLE CENSORSHIP.
  ARMY TRAINING (EFFECT).
  ARMY TRAINING (EFFECT).
  COURT-MARTIAL (PRIVATE A. LORD).
  COURT-MARTIAL (PRIVATE A. LORD).
  ROYAL AIR, FORCE (BADGES).
  ROYAL AIR, FORCE (BADGES).
  SIBERIA (ALLEGED JAPANESE PROCLAMATION).
  SIBERIA (ALLEGED JAPANESE PROCLAMATION).
  OVERSEAS RECRUIT (EXPENSES).
  OVERSEAS RECRUIT (EXPENSES).
  MARCH OF LONDON TROOPS (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
  MARCH OF LONDON TROOPS (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
  VOLUNTEERS (PURCHASE OF BOOTS).
  VOLUNTEERS (PURCHASE OF BOOTS).
  UNSKILLED LABOUR, DIDCOT AND MILTON.
  UNSKILLED LABOUR, DIDCOT AND MILTON.
  BRITISH TROOPS IN RUSSIA (PAYMENT).
  BRITISH TROOPS IN RUSSIA (PAYMENT).
  ARMY PAY OFFICE (DISCHARGES).
  ARMY PAY OFFICE (DISCHARGES).
  FRENCH COMMERCIAL NOTES.
  FRENCH COMMERCIAL NOTES.
HOUSING.
  SURPLUS ARMY HUTS.
  SURPLUS ARMY HUTS.
  CELLULOSE ACETATE.
  CELLULOSE ACETATE.
  PRISONERS Of WAR (MOSCOW).
  PRISONERS Of WAR (MOSCOW).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  TUBERCULOUS PENSIONERS (TRAINING AND TREATMENT).
  TUBERCULOUS PENSIONERS (TRAINING AND TREATMENT).
  WAR GRATUITIES (INCOME TAX).
  WAR GRATUITIES (INCOME TAX).
  WIDOWED MOTHER'S PENSION.
  WIDOWED MOTHER'S PENSION.
  DISABILITY PENSION.
  DISABILITY PENSION.
  DECEASED SOLDIER'S FATHER.
  DECEASED SOLDIER'S FATHER.
  HOSPITAL CASES (RELATIVES' VISITS).
  HOSPITAL CASES (RELATIVES' VISITS).
  HOME TREATMENT (ALLOWANCES).
  HOME TREATMENT (ALLOWANCES).
  APPEAL CASES.
  APPEAL CASES.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  WAR GRATUITY (DELAYS).
  WAR GRATUITY (DELAYS).
  ROYAL ENGINEER TFLEGRAPHISTS.
  ROYAL ENGINEER TFLEGRAPHISTS.
  BUSINESS GRANT.
  BUSINESS GRANT.
  EX-SERVICEMEN (GRANTS WHILE TRAINING).
  EX-SERVICEMEN (GRANTS WHILE TRAINING).
  TIMBER (IMPORTED SUPPLIES).
  TIMBER (IMPORTED SUPPLIES).
INDIA.
  3RD BEDFORD REGIMENT.
  3RD BEDFORD REGIMENT.
  ARMY OFFICERS (APPEAL TO THE KING).
  ARMY OFFICERS (APPEAL TO THE KING).
  BRITISH TROOPS (RATIONS).
  BRITISH TROOPS (RATIONS).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.
  TRANSPORT FACILITIES, DERBYSHIRE.
  TRANSPORT FACILITIES, DERBYSHIRE.
  WAGON SHORTAGE, HULL.
  WAGON SHORTAGE, HULL.
POST OFFICE
  SUB-OFFICES (SANITARY CONDITIONS).
  SUB-OFFICES (SANITARY CONDITIONS).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  DOMINION CABLES (DELAYS).
  DOMINION CABLES (DELAYS).
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  TRADE BOARDS (SCOTLAND).
  TRADE BOARDS (SCOTLAND).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  DOGS (CONTROL OF MOVEMENT).
  DOGS (CONTROL OF MOVEMENT).
  TERMINATION OF THE WAR (DATE).
  TERMINATION OF THE WAR (DATE).

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The EARL OF ESSEX—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  STRETFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Read 2a.
REIGATE CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No XXI be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting, and that the statement of the Lord President as to the Treaty of Peace have precedence over the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE TREATY OF PEACE.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON rose to make a statement as to the terms of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, signed at Versailles, 28th June, 1919.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the text of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and the German Government is contained in the Blue Book which was laid before Parliament on Monday last I dare say that your Lordships have not had time to make a very full or complete study of its contents, but it will be my duty, as far as possible, to give a survey of them this afternoon There are other Papers also to be laid.
156
The Protocol supplementary to this Treaty of Peace and the Treaty respecting assistance by Great Britain to France in the event of unprovoked aggression by Germany in the future were laid yesterday and will be circulated among the Papers to your Lordships to-morrow Further, there will be laid the Convention regarding the military occupation of the territories of the Rhine, and the Treaty which has been concluded between the Powers and Poland; also, within the next few days, there will be laid before both Houses of Parliament the reply of the Allied Powers to the remarks which were made by the German Delegation on the original draft of the Peace Treaty This, when you see it, you will find to be one of the most valuable documents that will be placed at your disposal, for it contains a reasoned defence of many of the provisions of the Treaty and a reply to the objections and criticisms which were levelled against it The whole of the Papers to which I have alluded will presently be collected in a single volume and will be circulated to Parliament.
I have mentioned these intentions because they may help your Lordships to arrive at a decision as to the form in which, and the stage at which, you desire individually to take part in these discussions My duty to-day, as I indicated just now, is to make a general statement explanatory of the terms of the Treaty, and dealing with some at any rate of the consequences which may be expected to result therefrom. I do not know, my Lords, whether you will think it desirable to pursue the discussion to-day Probably not. In all probability you will desire to wait for the further study of the question which will be open to you in the series of Papers to which I have referred As your Lordships are aware, under the Constitutional usage of this country the assent of Parliament is not required to the ratification of a Treaty The power of treaty-making and treaty ratification is vested, under our Constitution, in the Sovereign, acting, of course, upon the advice of his Ministers; but, in a case such as this, no Government would desire to ratify a Treaty of this tremendous importance unless they knew that it was approved by Parliament and that it had behind it the general consensus of public opinion in this country That approval the Government hope to obtain in the course of these debates in both Houses of Parliament Further, in addition to what I have already said, two Bills are required—one of them

157
to give effect to certain of the financial and commercial provisions of the Treaty of Peace, while the second will be a Bill asking the assent of Parliament, in accordance with an undertaking given in Paris, to the guarantees to which I alluded just now proposed to be given by this country for the defence of France. Thus, my Lords, as there are two Bills coming before your Lordships, you will have at many stages an opportunity of expressing whatever views you may desire upon the different aspects of the Treaty of Peace.
With these preliminary observations, which are designed only to give information which your Lordships ought to have in your possession before the beginning of this debate, I will proceed to the task which I laid before myself just now This Treaty was signed at Versailles on Saturday last by the representatives of the five Great Powers and twenty-two other Powers on the one hand—that is, twenty-seven in all—and the representatives of the German Government on the other The twenty-seven are the Powers commonly designated as the Allied and Associated Powers This event of Saturday last was the end of a tragic chapter in the history of the world That chapter was opened as far back as the first week in August, 1914, with the declaration of war Hostilities were suspended upon the conclusion of the Armistice on November 11, 1918 During the six months which began with January the Plenipotentiaries of the Allied States have been sitting in Paris discussing and framing the conditions of Peace That chapter closed, as I say, on Saturday last after nearly five years of war I call it a chapter because, of course, it is not the entire volume Peace still has to be concluded with Austria-Hungary, with Bulgaria, and with Turkey That is certain to be a matter of several weeks, it may even be of months But your Lordships will readily see that with the defeat of the chief opponent, with the acknowledgment by him of his absolute discomfiture, and with the signature by the representatives of Germany of this document, the great ordeal to which I have referred is at an end, and the world can afford to breathe again.
I take it that our first feeling will be one of thanksgiving to Almighty God for the deliverance which He has vouchsafed to us; and, secondly, of relief at our release from the nightmare which has
158
overhung the nation during the past five years In the violent revulsion at the successful issue of the war people seem to be tempted to indulge in forms of extravagance and excess which are only pardonable if they are not long protracted; but, my Lords, in the atmosphere of rejoicing we are almost inclined to forget what it is we have gone through and what it is we have escaped We have been confronted with the greatest menace that ever threatened the civilised world. During these five years there have been moments when we were perilously near to destruction; there have been times when we were in deep waters, and when the waters almost closed over our heads there were moments, particularly last year, when the whole world might well have re-echoed the poignant words of one of the greatest of our poets—
O cease! must hate and death return?
Cease! must men kill and die?
Cease! drain not to its dregs the urn
Of bitter prophecy.
The world is weary of the past,
O might it die or rest at last.
Many have died that the world may live and enjoy that rest That rest is likely to be a strenuous and troubled one for all of us, but it is for us to see that it is not unworthy of the deaths by which it has been won.
In contemplating the issue of the war with Germany it is impossible not to be struck with its dramatic character The ending satisfies all the canons of the Greek tragedian. Overweening pride is brought by a swift and sudden catastrophic to a final and irrevocable fall. Nemesis dogs the footsteps of apparently successful crime and is triumphant in the end What a picture it will be open to the historian of the future to draw as he surveys this epoch! Four of the greatest Empires of the world have disappeared; what looked like impregnable fortresses of autocracy have crumbled and vanished; famous dynasties have been expelled or wiped out; minor thrones have been swept out of existence by the score; fugitive kings and kinglets haunt a few safe retreats on the Continent; peoples who have been long oppressed and submerged raise their heads after generations—in some cases longer, centuries—of humiliation Old territorial landmarks have been overwhelmed and new States are emerging like islands above the retreating flood My Lords, if there is no war in history that

159
has been so replete with horror, or waged at so bloody a cost, there is also none which has been so tremendous in consequence, or which ought to be so pregnant in result Certainly there has been none in which the guilt of those who provoked it has met with such a crushing retribution, or in which justice and right have enjoyed so supreme a vindication at the close.
It may further be observed that the victory which we have won is the downfall not only of an army, of a dynasty, of a nation—such incidents have occurred before—it is much more than that It is the defeat of a spirit, an , the moral and intellectual attitude typified in the Prussian character, which is incompatible with good government and with the ordered progress of the world I do not know, none of us know, if this spirit is only exorcised or if it is dead, but at least it has been put in chains; and of one thing we may be certain—never again will it be allowed to threaten, still less to regulate, the destinies of mankind These are a few of the general reflections which must occur to every one in surveying the close of this phase of the war, and it is unnecessary for me to dwell any further on them Rather must I now turn to the general survey of the conditions of Peace which I have already foreshadowed.
The Treaty falls into two parts The first concludes Peace with Germany and expounds the conditions on which that Peace is made The second devises a series of international arrangements by which it is hoped, I dare hardly to say to prevent, but at any rate to minimise, the risk of future wars and to secure the betterment of mankind I will deal with those two parts in turn As regards the first part—the Peace with Germany—let me give your Lordships in a sentence or two a brief summary of what the Treaty effects It defines the frontiers of the Germany of the future; but, of course, the frontiers of one State as viewed from the other side are also the frontiers of another, and accordingly in determining the future frontiers of Germany we find that the Treaty alters, re-draws, and re-paints the map of a large part of Europe It creates two new States, Czecho-Slovakia and Poland It restores Alsace-Lorraine to France It revises the boundaries of Belgium It alters the system of government of Luxemburg and the Saar Basin It provides for possible additions of
160
territory to Denmark, and binds Germany to recognise the independence of German Austria If we pass from Europe and look abroad, it deprives Germany of the whole of her colonies. It places strict limitations upon the armaments which she is to be allowed to retain in the future on land, on the sea, and in the air, and it abolishes compulsory military service in Germany. It creates Tribunals for the trial of those persons who are pre-eminently responsible either for the inception of the war or for its subsequent conduct. It requires substantial reparation and restitution to be made by the vanquished for the crimes that he has perpetrated, the injuries he has inflicted, and the widespread ruin he has caused. It provides for the international control of certain ports, railways, rivers, and canals. It contains a number of economic provisions, to which I shall presently allude. It establishes guarantees for the execution of the Treaty and for the future peace of the world. That is a brief outline of the contents of the first part of the Treaty.
Now, my Lords, will you permit me to go in a little greater detail into the most conspicuous of these territorial readjustments. First I will allude to Alsace Lorraine. Fifty years ago Germany perpetrated a great wrong. She annexed a predominantly French country against the will of its people This wrong has been repeatedly and bitterly protested against ever since by the voice of the deputies representing these territories; by the unquenchable spirit of their population; by the sentiment of the entire French nation, which, as some of us have seen, used on great occasions to drape with mourning the statue of the City of Strasburg in the central place of Paris—a sentiment which, during this last half century, has never allowed the French nation either to forgive or to forget. For fifty years this has rankled in the side of France, and, further, it has been a storm signal and a menace to the peace of the world. It was one of the declared aims of the Allies to redress this historic wrong, and to remove this running sore from the side of Europe. It was one of the Fourteen Points of President Wilson, accepted by the Germans when they concluded the Armistice. The right way to redress a wrong is to put things back again as they were before. This has been done. The frontiers of 1870 have been restored, and France receives back into her bosom

161
the sons, or the sons of the sons, who were tern from her half a century ago.
But, my Lords, Alsace-Lorraine is not the only case in which territory was wrested from a European State by the perfidious violence of Germany. Schleswig was similarly taken in 1864 by Bismarck. It was an unscrupulous and predatory act. Over and over again the inhabitants of the northern districts of Schleswig pleaded to be allowed, by a free vote, to express their sentiments. This was promised to them by Prussia in 1866, but the promise was never redeemed. They are to have their plebiscite now, and they, too, have before them the prospect of reunion with their Motherland.
There is another territorial settlement which, although it is only provisional in character, must not be overlooked. One of the most cruel injuries inflicted by the Germans in the present war was the destruction of the coal fields of Northern France. This was merciless, uncompromising, complete. For this not only is ample compensation due but exemplary retribution ought to be made For this purpose the coal fields of the Saar Basin, which have been hitherto German, are to be placed in the future under a Commission appointed by the League of Nations. The people will retain their nationality, their religious liberty, their language, their schools. They will have the use of the entire revenue derived from these areas. After fifteen years a plebiscite is to take place as to whether they wish to remain under the League of Nations or to be transferred to France or to Germany. In the latter case, Germany must buy out the French mines in any area transferred to Germany. This is a complicated and has been a very difficult settlement, but I hope your Lordships will agree that on the whole it is fair and just.
But, my Lords, by far the most considerable of the territorial readjustments is the re-establishment of Poland as an independent State. This is the feature of the Peace Treaty which Germany feels most, for it involves the severance of East and West Prussia and the detachment from Germany of large areas which for more than a century have been under the Prussian Crown. The reconstitution of Poland is not only an agreed basis of Peace; it was essential to peace in Europe. The
162
partition of Poland contributed as much perhaps as anything else to the maintenance of autocracy in Eastern Europe. Each of the three Empires by which it was surrounded was forced to conspire with its neighbour in order to repress the aspirations of the Polish people for unity and freedom. This great injustice has endured for now more than 100 years. It has been one of the gravest wrongs of which history bears record. To undo it was one of the stated aims of the Allies. Among all those aims I suppose there was none which at different times was voted more fantastic and impracticable; but, my Lords, it has been achieved. In reconstituting Poland the Peace Conference have observed scrupulously the rights of national majorities. They have drawn the Western Frontier of Poland strictly along the line where the Polish population is in a majority. The British delegation, while as anxious as any to give to Poland its full rights, resisted firmly the proposal to include under Polish rule German majorities. They therefore pressed that the City of Danzig and the neighbouring districts should be constituted an autonomous area, severed alike from Germany and from Poland except in so far as it was necessary to give Poland economic rights in the port, and communications in order to enable her to have that secure access to the sea which she had been promised. Similarly the British delegation pressed for a plebiscite in Upper Silesia, because they had received evidence that there was some doubt as to whether the population, though by majority Polish in race, wished to be attached to Poland or to Germany. They were attacked in many quarters for taking up this question, but I believe their attitude—which was avowedly based on the principle that no majority must be brought under the rule of another nationality except with its own consent, and that where there is doubt the will of the people concerned should decide—will be found to have been essentially sound. I submit that the arrangements proposed in the Treaty are not only strictly just as between Germany and Poland, but the fact that in every question of doubt the matter has to be resolved by plebiscite will give permanence and security to the peace which could not otherwise have been obtained.
Poland has many sympathisers in this country. She has many friends, as recent debates show, in this House. An anxious

163
and a troubled time lies before her. She is beset with difficulties, economic and political. Her territories lie between two Powers, one of whom on the west—Germany—will be inspired by relentless hostility. On the other side, she is co-terminus with a State in a condition of utter chaos and disorder. But just as the emancipation of Poland was an international duty, so the protection of Poland is an international interest. The honour of Europe is involved in securing her fair play, and I hope that a bright future lies before her.
There are two other possessions of Germany which were at once the emblems of her unmeasured arrogance and a menace to the peace of Europe. I allude to Heligoland and the Kid Canal. When the Island of Heligoland was under British rule it was the harmless resort of holiday-makers and the habitation of fishing folk. It was converted by Germany, by vast expenditure, by every resource of technical and mechanical skill, into a great place of arms. It had become in fact a sort of fortified robbers' nest from which she could sally forth to prey upon her neighbours or her foes. So long, therefore, as Heligoland remained fortified that menace would continue. Under Article 115 of the Treaty the fortifications, the military establishments, and the naval harbour are to be destroyed. Germany is to find the labour and to defray the cost. The fishing harbour alone will survive. Some persons in this country were of opinion that we should have pressed to take it back. I dare say the Conference might have been willing to consider such a suggestion, but I believe it was the opinion of our Naval authorities that Heligoland would be a source of greater weakness than of advantage to us in the future. The Allies for their part would, I believe, have been well pleased to blow it into the air or sink it down to the bottom of the sea; but that being found impracticable, the best thing to do was to render it innocuous for the future. The other great artificial construction of Germany in that part of the world to which she owed so much of her military and naval strength in Northern Europe was the Kiel Canal. The fortifications of the Canal are to be destroyed. The channel is to be thrown open to vessels of war and commerce of all nations on terms of entire equality. Thus the Baltic Sea will cease to be a German lake, and the strangle grip of German militarism or German navalism,
164
whichever you like to call it, in that part of Europe will be removed. These, my Lords, are the principal provisions relating to German territories within the boundaries of Europe.
I pass to the German Dominions over the seas. The German Colonial Empire was not of long standing. It had been created in the lifetime of many of us in this Chamber. The history, of its acquisition was not one, I think, of which any nation could be proud. It was a record of force and fraud and ruthless disregard for the interests of the native people. Had there been any evidence that the continued possession of these territories would involve administration in the interests of the inhabitants, would be attended by any betterment of the conditions of the native races, or would have been used for legitimate purposes of trade, there would have been a temptation, and there might have been an excuse, for leaving some if not all of these territories in the possession of Germany; but no such evidence was forthcoming. The trade of the Colonial Empire of Germany was but a fragment of her entire trade. Owing to climatic and other reasons only an insignificant number of her people ever found a residence or a home in these Colonial possessions. I have made a special study of the record of German rule there. I find that it was characterised by almost undeviating harshness, and in some cases by revolting cruelty. Under this system vast areas of territory were depopulated. Some tribes, like the wretched Hereros in South-West Africa, were literally exterminated. The evidence was absolutely overwhelming that the people cordially disliked German rule. They had no wish to be restored to it. They lived in deadly peril of the reprisals that would be inflicted were they given back. These 13,000,000 to 14,000,000 dark-skinned men could not be abandoned.
Neither was there the least concealment as to the purpose for which Germans desired—for she did desire—to be allowed to retain possession of the German Colonies. The German professors literally excelled themselves in candour. They wanted to keep these Colonies, as they openly said, first in order that Germany might have possession of the raw materials which she could not produce at home; secondly, in order that she might recruit great black armies which would dominate the African

165
Continent and no doubt be transported in the event of some future war to Europe. And lastly, she wanted them for the purpose of naval harbours and docks, submarine bases, wireless stations, fortifications and the like, which would have threatened not ourselves alone but the peaceful maritime highways of the world. No case could therefore be made out for returning any of those areas, and it would, I think, have been an unpardonable thing if all the blood and treasure which had been spent upon their recovery had been expended in vain. Therefore Germany has been deprived of the whole of her colonial possessions without exception. She has ceased to be a Colonial Empire, and she will have to accept the situation which, after all, other Empires have done—I take Russia and Austria as illustrations—of getting along without a colonial empire across the seas.
At the same time—and this is, I think, more important from our point of view—the Allies have declined to allow these colonial acquisitions to be treated as the spoil of their conquerors, or to be bartered about as if they were the possession of this and that State, to be exploited in the interests of the owners. The whole of the late German colonies have been placed under the mandatory system. The mandatory Power is definitely placed in the position, not of owner, but of a trustee. He assumes his trust under a definite responsibility to place the interests of the native population first, to give equal treatment to all other nations, and the League of Nations itself will exercise some measure of supervision over the manner in which the mandatory State discharges its obligations. There can, I think, be no doubt that this new system will contribute powerfully towards the peace and progress of mankind. Indeed, it is a public, an international, recognition of the principle under which we have on our own account administered our own Colonies in the past.
I am glad also that by the unanimous decision of the principal Allied and Associated Powers the government of South-West Africa is entrusted to the Union of South Africa. The government of the Pacific Islands south of the Equator is divided between Australia and New Zealand, while German East Africa and certain portions of Togoland and the Cameroons are allocated to Great Britain. The conditions of mandate are now under consideration, but it has been decided
166
that the territories allocated to the Dominions shall be included in the third category of mandates which are described in Article XXII of the Covenant of the League of Nations which has already been published, and is known in this country; that is to say, they will be regarded as integral portions of the territory subject to recognised safeguards as to the interests of the indigenous people.
I have now dealt with the principal cases of territorial re-settlement, and I pars to the questions of restitution and reparation. These two objects, along with the provision of guarantees for the future, were included in the summary of those aims of the Allied Powers without which no peace could be allowed to be made. They were first laid down by Mr. Asquith in firm and imperishable terms, which were accepted by every section of opinion in this country at the time, which have been repeated by Ministers of all the Allied States since, which have been the accepted basis of all our declarations, and the watchword, I might almost describe them, of the Allied Powers.
Let us see exactly how these objects are to be discharged. What did restitution mean? It meant that territories which had been invaded, devastated, and destroyed should not merely be evacuated and freed, but that they should be as far as possible restored to their pre-war conditions. What did reparation mean? It meant that compensation should be offered for wrongs inflicted, for damage done, for life and livelihood destroyed. There is a passage in M. Clemenceau's reply to the German delegation which I should like to read on this point. This is what he said—
"Germany has ruined the industries, the mines, and the machinery of neighbouring countries, not during battle but with the deliberate and calculated purpose of enabling her industries to seize their markets before their industries could recover from the devastation thus wantonly inflicted upon them. Germany has despoiled her neighbours of everything she could make use of or carry away. Germany has destroyed the shipping of all nations on the high seas, where there was no chance of rescue for their passengers or crews. It is only justice that restitution should be made, and that these wronged people should be safeguarded for a time from the competition of a, nation whose industries are intact and have even been fortified by machinery stolen from occupied territories. If these things are hardships for Germany, they are hardships which Germany has brought upon herself. Somebody must suffer from the consequences of the war. Is it to be Germany, or only the people she has wronged?"

167
Nor is that the full measure of the responsibilities of Germany. At her door lies the death of seven millions of men, who have gone never to return. At her door lies the fate of twenty millions of men who will carry on their bodies to their dying day the evidence of the wounds or sufferings which she has caused. Hence it is that restitution and reparation are among the most important parts of the Treaty. If we are to erect real safeguards against the repetition of this kind of war it will not be merely by setting up international machinery or by drawing paper Constitutions. In the international sphere, as within the State, security comes from the vindication of justice and the infliction of penalties on those who inflict wrongs upon their neighbours. This war, as has often been remarked, is the most terrible crime that has ever been committed against mankind. We shall only ensure that there is no repetition of this crime by proving not only that a war of aggression shall not succeed but that it entails penalties on the individuals who started it, and on the nation which supported it.
From this point of view, the Peace Conference at Paris assumed the attributes and the functions of an international tribunal. It really represented, or attempted to represent, the collective moral judgment of mankind. It attempted for the first time to treat Germany as we treat an ordinary guilty individual in every-day life. Germany, therefore, could not be let off merely because she had laid down her arms; she could not escape penalties merely because sentence had been passed upon her; she had to pay so that she might rue the offence which she had committed, that she might never repeat it in her own person, and that others might be deterred from following her example.
Reparation is especially dealt with in Clause 231 of the Treaty, by which Germany is required to accept responsibility for all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of her aggression. That is a definite affirmation of her responsibility for the war. The following clause, however, recognises that the resources of Germany are not adequate—taking into account the diminution of them brought about by the Treaty—to make complete reparation. Germany, therefore, is required
168
to make compensation for all damage done to the civilian populations of the Allies and the Associated Powers, and their property; and the amount payable in respect of such damage is defined in a series of categories, the most important of which are these—all damage of whatever kind to property by bombardment, whether front land, sea, or air; and pensions to naval and military victims of the war, and allowances paid to their dependants during and after the war. It was decided that the scale of compensation payable in respect of pensions must be uniform, and it was agreed that the French scale in force at the date of the coming into operation of the Treaty should be accepted by the other Allies. A number of categories are mentioned, each of which is important in its own way, but the two I have dealt with represent by far the two largest items.
No one could state to you at this moment what the total amount of reparation payable by Germany will be; that will depend both upon appraisement of the damage done, and upon the present cost of restoration. In order to determine exactly the amount payable by Germany and the method by which she is to pay, the Allied Powers have set up a Reparation Commission which will have power, after hearing evidence from Germany, to notify the total amount payable by her, and the instalments by which that liability is to be discharged in thirty years from 1921. You will observe, when the reply to the German observations, to which I referred earlier, is laid, that the Powers made the suggestion that Germany herself should make an examination of the devastated areas, sending in her surveyors in order to work in co-operation with the French, and should then submit for the consideration of the Powers proposals for the settlement of her liabilities under the Treaty for a lump sum. She may do that, or she may offer to carry out in whole or in part the work of restoration with German labour. As you can imagine, there is very little of any sort to be found in the country itself. Or she may offer labour, or materials, or cash payment to the French if they prefer to carry it out. In other words, she may make the payment which is enforced upon her either in labour, in cash, or in kind.
This suggestion was made because it was recognised that it would be to everyone's advantage that, if possible, Germany's

169
liability should be exactly ascertained and defined, and because, while no detailed estimate of the damage to property or the cost of restoration has yet been made, it was thought that within the next four months it would be possible to arrive at a fairly accurate analysis of the damage, and for proposals to be made in respect of restoration which might be satisfactory to both sides. Finally, the distribution of the German payments in respect of reparation will be made by the Reparation Commission to the various Allies in proportion to the various claims under the several categories of damage defined in the Treaty. These, in brief summary, are the proposals of the Treaty with regard to reparation.
A NOBLE LORD: Belgium.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: If your Lordships will wait to see the terms of the Agreement you will find that Belgium is given priority, and that her sufferings—terrible as they were, although, of course, for geographical reasons not on the same scale as in the case of France—are fully recognised and will receive the reparation to which they are entitled.
The questions may be asked, Do these proposals go too far? or, again, Do they go far enough? In reply I should like to say this. There is really only one test of what Germany should pay, and that is the test of her capacity to pay. According to any interpretation of justice, or under the conditions of the Armistice, she is liable for far more than she can pay. No one to-day can possibly say what she will be able to pay within the next twenty or thirty years; no one can foresee the development of trade and industry in that time. It was therefore a matter of immense difficulty—I might even say an impossibility—to arrive at an exact figure by any scientific process. The Peace Conference therefore decided on the arrangement I have outlined, because they thought that on the whole it was fair and practicable; it certainly does not let the Germans off lightly. It secures to the Allies not indeed full reparation—for Germany could not pay that—but none the less it secures substantial mitigation of the losses sustained. On the other hand, if Germany recovers more slowly than is expected, under the machinery provided it will be possible at any time to adjust the terms of the Treaty to the position, and the Reparation Commission is given
170
power to extend the date of the payment, of instalments or to modify the amount, although it cannot alter the capital debt except with the concurrence of the Governments concerned. So much for restitution and reparation.
I pass now to the question in which great interest has throughout been taken in this country, and was shown particularly, at Election time—namely, the question of penalties. If your Lordships will look at Articles 227 to 230 of the Peace Treaty you will find that the trial of the Emperor William for supreme offences against international morality and the sanctity of Treaties is demanded. The Dutch Government are to be requested to surrender him. A Tribunal of Judges of the Great Powers will be set up with power to pass sentence and to fix punishment. Further, military tribunals are to be set up to try, and if found guilty to punish, those officers who committed acts in violation of the laws and customs of war. Is there any one, either in this House or outside it, who doubts that this is an act not only of essential justice but of absolute necessity?
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: These trials are the analogue in the case of the individual to what I was describing just now in the case of the nation. Just as reparation is a penalty imposed on the German people because they aided and abetted their rulers who were the authors of this war, so the trial of the Kaiser and the officers to whom I have referred is a warning that high station and illustrious rank will not protect the guilty from the penalty of their deeds. I do not suppose that any of us really are set on punishment, still less on any course of revenge. The punishment of the Kaiser and his associates is regarded by us as a deterrent which it is essential to provide as a warning to prevent the rulers of any other State from ever again following their example. The bringing home to Germany and its rulers of their responsibility for having inflicted on the world the sufferings and calamities of the last five years fundamentally distinguishes the Treaty of Versailles from any previous Peace Treaty that has been concluded, and it constitutes an essential element in security against wars of aggression in the future. Peace is maintained within the State because justice is not only recognised but enforced.

171
Peace will reign among nations only when in the settlement of international crimes justice is equally recognised and enforced. The crowned criminals of the world have in history sometimes been defeated, sometimes banished, sometimes killed. More often they have escaped scatheless in their own life time. They have been, it is true, execrated by posterity, but they have never before been tried or condemned, if they are condemned, by a Court of their contemporaries. My Lords, this will be a great precedent, I think; it will be a stage in the moral evolution of mankind.
I said something earlier in the day about economic arrangements. Perhaps I may be allowed to add a word upon that matter. Your Lordships will observe that a considerable section of the Peace Treaty is devoted to economic and financial clauses; they are important provisions, but they go into great detail and I do not propose to summarise them here. Broadly speaking, however, they provide for two objects. In the first place, they are necessary in order to make effective the reparation proposals; in the second place, they are designed to provide that equality of trade conditions which has been one of the great bases of peace. The mechanical equipment of Germany is intact; her industries, indeed, have been strengthened by machinery stolen from the occupied territories. On the other hand, during the war she has pursued the policy of deliberately destroying the machinery and industry of some of her neighbours, not for any war purposes, but solely with the object of capturing their trade for her own industries before her neighbours could recover from the war. To admit Germany at once into the open markets would be to impose, not equality, but a disability upon the nations whom Germany has ruined. While, therefore, some of these provisions may appear to be hard, they are essential unless Germany is to profit by her own misdeeds at the expense of the peoples whom she has ravaged and despoiled.
My Lords, I said at the beginning that the Treaty might be divided into two parts, and that the second of these contained conditions for laying, if possible, the foundation of a new international system which would give guarantees both for international progress and for lasting peace. Will you allow me to summarise what is proposed in these respects, because in the opinion of many they will be the
172
most important parts of the Treaty. The first is demilitarisation. There was a unanimous feeling at Paris that a universal reduction of armaments is essential for the future peace of the world. Great standing armies organised and equipped for instant action are a standing temptation to any nation to use them in times of excitement or to seize some coveted gain. The Treaty itself provides that the German Army is to be reduced within a very short period to 100,000 men, recruited on the voluntary system for a period of twelve years. Compulsory military service is, as I think I said before, abolished in Germany. A definite limit is fixed to the amount of arms, munitions, and materials which she is allowed to keep. War arsenals and factories, except such as are approved by the Powers, are to be closed down. All arms and munitions in excess of allowed quantities are to be handed over. The manufacture, the import, or the use of poisoned gases and other devices of that description are prohibited. The same applies to armoured cars and tanks. All fortified field works except on the Southern and Eastern frontiers are to be first disarmed and then dismantled. The German Navy is to be similarly reduced to a total number of vessels which is stated in Article 181 of the Treaty. The total personnel is to be reduced to 15,000, recruited by voluntary enlistment. No submarines are to be kept or built. All naval fortifications on the North Sea and the Baltic are to be destroyed. No military or naval air services will be allowed. These arrangements are to be supervised by international Allied Commissions of control working in the country.
There is another heading of great, and perhaps as yet hardly sufficiently recognised, importance. I speak of labour. There is embodied in the Peace Treaty a chapter which has never before figured in a great international settlement. It is generally recognised that economic and labour causes contribute materially towards wars; they arouse jealousies; they create competitions and rivalries which inflame national passions. In the present Treaty, therefore, provision has been made for an annual International Conference on labour problems. This conference will consist only as to half its number of members appointed by the Governments; the other half will be nominated equally by Capital and Labour. This means that at least once a year representatives of all

173
Governments, of organised Labour and organised Capital in all countries, will meet and ventilate in the full light of day on the one side their injustices or grievances, on the other their successful experiments in social and industrial progress. Every nation, therefore, will have brought home to it the effects of its own action on the economic life of every other nation. Labour in all countries will be able to combine in pressing for those vital reforms in regard to hours of labour, wages, women's labour, children's labour, housing, safety, and so forth which are vital to the progress of humanity. On the other side employers will be able to bring out the difficulties under which they labour owing to competition, sweated labour, unfair subsidies, and so on. Further, the Treaty not only provides for an annual conference constituted on those lines, but it provides that any agreement arrived at by a two-thirds majority must be submitted to the Parliament or competent authority of every country, so that it will be impossible for a country to hold up its conclusions. At the same time it also provides for the constitution of a permanent Labour Commission whose business it will be to watch over labour conditions in all lands, and to prepare and make effective the work of the annual conference. I venture to think that history will decide that the Labour Covenant is among the most successful and the most important of the accomplishments of the Paris Conference viewed from the point of view of its practical effect upon the daily well-being of the toiling millions of mankind.
I come lastly to the question of the League of Nations. The culminating point of the Peace Treaty, from the point of view of its effect in improving the international system of the world, is the Covenant of the League of Nations. The text of the Covenant has long been published, and is well known; but I should like to point out briefly what seem to me its most significant features. I am sorry to detain your Lordships so long, but I am covering a field so vast that, although I had hoped to confine it within the compass of an hour, I must ask your pardon if I slightly exceed that period.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: In the first place, the Covenant establishes the principle that war is not a justifiable
174
method for settling international disputes. Aggressive war, aiming at territorial aggrandisement or political advantage, is expressly forbidden under the guarantee of the members of the League. In all cases of international disputes the Covenant provides that no nation, however aggrieved, shall take the law into its own hands until the quarrel has been submitted to the Council of Nations or an International Court of Justice. Failure to comply with this obligation entails, in the first place, the commercial and economic ostracism of the offending Power, and, in the second, such military and naval measures as may be necessary to compel it to observe its obligations. These measures are not, of course, a certain guarantee against war, but at any rate they provide the best means which are at present Open to us to delay its outbreak and to diminish its probability.
Secondly, the Covenant expressly gives to the League of Nations the duty of developing and making effective those international agreements in regard to scandals such as the trade in opium, the arms and liquor traffic with uncivilised races, and the white slave traffic, which have long been recognised and deplored, but which it has never been possible to grapple with effectively in the international sphere. The League of Nations provides machinery whereby some real sanction can be established behind what had hitherto been little more than paper arrangements. Finally—and this is, perhaps, the most important aspect of the League—it has to attempt to put an end to the evils, the old time-honoured evils, of the Balance of Power. It substitutes for that ancient and now discredited doctrine the principle that there must be unity of law in the conduct of the world's affairs. It creates the machinery whereby the leaders of the nations, in meeting one another face to face, learn one another's difficulties and act together, not merely in the pursuit of their country's selfish ends but in promoting the general welfare of mankind.
During the Conference at Paris the free nations of the world for the first time came to know each other well. Amid great difficulties there emerged there, I believe, a recognition that the general well-being must prevail over the narrow interests of a single State. The League of Nations provides practical machinery through which that principle can be followed and made effective in the affairs of the world.

175
If we fail we shall inevitably disintegrate into a number of warring groups with no other resort for the settlement of disputes but war. If we succeed—I do not place my expectations too high—we shall establish the principle that there is unity in men's affairs, and that there is a sufficient number of nations who are prepared to sacrifice their own selfish ends to the common good and to keep international crime in check.
The last heading in the Treaty of Peace is that of "Guarantees." I said just now that Mr. Asquith's formula was, "Restitution, reparation, and guarantees." These are the guarantees which the Treaty sets up for its practical execution and the maintenance of Peace. In the first place, German territory to the west of the Rhine and the bridge-heads of the Rhine are to be occupied by the Allied and Associated troops for fifteen years, subject to a partial withdrawal from part of this area at the end of five and ten years respectively in the event of Germany loyally carrying out her obligations under the Treaty. The Treaty further provides that in the event of Germany refusing to observe the whole or part of her obligations under the Treaty the whole area in question may be reoccupied by the Allied and Associated Powers.
The second practical guarantee which is proposed is the Treaty—which I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, and which will be circulated to-morrow—by which Great Britain and the United States undertake to go to the assistance of France in the event of unprovoked German aggression. I believe that, striking, perhaps startling, as this proposal is, it will be approved by the House and by the nation. France, the principal champion of democracy on the Continent of Europe, has been ravaged and devastated twice in the last fifty years by Germany, and four times in the last century. Owing to her geographical position she really holds the frontiers of civilisation. She is the gatekeeper of the civilised world. All nations to-day owe in some measure their present liberty and security to the sacrifices which France has made in the defence, not only of her own liberty, but of that of the rest of the world. She has lost in this way nearly one and half millions of dead. It is surely right that those who have profited by her sacrifices should guarantee her
176
against the necessity of having to repeat them.
There is a further reason for this Treaty. So long as France, Great Britain and the United States, the leading democracies of the world, stand together, I do not believe that any autocratic Power or combination of autocratic Powers will have the least chance, or indeed will ever dream, of challenging them to war, in view of the experiences of Germany in the last five years. I regard, therefore, this Treaty which will later come under the consideration of your Lordships, as one of the most important guarantees, not merely of the freedom of France but of peace in the world, which it is possible to create. I earnestly trust that Parliament will support the Government in the policy of giving this guarantee to France, provided, of course, it is given by the United States of America as well.
I hope that the survey which I have made has shown you that, although the terms of this Treaty are severe—certainly the heaviest series of penalties which has ever been imposed on a culprit State—they are not harsh or vindictive. The spirit that has animated this Treaty has been one of justice rather than of revenge. Whether we compare the terms with the character and enormity of the crimes that were committed or with the terms which Germany openly announced that she would have endeavoured to exact herself, it is a just and a moderate Treaty. Moreover, in framing it the Allies had to pay some attention to the psychology of the people with whom they were dealing. Had they shown weakness in framing this Treaty, or undue complacency in modifying it after it had been framed, the Germans would have laughed at them for their timidity and taken advantage of their folly. If the German desires reconciliation, let him show repentance. If he desires to be admitted to the comity of nations, let him seek absolution. The door is not closed. But before it is open we must know something of the character and the credentials of those who propose to enter in.
In what I have said I hope I have not indulged in one sentence that could savour of national vanity or boasting. I have preferred to regard this Treaty from the point of view of its effect upon the future of the world rather than its effect upon our own people. But it is permissible, perhaps, to point out in a sentence that Great

177
Britain has gained in this war all, and indeed much more than all, she set out to win. Our Navy remains at the end of the war intact and unassailed. The principle of the Freedom of the Seas, which is the basis of our national existence, stands unimpaired and unimpugned. The British Protectorate of Egypt is provided for in one of the clauses in this Treaty.
As for territorial gains, we sought none in entering the war. I do not believe there was a single person, even a single soldier or sailor, who really fought for additions to the British Empire. But new responsibilities are being thrust and will be thrust upon us which, though we have not sought them, we cannot refuse. I confess I regard these great impending additions to our responsibilities with no great elation, and with some alarm—and for this reason. I do not doubt for a moment that our national spirit will be equal to the task. The war has shown that it is so. The old reservoir of British courage and tenacity is still filled by the rills that flow from the British University, the British college, the British school, and the British fireside. There is no suspicion that the race itself is decadent or unequal to an extension of responsibility. But I often ask myself, Have we the men? I see, therefore, in these terms, and in the addition to our responsibilities which will be entailed, not so much a cause for national rejoicing as a call for personal service; a demand for patriotic duty. We are demobilising our soldiers and sailors, and at the time when they are going back into civil life we want to mobilise a fresh army of men who will be willing to serve the Empire in every capacity in every part of the world. If after the war the survivors of this war, or the younger generation who are coming up to take their place, drift into a life of careless ease and selfish enjoyment, we shall betray the memories of those who have fallen in the war. The men who have died in the war sprang to answer the trumpet call of danger; we want to be certain that the next generation, and those who have survived, will be equally ready to answer the trumpet call of duty.
We have paid in this House and elsewhere many well-deserved tributes to our heroes in the field and on the sea. Is it permissible in this hour to offer one word of thanks to those who have upheld our banner and won this victory at the Council
178
Table in Paris? There is speaking, or there was speaking half an hour ago, in another place a statesman who cannot offer that tribute because it would be offered to himself. But the reception he met with on his return on Sunday, the ovation which greeted hint in the House of Commons the other day, and the cheers which I heard just now in the streets, indicate to me that he has not merely the confidence but the gratitude of his countrymen, and I do not think that this House should be altogether behind the House of Commons in the expression of its sentiments on this occasion.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: It is open to me to say, with a real and accurate knowledge of what has been passing in Paris during the past six months, that the Prime Minister, by a combination of courage and imagination and by the exercise of quite unusual powers of conciliation, has often held the balance between conflicting parties, and is largely personally responsible for the contents of that blue volume. We must also not omit to include in our thanks the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Balfour, who has never left Paris since he went there at the beginning of January, and who has applied to the solution of these questions all the resources of his profound experience and his great intellectual powers. Great work also has been done more especially in regard to labour questions by Mr. Barnes. Two members of your Lordships' House (I do not know if they are here to day)—Lord Summer and Lord Cunliffe—have lent invaluable aid in dealing with quesions of reparation and finance. Invaluable work has been done by members of all the Committees sitting in Paris, and to the representatives of our Dominions overseas we owe a deep debt of gratitude.
Perhaps one ought not to conclude a speech of this character without saying one word about our Allies. It would be the height of absurdity and vanity to pretend that we won the war. We owe the victory, partly indeed to the valour of our own men, but largely to the unconquerable spirit of France, the steadfast heroism of Belgium, the valour of Italy, and the splendid contribution of the United States. We owe it in the Council Chamber at Paris to the unfaltering courage and sagacious leadership of M. Clemenceau, and to the profound

179
sincerity and absolute good faith which has been shown throughout by President Wilson. These great men, who have had the destinies of the world in their hands, part from each other after six months with sentiments of profound respect, admiration, and esteem, which are, I believe, echoed by their countrymen.
Such is the nature of the Peace which it has been my rather laborious duty to endeavour to explain to your Lordships this afternoon. I do not pretend that all of this will endure. Much of it will perish, much of it is ephemeral, but on the whole I submit that it does fairly carry out the principles and objects for which we entered the war. If the dead could rise from their graves, if the dead whom your Lordships' House has contributed in such liberal measure to the roll of heroes, could rise from their graves, I believe they would stand up and say that they had not died in vain. But do not let us suppose for a moment because Peace has been signed that the work is done. Peace is not the end; it is only the beginning. I do not merely mean that a new era has dawned, a new order is beginning. Those are the commonplaces of everyday utterance. No. I mean that this Peace rests on certain high principles which have never before been attempted to be introduced into an international settlement, and these principles have to be watched and safeguarded. If we think we have done our work by putting them in the Treaty and enshrining them in print, we are making a great mistake. Many of them may not survive if they are simply left alone. We have to fight to maintain these principles in peace just as we have had to fight to defend them in time of war. It rests with us to see that this Treaty is carried out to a successful completion, and that the provisions which give liberty and hope to many of the smaller nations of the world are not lost sight of, but are carried to their practical conclusion.
My Lords, if that is the task that lies before us we still require to be strong. We are demobilising our forces, but we cannot lay down our arms; we cannot disband them altogether. We must still be able to fight for what we have won, and secure that it is not taken from us after we have won it. I believe that your Lordships will not merely join in the general congratulations to which I have ventured to give utterance in my speech this afternoon, but that you
180
will also, in your various stations and according to your opportunities, give a lead to this country in that continuity of effort, of sacrifice, and of good work, without which the fruits of this peace will not be garnered in, and the victory itself may have been won in vain. I thank your Lordships for the attention with which you have listened to me.
THE MARQUEES OF CREWE: My Lords, I am sure of the approbation of the House in proposing to confine the observations that I have to make within the shortest possible compass. In the first place, in the speech of the noble Earl who leads the House—for the length of which he had no need whatever to apologise—he, in terms of moving eloquence, expressed the sentiments of thankfulness and relief which we feel, not on behalf of the Government or on behalf of a Party, but on behalf of us all I am glad, however, to join hint in acknowledging in unstinted terms the arduous and long-continued labours of the Prime Minister and his colleagues in Paris. I need not echo what the noble Earl said upon that, except to remind your Lordships that while their labours were continuing a most heavy burden of work fell upon the noble Earl—kindred work some of it indeed involving visits to France—and to him also, I am sure, ought the thanks both of this House and of the country to be directed. The task of our representatives in Paris was no doubt rendered in some respects more arduous by the fact that, working as they did in foreign surroundings, they had perpetually to consider that, however high might be the motives and however praiseworthy the objects of those with whom they had to discuss this Treaty, yet the method both of moral and intellectual approach by men of different races is bound in some respects to be divergent. All the more thanks are due to them for the work which they performed.
I have but little more to say, because the noble Earl reminded us that there will be later opportunities for discussing any or all of the details of this Treaty. We have, indeed, had but scanty time to examine, far less to digest, the voluminous Blue Book which has been circulated to us. There are many points in it, geographical points, penal points, economic points, on which some of your Lordships might desire to comment later on, all the

181
more as there will be many who, studying this Treaty, will be disposed to look on the future in a spirit of tempered and even subdued hopefulness rather than in one of enthusiastic confidence, much less of a light heart. Of course, my Lords, it would always have been absurd to suppose that when the curtain was once more raised after it had fallen at the termination of the war, it would exhibit a delightful and brilliant transformation scene. It is true, as the noble Earl has told us, that there is bound to be much in this volume which is both arbitrary and transitional, and therefore I will only for a few moments devote attention to one of the subjects which the noble Earl so fully and lucidly described to us—namely, by saying a word upon the Covenant of the League of Nations, which is the first chapter in this book.
As we all know, the principle of the League of Nations has given a chance for comments of an easy and shallow cynicism, just as all aspirations towards the ideal always have, from the Sermon on the Mount downwards; but we can say this, that unless through the adoption of some such rules as these we can advance to a higher level and into a clearer air, then we are of all generations the most miserable. We shall be in a worse case than any of the generations of our forefathers of whom history can tell us. If knowledge comes but wisdom lingers, the future, not only of this country but of the world, is indeed dark. In one respect that, has been forcibly brought home to me only this afternoon. I came here from the opening of the Exhibition, just across the Square, of Scientific Products, It so happens that some of my duties in connection with education have caused me to appreciate, although, as I am not a trained man of science, not always fully to comprehend, the amazing advances which have been made in recent years in perfecting the engines for destruction of life, and also what are termed preventive methods, which simply mean the destruction of the lives of other persons. In my boyhood when I was at school the Franco-Prussian War was being waged, and I well remember the horror which the losses in such battles as Wörth and St. Privat inspired in the minds of everybody. Those engagements would have been mere episodes in one of the great battles of this last war—those actions which we spoke of as battles, though some of them almost partook of the nature of campaigns. I do not hesitate
182
to say, even from the little knowledge that I possess, that in the war of ten years hence, if there be such a war, the carnage and destruction will be as much greater than the destruction and carnage of the war which begun in 1914 as that was greater than in the war of 1870 and 1871. That, of course, is only an appeal to our lower instincts for the preservation of the race, but of course the higher moral code can be urged, and has been urged in a prayer for the adoption of the new system. But the considerations which I have mentioned may well give pause to the boldest evangelist of the old gospel of the Balance of Power to which the noble Earl opposite alluded. It may be—it must be, I suppose—that this Peace is not all that some of us hoped, but its conclusion does enable us and give us courage to set ourselves to the new tasks of Peace, to the establishment at home of contentment and such measure of national prosperity as the war has made possible, and to the development on wise and free lines of the British Empire which, let us not forget it, is the greatest engine of civilisation that the world has ever known.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Your Lordships, I trust, will not think it inappropriate—indeed I know the noble Earl who leads the House thinks it not inappropriate—that a few words should be said to-day from one who speaks as a representative of those who sit here not technically as politicians but rather as having a concern in a peculiar degree with the principles which should in our political action inspire and guide all parties and sections of each House of Parliament. We have listened to-night to, a remarkable speech. I do not think that even the noble Earl himself has ever had an opportunity which gave greater scope for his quiet eloquence, and for the power of lucid arrangement and exposition of complicated matter, than he has had the opportunity of developing before us this afternoon.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The speech was one worthy of the occasion and of the incomparable importance of what had to be said. I am grateful, too, for what has been now added to it by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition. The document to

183
which the noble Earl has called our attention, the Treaty, contains 440 Articles and covers 213 foolscap pages of print, and yet we are told that this is only a part—possibly a minor part—of the material which is ultimately to be in our hands as a Treaty and the subsidiary documents belonging to it eventuating from this war. I suppose that no document so momentous in its character, so far-reaching in its aims, and, in regard to the effect to be given to its provisions, so extensive in its operation upon mankind, has ever been drawn up in the world and had human signatures appended to it. This document stands by itself in history; and instead of complaining, as sone have been apt to complain, of the long time that has elapsed from the beginning of the preparation of this document and all the other matters belonging to it until the present time, I am sure that some of us rather feel surprised that it has been possible even in the time that has been occupied in Paris to bring such a large mass of material into a form available not merely for the understanding of the experts who have to decide the matters contained in it, but for the understanding of those who, like ourselves, read it with less expert knowledge.
We have heard details to-night of the character of the document and of the enactments it contains. Those who study the document itself will have a lesson in modern history and a marked lesson in modern geography which is not ordinarily found in a Blue Book even of this volume. We are here concentrating our thoughts upon the great and tangled web of European facts, European efforts, and European strifes and rivalries which have eventuated in the Peace which was signed last Saturday. The noble Earl has told us how it is intended that the Treaty shall operate in the Europe of to-day. He has markedly abstained from assuming the mantle of the prophet as regards details, or endeavouring to present to us in its full outcome all the efforts which have now been made. But that is well. It is what we should have expected, and what is obviously right.
We should now cast our look forward—not only us, but statesmen—and ask ourselves how all this will look one hundred years hence. We should ask ourselves what we shall seem to have been doing, and what will be said about us by future generations. I do not believe that we
184
can in detail forecast the future, but I think we ought to be looking at it to see whether or not what we are doing has the character upon it that we should desire it to have. I am not for a moment suggesting that to-night would be an opportunity for criticising the matter in detail. There is just one object lesson upon which I should like to say a word. A hundred years ago, or, to be exact, 103 years ago, both Houses of Parliament deliberated in detail, and the report of what they said has come down to us with rather unusual fulness. The outcome of the Congress of Vienna and the ensuing Treaties, and the speeches of those who then did what we are doing now, are rather curious reading to-day. The speakers dwell upon the vastness of the armies and the armaments to which they were referring, and still more upon the colossal financial expenditure to which they refer. When we look at those figures and compare them with to-day they are literally almost a bagatelle. The number of troops who are spoken of as an immense army is insignificant when compared with the facts of the last few years; and far more marked is the contrast between the financial sums which are there mentioned and those which have been bandied to and fro in the Houses of Parliament during the last year or two as the necessary expenditure upon a great war.
Out of that tangled web with which they had to deal they tried to find a path of extrication. They got rid of what was called then, as the noble Earl called it to-night, the nightmare of a dominant force of a belligerent kind which had been overcome. But they tried to meet it with an elaborate arrangement for the balance of power. What they would have said of the phrase used to-night by the noble Earl, "the time-honoured, evil balance of power," I do not know. They tried to meet it by nicely adjusted machinery for restraint and counter-restraint and for the dynastic settlements which formed so large a part of what they had to arrange. And out of that came what was called the Holy Alliance, with its strange admixture of pious aspiration and of shrewd—or perhaps not too shrewd—political plans. Men were full of hope, but history proved absolutely careless of prophetic reputation, and the outcome was a totally different one. I suppose that some of the aspirations of that time were themselves what found ultimate event and issue in the conflicts and conspiracies and insurrections which

185
characterised the whole of Europe during the first half of the nineteenth century.
We to-day are standing in the same position. Have we a right to expect that we can have better results for what we are doing than those men did who discussed and formulated the Treaties of that period? We are doing it on a far more gigantic scale, and a whole group of nations is trying to handle the world's affairs more thoroughly even than was attempted then. Have we a right to expect a better issue? I firmly believe we have, and for the reasons already given to-night in the eloquent words of the noble Earl. I believe it is because in the very forefront of the Treaty—the first twenty-six clauses of this great volume are the provisions of what we call the League of Nations—the League of Nations which is easy to mock at, which people did mock at a few years ago as a phantasy and an empty phrase, but which is now the deliberate, the well-weighed and carefully drawn plan of the very foremost thinkers and statemen of our time.
The noble Earl bore testimony which, I am sure, we all desire to re-echo, to the merits of those who have fashioned the Treaty its it stands. He did not mention, but I think we cannot be wrong if we should mention, one to whom, as we are led to believe, we owe no little thanks in all that concerns the League of Nations, I mean Lord Robert Cecil. The work of Lord Robert Cecil, as we have constantly been told, has been of an invaluable kind, and those who look in detail into all that has been said with regard to the League of Nations will be able to say what leadership they have found in what he has taught us on that subject.
The framers of that scheme have resolved to put into the forefront of the new world plan what is already not only a sanguine political plan for the future 'lint what has been from the first a well assured Christian principle. It is for that reason that I believe we have a right to expect a better result from the effort which is now being made than any result that could have been rightly expected from far-reaching and ambitious treaties of another kind in the days gone by. The danger lies, I suppose, in the possibility that the provisions of the Treaty might here and there be so worked as to endanger the very principle which underlies the League of Nations. Against that peril we as a people, and not our statesmen only, have all to be watchful.
186
The responsibility is shared by us all, for the peoples are now enlisted. In the stimulating and robust words which were written a few days ago by General Smuts—
"The League is yet only a form. It still requires the quickening life which can only come from the active interest and vitalising contact of the peoples themselves."
That is the primary fact upon which all this discussion rests, and, standing here in the position I occupy, I should be false indeed to every principle I have ever held, or to the faith for which I stand, if I doubted that that principle, put in the very forefront of a Treaty like this, will and must stand the strain. It lies at the root and basis of the creed of every Christian man. It is that which differentiates this effort, this pact of the peoples, from any that has ever gone before, and it is that which, above all, justifies us, as we peer forward into the future, in making it a part not only of our hopes but, I do not scruple to say here, of our prayers as welt as of our thanksgivings, offered in confident expectation of the fruit that is to come. The origin of this is not human but divine. It stands in fundamental truth. Magna est veritas et prœvalebit.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I do not rise, I need hardly say, to introduce any discussion, nor to offer any criticism, but there is one particular point to which attention was called by the noble Earl in the singularly impressive statement in which he held us for so long while explaining the provisions of the Treaty with so much clearness. This point has also been just reforred to by the noble Marquess Lord Crewe and by the most rev. Primate. The part of this Treaty which, whatever differences we may entertain upon other subjects, we can all regard with unqualified satisfaction, is that part which creates the principle of the League of Nations. If I may venture to presume on behalf of those who, from the very beginning of the war, have been working in conjunction with our friends similarly disposed in America to possess the minds of both peoples with the desirability of having some arrangement which would prevent war in the future and thereby to give support to the President in America and to His Majesty's Government here in advocating this principle, I should like to tender our thanks, not only to the President of the United States but to His Majesty's Government for the firmness and cordiality

187
with which they have taken hold of this principle, and have, as we believe, advocated it in France; and I should like particularly to associate myself and them so far as I may do so—I have no doubt I am speaking for them—with what has been said by the most rev. Primate about the admirable and zealous services which have been rendered by Lord Robert Cecil.
There is just one remark which occurs to me in this connection. The most rev. Primate asked whether we can expect better results than were obtained by the Congress of Vienna in 1814 and 1815. That depends upon the spirit in which we carry out the principle of the League of Nations. The noble Earl said that we ought to endeavour to work out those principles and to conduct our policy in the future upon them. He also observed that there are many points in the present Treaty which are not complete; that the Treaty has to be worked out in details; and as your Lordships know there is considerable room for variation in the application which will have to be made of its provisions.
Everything will depend for the successful working of the League of Nations upon the spirit which is applied to carrying out these parts of the Treaty. It is by the spirit and the methods which are visible in the Covenant of the League, and which animated those who framed it, that we shall best succeed in carrying out the Treaty. What we want to do is as far as we can to extinguish the spirit of hatred which now pervades and distracts so much of Europe. We want to bring about a reconcilement amongst the peoples. It is only by such reconcilement that the League of Nations can succeed and that wars can be avoided in the future. That applies not only to the working out of the provisions of this Treaty but to those other questions which still remain to be settled in Continental Europe. As your Lordships know there is material for long and difficult discussions in the controversies that exist between various States and nationalities all over the Western world—the more particularly in the Baltic regions, and in South-Eastern Europe—and in the Near East; and unless these questions are handled with the utmost care and consideration in the true spirit of the principles which the Allies have proclaimed—respect for the rights of peoples and an observance of the principle of nationality—we shall be making material for future wars.
188
I would therefore express the earnest hope that His Majesty's Government will exert themselves to see that every possible consideration is given to the rights of the different nationalities whose claims still remain to be adjusted; and above all that, it will be remembered that for the successful working of the League of Nations we have to create an atmosphere of good will. The League cannot work successfully unless it exists in an atmosphere which is based upon respect for the rights of the small and weak as well as of the Great Powers—respect for the feelings which animate the smaller peoples of Europe. We all desire to look forward to what will follow this war as marking not only the end of a painful and sad epoch during which the peoples of Europe and, indeed, of the world, have lived in constant suspicion and alarm, but as opening a new era which will be ruled by these principles which His Majesty's Government have declared to be theirs and on the wise and firm application of which the future of humanity rests.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I beg to move that Lord Stanmore be appointed to take the Chair in Committee of this House, in the Committee on Unopposed Private Bills, and in the Standing Orders Committee to-day.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL ELECTIONS (PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, this Bill does not raise any question as regards the principle of proportional representation, nor would it be necessary to discuss the general principle in your Lordships' House because on more than one occasion at no distant date this House has shown by a large majority its acceptance of that principle. Indeed, this House has made it clear that in their own view if you are to have democratic representation in the true sense, if it is to be real representation and not a sham or distorted representation, no other principle except that of proportional representation can bring about the desired result.

189
The present Bill is a permissive Bill. I want to make this point quite clear, because I think it deals with some of the objections that I have heard against the form of the Bill. The Bill cannot be applied in any locality, either county or borough, except by a resolution of a three-fifths majority of the governing body who desire to substitute for their existing system of election the method of proportional representation by the single transferable vote. A permissive Bill substantially in the same form—although I will point out one or two distinctions in detail—has on more than one previous occasion been passed in your Lordships' House. Unfortunately it has not proceeded any farther because on the question of proportional representation there appears to be some difference between the views of this House and the views of the other House.
There is another point upon which I think I ought to say a word or two. So far as borough localities and urban district localities are concerned, no redistribution will be necessary, although, if in some instances redistribution may be required, it is proposed that it should be dealt with by the Local Government Board, and that the Local Government Board can make Orders after consultation with the local authority, which Orders will have the operation of an Act of Parliament. Bat as regards county councils and county districts redistribution would be required, and I know that in some portions of the House an objection is felt against the extension even of the permissive principle to county districts. I myself do not feel that this objection is in any way strong or really applies to the principle of the Bill at all; but if there were any strong feeling that the Bill should be limited to urban districts and municipal boroughs I should raise no objection. What we want is the application of the permissive principle to areas which have expressed a desire that proportional representation may be applied in their local elections in order that they may get a fairer system of real representation.
It has often been said with regard to proportional representation that there is a difficulty in connection with occasional vacancies. I know that the noble Lord opposite, who I think will reply for the Government on this occasion, has called the attention of your Lordships to this so-called difficulty more than once. I think
190
the real answer, at any rate as regards local elections, is this. In the first place, the Dumber of contested elections, as statistics show, is extremely small. There are, of course, numerous vacancies because of the large number of local authorities. In the second place, I do not propose in this Bill the illusion which is suggested in the Local Government Bill for Ireland, for I am not laying down in any dogmatic way what is the best system as regards casual elections. But in the Local Election Bill for Ireland, the old system of election—not the proportional representation system, but the old system of election—has been adopted in the ease of casual vacancies as regards local authorities; and in other cases as regards Ireland you have the co-optive principle which, of course, does away with any difficulty. But I am not aware that as regards any of our local authorities in this country we have the co-optive principle at all. Therefore although the co-optive principle was applicable to a number of the Irish local authorities, it is not applicable to the local authorities in this country. At the same time, of course, if the principle was introduced or could be introduced, that would be another way of solving what is called the difficulty of casual vacancies. But I do not think the difficulty exists in the true sense; and what is proposed in this Bill is that election in the case of casual vacancies should be on just the same principle as in the case of one of the general triangular elections. The noble Lord, I dare say, has studied the Bill, but he will find that the method of election as regards casual vacancies is proposed to be carried out in the same way as where you have what I may call a general election as regards local matters.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Which clause is that?
LORD PARMOOR: It is in the second clause, I believe. I think it is covered by the words that "all elections"—that is to say, what I call the general election or the casual election—"are to be conducted on the same principle." There is no distinction, in other words, between what is done on general election and what is done as regards a casual vacancy—and I do not think there should be. If you have elections where perhaps two or three members stand as regards a casual vacancy, then I think the ordinary principle of proportional representation ought to be

191
applied. Although I desire to say that, I believe the number of contested elections as regards local matters will be exceedingly small.
There is one other matter which came to the front in the great experiment as regards proportional representation made in the Scottish Education Bill. I want to say one or two words about that experiment by and by, but I desire to make this particular point at the present moment. It was found that postage over a wider area might be a question of expense. When I say "of expense," I mean expense which might possibly be avoided. And so there is a principle proposed in this Bill—rather, I think, a matter for the Committee stage than for the present moment—that there should be one free postage. I forget the practice as regards Parliamentary elections. I believe there is one free postage as regards Parliamentary election. At any rate, it was felt that to avoid the possibility of any hardship as regards expenditure one free postage might be allowed in the elections for local governing bodies.
Your Lordships may notice—I only call attention to it in order that it may not be overlooked—that this Bill is not to extend to Ireland. The reason is that Ireland as regards its local elections already has the advantage of the principle of proportional representation. Your Lordships may know that the principle was first introduced into Ireland in the case of the Borough of Sligo. Sligo was practically in a bankrupt condition as regards its finances, and its government was in the hands of the extreme contending parties. The effect of the election in Sligo under the principle of proportional representation was found to be altogether satisfactory. So far practically the two extreme parties were the only parties represented on the governing authority. I think that no fewer than six representatives of the ratepayers who stood as such were elected under the principle of proportional representation; and it was acknowledged on every hand that the experiment had been entirely satisfactory; and it was having regard to the satisfactory character of that experiment that the principle was generally adopted, as it has been, as regards all local elections in Ireland.
The other great experiment which has been carried out recently is in the Scottish Education Act, in which there were elections carried out throughout the length
192
and breadth of Scotland. Before that election took place it was prophesied by those who take a pessimistic view of forms of this character that whatever the theoretical merits of proportional representation might be, there would be a difficulty in its practical application. Well, that suggestion has been entirely displaced. There was not a single instance of difficulty in carrying out the proportional representation system for the first time throughout the whole of Scotland; and in some of the constituencies as regards the Scottish Education Act, and particularly in the Glasgow district, it was carried out over wide areas.
I may mention one other matter to your Lordships as regards the Scottish experiment. Your Lordships know that the Scottish Education Act introduced for the first time a general system of national schools in Scotland. Before that Act was passed, negotiations were entered into which fortunately led to a settlement as regards particularly the Roman Catholic and the denominational schools in Scotland; and the result of the elections under the proportional representation system has been that those interests (such, for instance, as the Roman Catholics) have been carefully safeguarded; and they have obtained a representation practically in proportion to their numerical status. Of course, under the old system it is hardly possible to conceive that they could have had any representation at all.
I do not propose to detain your Lordships further. I say that the principle of proportional representation has been recognised. A permissive Bill has already passed this House on at least two previous occasions, and as regards any alterations introduced into the present Bill as the result of experience, they are matters which can be adequately dealt with on the Committee stage. I ought, perhaps, to add that when we had a discussion a short time ago on the question of Proportional representation, it was suggested that a Bill of this kind might be introduced, and that at any rate on the Committee stage, if not on the Second Reading, an opportunity would be given for discussion and consideration of any difficulties that might be suggested. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Parmoor.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I ought to say two or three words upon this Bill, if your Lordships will allow me. I will be as brief as I can, as the House is rather small. The noble Lord who introduced this measure has pointed out that the system is a purely adoptive one; he does not force it upon any district, and it has to be adopted by a three-fifths majority of those present voting after ample notice, so that any authority is free not to adopt it if it likes; and after between six and nine months it can be rejected if necessary by subsequent resolution. The noble Lord, I think, offered to omit the counties if it was necessary, and only apply it to urban districts and towns. But on the general principle, I do not propose to offer any opposition on the part of the Government to the Second Reading. I have only to make two or three very short observations upon it. If the noble Lord takes the Bill to Committee I shall certainly, on behalf of the Government, have to oppose the proposal about the free postage. It was suggested in another Bill of the same kind, as the noble Lord may know, and was objected to quite apart from the point whether it would be proper to bring it in here on the question of privilege. The other point is about the deposit, which has been very much criticised, as to whether that is not at once too large and too small—too large rather in the case of the small authorities, and possibly not large enough in the case of the larger ones. Moreover, I think the noble Lord has introduced no provision as to how the money is to be forfeited, whether to the local authority or to whom.
Another point I should like to mention is this. There may be some difficulty also in applying this to the rural districts. The noble Lord knows the method of election and the way in which district councillors sit as members of Boards of Guardians. There may be some difficulties there, but I will not go into them now. As regards aldermen, I am not quite sure whether he proposes that they should all be elected at one time by a system of proportional representation, or separately. Perhaps he will make that clear later. With regard to the filling of vacancies I am not clew from the Bill whether they are to be filled by the system of proportional representation or not, or whether they are to be filled by some sort of co-option. Before the Bill goes into Committee I dare say the noble Lord will consider that carefully.
194
He knows very well the objections to applying proportional representation to by-elections, although I think he wants to excuse it on the ground that very few will take place. The only other point is with regard to holding local inquiries. I believe it is generally the custom, when local areas are re-divided, that a local inquiry should be held. Certainly some provision of that kind ought to be inserted in the Bill. These are substantially Committee points and I do not wish at this stage, on behalf of the Government, to offer any opposition to the Bill.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, when the Committee stage takes place, no doubt, there will be present a larger number of members of your Lordships' House, and we shall be able to discuss further how the Bill applies to county councils. I do not propose to say more on the Second Reading, except to call attention to the fact that the real object of county councils is to have various localities and various interests separately represented on them. Whether or not that can be brought about better by proportional representation is, to my mind, a very doubtful matter.
On Question, Bi11 read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

STONEY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
Amendment made (Clause 5 deleted).

STATEMENT OF RATES BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 4:
Short title, commencement and extent.
4—(1) This Act may be cited as the Statement of Rates Act, 1919.
(2) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January nineteen hundred and twenty.
(3) This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland.
LORD SOUTHWARK LORD SOUTHWARK moved to add to Clause 4 a subsection providing that "This Act shall not apply to the City of London." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to trouble your Lordships, but this Bill would cause the Corporation of London a great deal of work and unnecessary expense, and I therefore beg to move the Amendment of which I have given Notice. The City

195
of London is a small and unique area. I am sure we shall all agree about that. It is also a non-residential area, and the small residential ratepayer is practically unknown there. The City of London does not compare with any other city or town in the Kingdom, and it is for that reason that I ask that this Bill, if it becomes an Act, shall not apply to the City. The Corporation of the City of London are very anxious to be relieved of a lot of unnecessary trouble and expense. I appeal to my noble friend Lord Sydenham, who is in charge of the Bill, to consent to the passing of this Amendment. It could do no possible harm to the rest of the country, because, as I have said, the City of London is a unique area, and practically this measure would not apply to it but would give unnecessary trouble and expense.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 2, after subsection (2) insert the following new subsection:
"(3) This Act shall not apply to the City of London."—(Lord Southwark.)
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I venture to think that this Amendment is somewhat belated. Your Lordships have already passed two Amendments desired by the City of London and, of those Amendments, that which excluded the markets was, in the opinion of the Local Government Board and my own opinion, quite superfluous. The rentals of all these markets are fixed by statutory conditions and there is no question in their case of the landlord, who also happens to be the assessing authority, arranging with the tenant to compound for his rates. Therefore, the Bill would not apply in the slightest degree to those cases to which the noble Lord referred, or to the big blocks in the City. But if, after accepting two Amendments which the City of London proposed and desired, we then accepted a third Amendment excluding the City of London altogether from the operation of the Bill, should we not be stultifying the Amendment and, perhaps, even stultifying ourselves? There is a further reason against the Amendment. That is that if the Bill goes back to another place and it is seen that the City of London is excluded, almost any city in the United Kingdom—because in every city there must be conditions exactly the same as those in the City of London, although on a smaller scale—might
196
claim a like exemption and it would be very difficult to refuse that claim. If all these big cities were excluded then the bottom is knocked out of the Bill altogether and the Bill becomes futile. I therefore beg my noble friend not to press the Amendment.
LORD SOUTHWARK: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the assistance he has given to the Corporation in this matter. I cannot persevere with this proposal after what he has said, but I should like to say, in reference to his concluding observations, that there is no other town or city which could put forward such a case as the City of London. I beg to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

PREVENTION OF ANTHRAX BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
DISABLED MEN (FACILITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of July 2.]
THE EARL OF CLANCARTY.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR informed the House that he had received from the Registrar in Bankruptcy of the High Court of Justice a certificate under the seal of the said Court, stating that William Frederick, Viscount Clancarty (Earl of Clancarty), being a Peer of the Realm, was adjudicated bankrupt on the 27th of June, 1919: The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
CHEPSTOW WATER BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
BRIDGE OF ALLAN WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Order of yesterday referring the Bill to the Examiners discharged; Bill (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (the Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee.

ANIMALS (ANÆSTHETICS) BILL.
To be read 2a on Monday next.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before seven o'clock.