Sitting of 21 July 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ammanford Gas Bill, Dover Gas Bill [Lords], East Ham Corporation Bill [Lords], London Electric Railway Bill [Lords], Shoreham-by-Sea Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.

NEW WRIT.
For the University of Dublin, in the room of the Right Hon. Arthur Warren Samuels, K.C., Judge of His Majesty's High Court of Justice in Ireland.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    TEA (DISTRIBUTION).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade what amount of tea is now held up at the London Docks owing to want of means of distribution?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): While I have received information that some holding up of tea in the London Docks has occurred recently, the quantity involved is less than half a week's import at the rate at which tea has recently been reaching London. I am, however, unable at
    868
    present to say whether the information supplied to me is exhaustive. I may add that deliveries in recent months have been in excess of the average.

    EXPORTS AND IMPORTS (VALUES).
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state in values the amounts of our exports and imports respectively during the twelve months for which he has the latest records, and the date thereof; and whether he can state the value of the United States exports and imports respectively during the same period, or, if not, for twelve months ending at the date for which he has records, and the date thereof.
    Sir A. GEDDES: The figures for the twelve months ended May, 1919, are:

    United Kingdom—

    £

    Imports

    …

    …

    1,363,034,000

    Exports

    …

    …

    626,623,000

    United States of America—

    Imports

    …

    …

    638,169,000

    Exports

    …

    …

    1,415,025,000

    Re-exports valued at £60,000,000 in the case of the United Kingdom and at £29,000,000 in the case of the United States are included in the export totals.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is it not the fact that if our exports do not increase and our imports decrease we are heading for bankruptcy?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I think that must be obvious to everyone who thinks for a moment.

    STEEL AND IRON IMPORTS.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the tonnage and value of the steel and iron of all descriptions imported into this country during the past six months or during the latest six months for which he has a record, the date thereof, and from what countries; and the tonnage and value of steel and iron of all descriptions exported during the same period?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Two hundred and four thousand seven hundred and twenty-two tons of iron and steel and manufactures thereof, valued at £5,021,000, were registered as imported into the United Kingdom during the six months ended 30th June, 1919. Of this quantity 154,155 tons

    869
    were consigned from the United States of America, 31,682 tons from Sweden, and 17,079 tons from Canada, the respective values being £3,251,000, £1,145,000, and £527,000. During the same period 1,033,732 tons of iron and steel and manufactures thereof, valued at £27,717,000, were registered as exported from the United Kingdom.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what is the estimated loss in wages to British labour by the placing of a contract for £100,000 worth of steel rails in the United States; and whether he can give an approximate estimate of the cost of the coal consumed in the production of a ton of steel rails?
    Sir A. GEDDES: As I informed the hon. and gallant Member on the 17th July, I am not in a position to give the wages estimate asked for, but I would point out that the figure would be small, as, in view of the demand for steel, it would relate only to the wages paid for the rolling of the quantity of rails in question. The approximate cost of the coal consumed in the production of 1 ton of steel rails, starting from iron ore, would, at the prices recently ruling, be about 70s. to £4.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Is that sufficient to make the difference between the price of steel rails purchased in America and the price of those purchased in this country?
    Sir A. GEDDES: It is not quite sufficient.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into it?

    STEEL PURCHASES (AMERICA).
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the tonnage and value of steel plates, angles, etc., ordered in America by our Government Departments during the past two years; what quantity has already been brought into this country; whether it is intended to import the balance into this country; whether these steel plates and angles were intended principally for shipbuilding here; whether these plates and sections do not comply with Lloyd's requirements and are of unsuitable dimensions
    870
    for our shipbuilding requirements, entailing a considerable amount of cutting and waste; whether it would be more economical and advantageous to dispose of this steel in America and Canada; whether the Ministry of Munitions is circularising British consumers offering them these steel plates and angles now lying in America and Canada; what price this steel is being offered at; and whether this dumping of foreign steel is in accordance with the declared intention of the Government?
    The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): As the answer is long and detailed I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the reply referred to:
    The total tonnage of steel plates and angles ordered in America by His Majesty's Government for shipbuilding purposes during the past two years amounts to 151,000 tons, at an average price of £16 5s. per ton f.o.b. American port, of which 48,000 tons have been cancelled since the Armistice; 79,000 tons have already been brought into this country. It is not possible to state whether any part of the balance will be imported into this country, as it will be disposed of in accordance with the policy of the Government in the best markets. These steel plates and angles were intended principally for shipbuilding here. They were made to the standard specification of the American Society for Testing Materials; Lloyd's Register of Shipping have agreed to accept this material for use in the construction of vessels building to their classification.
    If an equivalent price, taking into account the cost of transport and handling, can be obtained in America, Canada or elsewhere, it might be more economical to dispose of this material in those countries. The Ministry of Munitions have circularised British consumers, offering this material for disposal. It is contrary to the public interest to quote prices that are being obtained for material which, for the most part, must be sold by private treaty or public tender, but it may be stated that the prices realised are commensurate with the market price of similar material produced in this country. This being the case, there is no question of dumping foreign steel in this market.

    IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in view of the high cost of living, he will explain the reason for the import restrictions on the following household necessities: Brooms and brushes, carpets, chinaware, cutlery, clocks, flat-irons, furniture, lamps, mangles, mops, oilcloth, oil stoves, clothes pegs, and sewing machines;

    (2) whether, in view of the present high cost of clothing, he will explain the reason for the import restrictions on the following articles: Ladies' apparel, boots and shoes, buttons, cotton duck, embroidery, flax yarn, gloves, hosiery, laces, metal boot protectors, leather, scissors, sewing machines, silk manufactures, shoemakers' tools, trimmings, umbrellas, and woollen goods;

    (3) whether, in view of the high cost of food, he will explain the reason for the import restrictions on the following articles: Butter, tinned herrings, sprats, etc., tinned salmon, cocoa, saccharine, and tomatoes;

    (4) whether, in view of the high cost of building materials and the urgent need for proceeding with the Government housing scheme, he will explain the reason for the import restrictions on the following articles: Door bells, bulbs for electric lamps, cement, crowbars, fence stretchers, gas mantles, granite, wooden handles for builders' tools, hardware, builders' joinery, locks and padlocks, mouldings, nails, painters' colours, paints, rainwater pipes and guttering, pulleys, slates, tanks, taps for gas, water, and steam, wood, and wire?

    Sir A. GEDDES: If the hon. and gallant Member will study the movements of the New York-London rates of exchange he will, I am sure, appreciate the need of maintaining some restriction of imports until the food and raw material position is satisfactory. With regard to the importation of leather, gloves of leather, cocoa, paints, and wood, he has apparently been misinformed. These are unrestricted. In the case of many of the other goods to which he refers, the ration varies from 25 per cent, to 100 per cent, of usual imports. Full particulars were published in the Supplement to the "Board of Trade Journal" for 5th June
    Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, in reference to those
    872
    articles which are unrestricted, whether it is necessary to make application for licences to import them?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I could not answer offhand, but I imagine not.
    Captain BENN: Do they appear in the list of import restrictions?
    Sir A. GEDDES: They appear there for a general licence.
    Captain BENN: What is the purpose of requiring people to ask for a licence if the import of these articles is unrestricted?
    Sir A. GEDDES: The hon. and gallant Member, if he will follow the Regulations, will see the value of that procedure.
    Captain BENN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in this matter the interest of the consumer is being subordinated to that of the manufacturer?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Oh, no. I am sure the interest of the consumer is not being sub-orlinated. The interest of the consumer is to get food and raw materials into the country as cheaply as possible, and if the exchange moves very much further against us, the prices of these things will go up enormously.
    Captain BENN: Are these restrictions applied only to those countries where the exchange is adverse?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Oh, no: because that is not possible by the law of the land.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Under what statute or statutes are these restrictions being imposed?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I have announced the statute several times, and I will let my hon. and gallant Friend have a copy of the answer I gave on former occasions.

    LORD CAVE'S COMMITTEE.
    Mr. BETTERTONasked the Prime Minister when the Report may be expected of the Committee appointed under the chairmanship of Lord Cave to inquire into questions of foreign trade and the constitution of the Department of Overseas Trade; and when the Report will be in the hands of Members?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I would refer my hon. Friend to

    873
    the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine and Western on Thursday last.
    Mr, BETTERTON: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing that Report?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I said then that though it is not usual to publish reports for the guidance of the Cabinet, I thought this must be an exception, but the Cabinet must have an opportunity to consider it first.

    CINEMA INDUSTRY.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that our export trade is gravely threatened, owing chiefly to want of knowledge on the part of workers, and of the fact that the cinema theatre offers the only means of daily informing such workers upon the operation of elementary economic laws, the Government will take immediate steps to prevent the impending creation by a foreign agency of a trust, combine, or corner in cinema films and theatres?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I have been asked to reply. I have no information which suggests that any such attempt at a monopoly as the hon. Baronet suggests is being made; I shall, however, be grateful if he will let me have the information upon which his question is based.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: Will he consider the advisability of using cinema films for the purpose indicated in the question?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Oh, yes.
    Mr. J. JONES: Will Members of Parliament be invited?

  COAL

    BRITISH AND AMERICAN EXPORTS.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade to state what steps the Government propose to take to maintain our export trade in coal in view of the great disparity in price at which coal is being sold f.o.b. at American coal ports and British coal ports, and the great disparity between the amount of coal got by American miners per head per annum and the amount got by British miners per head per annum; and what these amounts are, respectively?
    Sir A. GEDDES: As regards the first part of the question, I can only refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made in the House on Monday. With regard to the second part of the question, a complete comparison is only available for the year 1916, in which the output of coal in the United Kingdom was 265 tons per person employed per year, while in the United States the output of bituminous coal was 800 tons per person employed per year. The figures are given in each case in tons of 2,240 lbs.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the freights by American vessels to South America are about double what they are by British ships, and that when American freights come to a parity with ours the whole of our export trade will disappear?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I am afraid there will be great difficulty in maintaining our export trade unless we can get the output of coal up.

    COAL-OWNERS' PROFITS.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the average profit of coal-owners on a ton of coal sold in this country; and what percentage of profit that represents at present prices?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I stated in the House last Monday that the average price of coal, including the increase of 6s. per ton, will be 29s. 3½d. per ton sold. The fixed owners' profit of 1s. 2d. per ton raised is equivalent to 1s. 3½d. per ton sold, and is, approximately, 4.5 per cent,. of the average selling price.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman let these facts be known to the mining world?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I am sure they are known to anyone who wishes to know.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the necessary legislation has been introduced to carry that into effect, or whether it is not a fact that they are being paid at present at their pre-war standard?
    Sir A. GEDDES: The hon. Member knows as well as any Member of the House that the actual legislation which will be required legally to limit the employers'

    875
    profits to 1s. 2d. has not been before the House, but all the calculations I made use of last Monday, and all the figures I have given, are on the assumption that legislation will be passed to give effect to that announcement, as announced by the Leader of the House.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the profits actually have been and are, apart from that legislation?
    Sir A. GEDDES: The profits are not worked out, as my hon. Friend knows, from day to day, but for the year they will be at the rate of 1s. 2d. per ton.
    Mr. J. JONES: Will that also be applied to the East-end of London?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I did not know the coal-owners were making more than that.
    Mr. JONES: Oh, are they not!

    OUTPUT AND FINANCE.
    Captain BOWYERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the output of coal, in tonnage and in value during the six months ended 30th June of this year and of last year, respectively; what was the average number employed during each of the two periods; and what was the aggregate amount paid in wages during each of the two periods?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, Sir, as nearly as my information will permit.

    —

    24 Weeks ended 22nd June, 1918.

    24 weeks ended 21st June, 1919.

    Tons.

    Tons

    Output

    109,046,000

    110,652,000

    Average number of workmen employed

    972,000

    l,112,000

    The value of coal produced in the six months ended the 30th June, 1918, was £108,000,000, and the aggregate amount paid in wages during the same period was £72,000,000. There are not at present sufficient data from which to determine the corresponding amounts actually realised and expended during the first half of 1919.

    PROFITS.
    Captain BOWYERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will
    876
    state the approximate net profit of coal mines during the year 1918 before deduction of Excess Profits Tax and after deduction of Excess Profits Tax, respectively; and what was the total amount paid in salaries and in wages, respectively during the same period?
    Sir A. GEDDES: As the reply is rather lengthy, I propose with the permission of the House to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the statement referred to—
    Neither the actual net profit of coal mines for 1918 nor the total wages paid for that year can be given until audited accounts covering the year 1918have been prepared by all owners. This information will not be known for some time as there are a considerable number of owners whose audited accounts are prepared for the years ended 30th Juno and 30th September, 1919, but the following estimates may be given:

    —

    Half-year for 30–6–18.

    Half-year to 31–12–18.

    Total for 1918.

    £

    £

    £

    Profit before deduction for Excess Profits Duty

    13,000,000

    22,500,000

    35,500,000

    Wages

    62,750,000

    60,500,000

    123,250,000

    War wage

    9,250,000

    18,000,000

    27,250,000

    72,000,000

    78,500,000

    150,500,000

    These profits are before charging royalties and interest which may be estimated at £6,000,000 and £1,200,000 per annum respectively. The salaries paid to directors and managers for 1918 are not known, but for 1917 they were stated in evidence given before the Coal Industry Commission on behalf of the Board of Inland Revenue to approximate to £1,300,000. If by salaries is meant the total remuneration of the management and clerical staffs, there is no available information as to the 1918 or 1917 amounts. That part of the question which relates to Excess Profits Duty should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    GAS COMPANIES (SUPPLY).
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to an Order from the Board of Trade (Coal

    877
    Mines Department) instructing gas companies in the South of England to purchase sea-borne coal from Durham and Northumberland; whether he is aware that the effect of such Order will entail an increase in the price of coal of from 8s. to 10s. per ton, and a consequential increase in the price of gas of at least 1s. per 1,000 cubic feet per ton; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Sir A. GEDDES: This is part of a general rearrangement of supplies due to the necessity of supplying sea-borne coal from exporting districts in substitution for rail-borne coal which has hitherto been supplied from Yorkshire and the Midlands, in which districts inland consumption has to bear the full effect of the reduction in output due to the shortening of the miners' hours.
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: Is it fair to the gas companies to have to pay this increased price, entirely due to the action of the Government?
    Sir A. GEDDES: The hon. Member is misinformed or is under a misapprehension in thinking that it is due to the Government's Order. The increase in the price of sea-borne coal is due to economic causes which push up freights generally.

    NATIONALISATION OF MINES.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet has considered the question of making a part experiment with the nationalisation of the coal mines; and what decision in that case has been reached?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not in a position to make any statement.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: When will the Government be in a position to make a statement?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say. I am sure my hon. Friend and the House will realise that it is a subject that cannot be rushed hastily and that it must be properly considered.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Does my right hon. Friend think he will be able to make any statement before the Adjournment?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I really cannot say as to that. We shall certainly not delay longer than it is absolutely necessary.

    INCREASED PRICE.
    Captain BOWYER(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increased price of coal, it is the intention of the Government to take into consideration the cases of British manufacturers who have made contracts for the supply of manufactured articles on the basis of coal prices previous to the 14th instant; what action the Government proposes to take to assist manufacturers who have completed contracts without a protective Clause providing for an increase in the price of coal and who will consequently suffer grave financial loss; and whether, in view of the menace to British trade from an increase in the price of coal, the Government will make such concessions as will enable British manufacturers to complete the contracts which they have made abroad?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It would be quite impossible to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend. This is one of the inevitable hardships of the situation.
    Mr. JESSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the possible effect of the present shortage and cost of coal and gas upon those people whose incomes are less than a pre-war average of 25s. per week should there be another influenza epidemic during the coming winter; and whether, having regard to this shortage and cost and the necessity for exporting more coal, he will consider the advisability of urging upon the heads of great industrial undertakings the desirability of substituting oil fuel for coal, with a view to lessening the present demand for coal and enabling poor people to obtain it in larger quantities and at cheaper prices?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I do not think it would be practicable to secure any considerable alleviation of the coal position for the coming winter by the substitution of oil fuel for coal in industrial works, as this would involve important alterations to plant. But I have no doubt that the idea is being carefully considered in many industries. Gas works have been urged to make greater use of gas oil, and I believe this is being done, so far as possible. An increase in the output of coal is the best remedy.

  RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

    EMPTIES (RETURN).
    Brigadier-General PALMERasked the President of the Board of Trade to state on what grounds the railway companies refuse to take empties; and if he is aware of the great inconvenience and loss this is causing small traders?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I am not aware that railway companies refuse to take empties when they are able to do so. They realise that it is in many cases important that empties should be returned promptly, and although there have been delays due to difficulties in regard to cartage and other circumstances, I hope that the position may be improved.

    REVENUE AND EXPENSES.
    Major NALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the pre-war system of allocating railway revenue and expenses through the Railway Clearing House to the companies respectively concerned has been resumed; and, if not, what system of arriving at exact earnings and expenses with a view to ascertaining economy or extravagance on the part of individual companies is in force?
    Sir A. GEDDES:The system under which the Railway Clearing House dealt with the division between railway companies of receipts from through traffic has not been resumed. I agree that this renders precise accounting between companies impossible, but I am advised that the slight lack of precision does not affect the question of ascertaining the expenditure of the companies under Government control, which is reviewed on the audit of the companies' accounts.

    KEARNEY HIGH-SPEED TUBE.
    Major NALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the setting up of a Committee to inquire into the Gattie goods station system which has already been investigated by the Minister- designate for Ways and Communications, he will set up a Committee to inquire into the Kearney high-speed tube?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I do not think an inquiry by a Committee is necessary in this case.

    SPECIAL TRAINS (HORSE RACES).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now
    880
    state the number of special railway trains run by the respective railway companies during the Derby week at Epsom and the Ascot race week to Ascot?
    Sir A. GEDDES: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has already written to the hon. Gentleman giving this information.

    DISTRICT RAILWAY (MONUMENT STATION).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Presdent of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the passenger staircases at Monument Station, District Railway, are largely used for wet fish traffic from Billingsgate Market; and whether he can take any steps with the railway company concerned to prevent these stairways or some of them from being so used, so that passengers shall not have to use stairs that are dirty and unpleasant, caused by the leakages from cases of fish?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I will make inquiry of the railway company, and inform the hon. Gentleman of the result.

    CLOSED STATIONS (SOUTH-EASTERN AND CHATHAM RAILWAY).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Railway Executive Committee has yet come to a decision as to reopening the stations and working the railway on the Victoria to City line of the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I am afraid that I cannot add to the reply given to the hon. Member on this subject on the 30th June.

  NOTTINGHAM (MIDLAND) RAILWAY STATION.
  Mr. ATKEYasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of the economy effected by the Midland Railway Company in connection with converting their Nottingham station from an open one to a closed one; and whether the company have any record of the number of passengers who used the entrances and exits now closed?
  Sir A. GEDDES: As stated in the reply to a question on this matter put by my hon. Friend on the 1st July, the railway company informed the Board of Trade that the reopening of the entrance to which he referred would involve the pro-

  881
  vision of additional booking-office accommodation, and the appointment of additional booking clerks and ticket collectors, but I cannot say what the amount of the economy arising out of the closing of the entrance is. I will inquire if the company have the record referred to in the last part of the question.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman send down an inspector to satisfy himself that there is great difficulty in Nottingham in getting people in and out of the station?
  Sir A. GEDDES: I will certainly have the matter looked into.
  Mr. ATKEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the particulars asked for in the first part of the question, and will he ask the railway company to furnish an exact statement?
  Sir A. GEDDES: I will certainly do so, but perhaps the other procedure suggested will be more satisfactory.

  OIL SUPPLY.
  Mr. JESSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the increasing demand for oil fuel for industrial purposes both in this and other countries, he will, in conjunction with the Governments of our Dominions and Colonies and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, consider the advisability of organising and co-ordinating all the sources of oil supply within the British Empire with a view to preventing such supplies coming under the control of cosmopolitan financiers and others seeking to establish a world monopoly in oil?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: I have been asked by the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Minister in charge of petroleum affairs, to state that this matter is receiving consideration and was one of the subjects discussed at the last Imperial Conference.

  CLOTHING PRICES.
  Mr. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade if, having regard to the present high price of boots and clothes, he will remove all restrictions on the import of leather boots, cotton hosiery, and other articles of clothing?
  Sir A. GEDDES: A Select Committee is being appointed to consider the question of excessive prices. In view of that fact I am not prepared immediately to adopt the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it will take some months before the Select Committee will report, having regard to the Parliamentary Recess, and is it not an urgent question to reduce the price of clothing and boots at present?
  Sir A. GEDDES: I quite agree it is a most urgent question. We do not want by reducing the price of clothes to put up the price of food. It comes down finally to the exchange as to which I have already answered questions.
  Captain BENN: Has the House ever been informed of the precise reasons on which the Committee gave a decision?
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the Select Committee, and say when that Committee will begin to consider the question?
  Sir A. GEDDES: That is a question which should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

  BEET SUGAR FACTORY.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any, and, if so, what assistance is being given by the Government to the establishment of a beet sugar factory at Kelham?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The Government have decided in principle to give assistance to the British Sugar Beet Growers' Society for the purpose mentioned, by means of an advance of part of the capital required, and a guarantee of interest for a certain number of years on the remainder of the capital, up to a fixed amount. The exact terms and conditions of the assistance to be given are now under consideration.

  INDIA,

    KUT DEFENCE (AWARDS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India if he can now state whether the reply of the Government of

    883
    India regarding the question of awards for the defence of Kut has been received; and when a statement may be expected as to what steps it is proposed to take to give due recognition to the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, both British and Indian, who were engaged in that gallant defence?
    The SECRETARY Of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The reply has not yet been received from the Government of India; but they have informed me that it will be sent as soon as possible. I have sent a telegram of reminder.

    INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION (DESPATCH).
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received any despatches from the Government of India dealing with the recommendations of the Indian Industrial Commission; whether he will publish such or any part of such despatches; and whether steps are to be taken forthwith to make the necessary changes in the fiscal system of India in order that the recommendations of the Industrial Commission may be carried out, and Indian industrial development secured against the dumping of cheap Japanese goods in India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have received and am now considering a despatch from the Government of India on the subject, but I cannot at present say whether the correspondence will be published. I do not altogether follow the latter part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, as the Commission was precluded by its terms of reference from considering questions of fiscal policy.
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked what was the total value of Japanese manufactured goods imported into India in the years 1913, 1914, 1918, and the early months (as far as figures are available) of 1919?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Figures for calendar years are not available, but the total value of imports into India from Japan was £3,187,000 in 1913–14, £2,966,000 in 1914–15, and £22,404,000 in 1918–19. Only a small proportion of these imports were not manufactured goods.

    KARACHI TROOP TRAIN INCIDENT.
    Major McMICKINGasked the Secretary of State for India, in connection with the Karachi troop-train incident, whether there were three fully-qualified Royal
    884
    Army Medical Corps officers on the train, in addition to conducting parties numbering seven officers and eighteen non-commissioned officers and men sent to Karachi under instructions from Army Headquarters, India, to accompany these troops?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers to questions on Wednesday last.
    Major McMICKING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of those Medical officers had had considerable experience of heat and sun stroke in West Africa, and does he not think that the statement that the train left Karachi without experienced officers cither medical or combatant, ought to be withdrawn?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I really must appeal to the House on this question. This is a question on a matter which resulted in loss of life to gallant British troops who were insufficiently looked after on a journey in hot weather in India. An inquiry has been held, and a conclusion formed on that inquiry. A repeated offer of a new inquiry to protect an officer who thought he had a grievance has been refused, and I can add nothing to the present statement.
    Major McMICKING: Is it not a fact that the conduct of the general officer commanding at Karachi was never inquired into?
    Mr. MONTAGU: That question was explored on Wednesday last. If the gallant officer is dissatisfied with the inquiry, he has had for two years past the opportunity of a new one, and if he refuses to accept that offer I can do no more.
    Major McMICKING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this offer has not been refused, but I would ask how is it possible for this gallant officer to get witnesses from England to India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The inquiry which has been offered is an inquiry in the ordinary course of military procedure. The occurrences were in India, and in accordance with every precedent it is in India that the inquiry must be held. He has been offered expenses and pay and carriage backward and forward.
    Major McMICKING: I repeat my question, how is it possible for him to get witnesses from this country to India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: If there is any difficulty which has arisen on that subject that difficulty has only got to be presented, and we will do what we can in the matter.
    Major McMICKING: Is not the obvious course to hold this inquiry in this country?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should raise this matter in Debate as it is impossible to deal with it further by question and answer.

    GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India, considering that the Government of India has undertaken to give all facilities possible to accredited representatives of all shades of opinion to visit this country to give evidence before the Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Bill, and that he has undertaken that care will be taken that the views of the Governors of the provinces in India are represented before that Committee, if he will state who are to be the accredited representatives of the various provincial Governors in India to whom these facilities are to be given?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers I gave him on the 9th July. The Committee will call for the evidence it requires.
    Colonel YATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir James Meston, in his evidence before the Committee, said he appeared to express the views of the Government of India; and cannot he tell me who are to appear to express the views of the provincial Governments in India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have already given the names of my colleagues on the Committee, and the names of representatives of local Governments who are here in this country. If they wish to call them, I presume they will. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any witnesses who he would suggest ought to be called, I shall have much pleasure in communicating with him.

  PEACE TERMS.

    BURNED TOWNS.
    Lieut.-Colonel HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Greeks burned the towns of Tepeleni and Leskoviki; and whether, in consequence, they are to receive these towns?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I have no information on this subject.

    FRIENDLY TURKS.
    Lieut.-Colonel HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether those natives of Turkey who have suffered by reason of their allegiance or service to the cause of the Allies will be compensated?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have nothing to add to the reply given to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member on the 26th May.

  FOREIGN OFFICE (PASSPORT DEPARTMENT).
  Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether all the officials now connected with the Passport Department of the Foreign Office are British born?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative.

  RUSSIAN ROUBLES (BRITISH HOLDINGS).
  Mr. RAPERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state how many Imperial Tsar paper roubles, Kerensky paper roubles, and Bolshevik paper roubles, respectively, are in the hands of and/or held in trust for the British Government?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am informed that none of the descriptions of roubles mentioned by the hon. Member are held by the Treasury in London. I have no exact information as to the total holdings by representatives of His Majesty's Government abroad.
  Mr. RAPER: Is it possible to obtain these figures?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, but with very great difficulty, and unless my hon. Friend has a particular use for the figures I would ask him not to press me to obtain them.

  CHANNEL ISLANDS (PASSPORTS).
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can mow say when passports for the Channel Islands will be declared unnecessary?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to a similar question on the 17th instant.

  HUNGARIAN REPUBLIC.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether French coloured troops are being used against the Hungarian Republic or are about to be so used; whether he has any official know ledge of atrocities by the de facto Hungarian Government; and whether any efforts are now being made to come to terms with the de facto Hungarian Government in the interests of peace and humanity?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I believe that there are French coloured troops in that part of Hungarian territory which is occupied by the French. I have no definite information with regard to the second part of the question. As regards the last part the Allied Plenipotentiaries at Paris are now discussing what action should be taken with regard to the situation in Hungary.

  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  Mr. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister if he will state when the activities of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) will cease; and whether the experience and activities of that Board will be utilised in forming any new body, having regard to the diminution in the convictions for drunkenness in both men and women that has resulted from the action of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) during the war period?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question depends on the date of the proposed Bill which I have already announced. With regard to the second part, the considerations to which my right hon. Friend refers are not being lost sight of by the Government.

  POLAND (ANTI-JEWISH EXCESSES).
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister whether any of those guilty of outrages on Jews in Poland have been brought to trial, and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: According to a report received from His Majesty's Minister at Warsaw, the special tribunal at Rzeszow sentenced one man to death for killing a Jew. The sentence was duly carried out. Seven other persons who took part in the excesses committed in the neighbourhood of Kolbuszowa have been condemned to periods of between six and fifteen years imprisonment.
  Lieutenant-Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a report of the anti-Jewish pogrom, that occurred on 3rd June at Cholm, in which eight Jews are reported to have been killed and thirty wounded, in the course of which the Polish soldiers raided the Jewish women's baths and beat the women with their rifle-butts, and also on the further excesses on 13th June in the same town, in which two Jews are reported to have been killed and several wounded; and whether the Government will instruct the British Minister in Warsaw to make representations to the Polish Government with a view to preventing the continuance of these outrages?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question asked by the Noble Lord is that His Majesty's Government have received no official information of the anti-Jewish pogroms said to have been committed at Cholm on 3rd and 13th June.
  As regards the second part of the question, a telegram has been dispatched to His Majesty's Minister at Warsaw, requesting him to make thorough inquiries and to report what steps the Polish Government are taking in the case if the reports of these anti-Jewish excesses prove to be true.
  Mr. RAPER: Will the hon. Gentleman consider publishing a Report based on the various reports collected by the British representatives?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, Sir; I will consider that.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Will the hon. Gentleman get a copy of the Report that

  889
  has been signed by Mr. Morgenthau, on behalf of the American Government, on this particular point?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, Sir; I will endeavour to get a copy.

  SUPREME ECONOMIC COUNCIL
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister if he will state who are the British representatives on the Supreme Economic Council; what Vote the salaries and expenses of the British personnel of the Council come under; and what other nations are represented on the Council?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: As originally constituted, the British Empire was represented on the Supreme Economic Council by five delegates chosen from a larger panel according to the business to be transacted at each meeting. They included the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Acting-President of the Board of Trade, the Shipping Controller, the Food Controller, the Minister of Munitions, and myself, or, if they could not be present, their representatives. Representatives of the Dominions were also members. The Supreme Economic Council was only constituted for the period of the Armistice, and negotiations are now proceeding for the formation of some body which will maintain international consultation on economic subjects.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any Committee at all sitting now to carry out the very important work of the Supreme Economic Council?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Oh, yes! the Economic Council is in session in Paris at the present moment.

  SIR. E. CARSON'S TWELFTH JULY SPEECH.
  Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent speech of the right hon. Gentle man the Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir E. Carson), threatening rebellion and civil war, it is the intention of the Government to advise His Majesty to deprive the right hon. Gentleman of his honours as a King's Counsel and a Privy
  890
  Councillor; and, if not, what steps they propose to take to show their condemnation of his conduct?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to what was said in debate on Wednesday last.

  PROFITEERING.
  Mr. HIGHAMasked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to announce what steps will be taken by the Government to curtail profiteering pending the Report of the Select Committee; if the Government intends to set up tribunals for the purpose of hearing charges against those who are said to be profiteering; and, if so, what powers will be given to these tribunals?
  Mr. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the coming Parliamentary Recess, he will, without waiting for the Report of a Select Committee, take steps to check profiteering in boots, clothing, and other articles of necessity?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot at present add anything to the previous replies on this subject.

  EX-KAISER (TRIAL).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce the rules of evidence and procedure which will be adopted for the trial of the German ex-Emperor; whether these are directed to prevent undue length of the proceedings; and what is the procedure to be adopted for the surrender of the ex-Emperor?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to what the Prime Minister said on 3rd July last.
  Captain W. BENN: Is he aware that many people who desire to see the Kaiser tried think it very undignified to bring him to London to be tried?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, many people have different views on such a subject.

  RUSSIA.

    BRITISH POLICY.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the warning

    891
    issued on 18th June, 1919, by General Smuts, in which he states that the only hope for Russia may be a purified Soviet system as opposed to Tsarism; whether he is aware of the distrust of our present Russian policy felt by large sections of the Allied populations; and whether, in view of the military-defeat of Koltchak and the signature of Peace with our principal enemy, he can hold out any hope of our policy towards Russia being reconsidered?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have, of course, carefully studied the pronouncement of General Smuts. His Majesty's Government are aware that the policy adopted towards the Soviet Government of Russia has not met with universal approval; but, as regards the third part of the question, it must be pointed out that this policy is one which must be decided by the Allied and Associated Governments acting in concert.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what General Smuts said about Ireland, and will he consider the advisability of using this statement as a White Paper for the information of new Members of this Parliament?
    Mr. J. F. GREEN: May I ask whether there is any reason for supposing that General Smuts has any special knowledge of Russia, and, if not, why any attention should be paid to a purely hypothetical case by that gentleman?

    RELATIONS WITH GERMANY.
    Major GLYNasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have any knowledge of an economic treaty having been concluded between the German Government and the Russian Soviet Government; and whether, if such a treaty has been made, the Allied and Associated Governments have come to any decision as to what action is necessary to prevent the German Government exploiting the present situation in Russia in such a manner as to eventually form a military alliance which would greatly complicate the terms of the Peace Treaty?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government have heard of the existence of such an agreement, but have no official knowledge on the subject. Should this information be confirmed, it will doubtless be taken into consideration by the Allied Governments in Paris.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Is he taking any steps to obtain a copy of this Treaty from the German Government; and, if not, will he take steps to do so?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: We shall be glad to find out anything we can.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Is he taking steps to improve the means of getting information as to what is going on in Russia, as he seems to know very little from official-sources as to exactly what is going on?
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will he not say whether the present futile policy of the Government in Russia is not the chief cause which enables the Germans to exploit the Russian situation?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think my Noble Friend would expect me to give a detailed answer to that question. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), I shall be happy if my hon. Friend will assist me in getting information.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Can he say whether the policy of the Government is futile or not?

    ALLIED INTERESTS.
    Major GLYNasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have any information in regard to the number of German officers and men who are now In Russia and engaged in the reorganisation and training of the forces of the Russian Soviet Government; and, in view of the need for a perfectly clear and defined policy being announced and adhered to in regard to Allied action in Russia and also in order to regulate and administer the supplies of food and material that have been promised to various anti-Bolshevik forces, he will consider the desirability of the establishment of a central Allied executive council who will have full powers, within definite limits, to take all necessary action to protect Allied interests in Russia and prevent Germany from becoming predominant in Russia and Siberia?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I will give the suggestion my careful consideration.
    Major GLYN: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the sending of a Commission to Russia to find out the facts?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: There is very grave difficulty attaching to the sending of a Commission to Russia.
    Mr. J. JONES: Can the hon. Gentleman inform us what are the Allied interests in Russia?

  ULSTER PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT.
  Major M'KENZIE WOODasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the continued existence of the Ulster provisional government; and whether the Law Officers of the Crown have been consulted as to the legality of this organisation?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to both parts of the questions is in the negative.
  Major WOOD: Were not Members of His Majesty's Government members also of the Ulster provisional government?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I said that the Prime Minister has not had his attention called to the existence of such a government.
  Mr. DEVLIN:Did not the Prime Minister know of the Ulster provisional government at the time he was making military preparations to deal with it—when the right hon. Gentleman was one of the leaders of it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps my hon. Friend will take some opportunity of putting that question to the Prime Minister when he is here.
  Mr. DEVLIN: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was one of the chief patrons of the provisional government, could he not enlighten the House as to where the provisional government stands, and where he stands in relation to it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know exactly what the hon. Gentleman means by "patron." In most cases it means money, but in this case it did not.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Major Sir B. FALLEasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that people over the age of seventy who are supported by their relatives and live with them are not permitted to draw the old age pension, on the ground that such lodging and support
  894
  is the equivalent of 13s. 6d. per week and in excess of the income of an old age pensioner; and if he will inquire into this matter with a view to amending such a rule (if any), which is an incentive to the neglect of parents and relatives?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the position. The enjoyment of free maintenance from relatives does not prevent the recipient from obtaining an old age pension unless the maintenance (with the other means, if any) is of such value as to exceed the statutory limit for a pension.

  DOG BISCUITS (EXPORT).
  Mr. HIGHAMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the War Trade Departments are not permitting the export of dog biscuits; that biscuits for human consumption may be exported without permits; and, in view of the fact that a reasonable supply of cereal matter for the manufacture of dog biscuits is now existent, can steps be taken to dispense with this restriction?
  Sir A. GEDDES: I have been asked to reply. In view of an improvement in the supply of both cereal feeding stuffs and meat, the restrictions previously in force on the exportation of dog biscuits have been relaxed since the early part of this month, and these biscuits can now be shipped without licence to all countries except those with which trading relations have not yet been resumed.

  EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT.
  Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who are now the financial, legal, interior, education, and public works advisers to the Egyptian Government; and whether any further changes in the personnel holding these offices are contemplated in the near future?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The following are the names of the officials referred to:—
  Financial Adviser, Sir R. Crawford.
  Judicial Adviser, Sir William Brunyate.
  Adviser to the Ministry of Public Works, Sir Murdoch MacDonald.
  As regards the Ministry of Education, Mr. D. Dunlop has resigned his post of

  895
  Adviser, and Mr. J. Haines, Adviser to the Ministry of the Interior, is retiring in the near future. Messrs. Dunlop and Haines' places will be taken by Mr. E. S. Patterson and Brigadier-General Sir Gilbert Clayton.

  ALLOTMENTS (TOTTENHAM).
  Major PRESCOTTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that fifty- seven acres of land are being cultivated as allotments on the White Hart Lane (Tottenham) estate of the London County Council; whether he is also aware that the County Council have submitted a lay-out scheme for the approval of the Ministry of Health to develop the whole of this estate for building purposes; and what, if any, undertaking has been given by the county authority to provide alternative allotments by making provision for their new tenants to have an adequate plot of ground to cultivate in connection with their proposed town-planning scheme?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Board are aware that the land referred to by my hon. Friend, which was acquired originally for housing purposes, has been let for allotments pending development. They are advised that the London County Council have submitted to the Ministry of Health a scheme for laying out this land, and they have been informed that a majority of the new houses will probably be occupied by allotment holders. It is not anticipated that more than two or three rods of garden ground will be available for each house, but the Council state that they have under consideration the question of acquiring land for allotments.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    MILK.
    Captain Sir B. STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the prospective scarcity in the milk supply, he is prepared to make a statement as to winter milk prices?
    Major LANE-FOXasked the Food Controller whether it is proposed to continue the control of milk prices through the winter; and, if so, whether he can make an early statement on the subject?
    The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. G. Roberts): I have already stated that, in view of the uncertainty of the supply, it has been decided to continue the control of milk prices throughout the winter. The question of the actual prices for the winter months is now receiving consideration, and a statement on the subject will be made as soon as possible.
    Major E. WOOD: Will that statement be made before the House adjourns?
    Mr. ROBERTS: There are so many uncertainties about it, that I am not able to pledge myself for the moment.
    Colonel BURN: Will the South-Western counties be considered once again?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am called upon to review that case nearly every day.
    Colonel BURN: I am very glad to hear it.
    Major LANE-FOX: Will the hon. Gentleman make a statement as soon as possible?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will realise the necessity for investigating every aspect of the question. There are various uncertain factors for the moment—probable price of hay and other feeding-stuffs—and I am unable at the present time to fix the price accordingly.

    MEAT.
    Major E. WOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the rise in the cost of feeding-stuffs and the shortage of this year's hap crop, he can make an early announcement as to meat prices which may safeguard the production of meat through the coming winter?
    Captain FITZROYasked the Food Controller whether it is proposed to continue the control of meat prices during the winter of 1919–20; and, if so, whether he can make an announcement on the matter?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have already stated that it has been decided to continue the control of meat prices throughout the winter months. The scale of prices is under consideration, and an announcement on the subject will be made as soon as possible.

    PLOUGHING (COMPENSATION).
    Major LANE-FOXasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agri-

    897
    culture on what grounds it has been decided to defer payment of compensation due for losses incurred in 1918 through grass land being ploughed up by order of the authorities till after this year's harvest?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Board have come to no such decision as is suggested by ray hon. Friend. In certain cases where there is evidence that loss incurred on the cultivation in 1918 may be expected to be wholly or partly recouped in 1919, it has been suggested to the claimant that he should allow his claim to stand over, but he is under no obligation to do so.
    Major LANE-FOX: Is it not a fact that in some cases compensation has been distinctly refused?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am not aware of that, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me any information of a particular case I will look into it.
    Colonel MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Is the Government prepared to pay full compensation for loss incurred by the fanner in seed and labour, and also loss of profit?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, under the arrangements that were made, the Government pay any real loss incurred by ploughing up, if there has been a loss? The whole matter is settled by arbitration.

    RYE.
    Captain Sir BEVILLE STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in arriving at the average price of rye, the persons who are to find this figure are to take the figures of September, 1918, to March, 1919, or September, 1919, to March, 1920?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The average prices for rye, like those of other corn crops, will be ascertained for the seven months ending 31st March, 1920.

    DELAYS IN DELIVERY, NOTTINGHAM.
    Mr. ATKEYasked the Food Controller whether he is aware that there are three boxes of bacon, ex Cardiff, invoiced by Speare Brothers and Clarke, Victoria Street, Bristol, to Mr. F. Goodliffe, of Nottingham, of which two boxes were delivered on 13th June and one box on 17th June, and a further three boxes of bacon invoiced by the same firm, 27th
    898
    May, ex Cardiff, which are not yet delivered; that there is not only a risk of deterioration, but it means purchasing at higher prices on the open market to supply shopkeepers who are depending upon Mr. Goodliffe for supplies; that eight boxes of lard, invoiced by G. and J.Nickson, 25, Victoria Street, Liverpool, on 27th May, ex Leith, were not delivered until 8th July; and that eight cases of crab, invoiced by Peek Brothers and Winch on 10th May, were not delivered until 7th July, a delay of six weeks; and will he ascertain whether these delays are due to the adoption by the railway companies of an allocation system in respect of which loss is being sustained by Nottingham traders?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have caused inquiry to be made into the various cases referred to by the Hon. Member and I am informed that, apart from one instance in which a clerical error at Cardiff led to a misunderstanding, the various consignments were subject to no unreasonable delay in the course of transit. I would add that the invoice date is frequently misleading in this connection, and that the boxes of lard referred to in the third part were invoiced on 27th May, but were not tendered to the railway company until 26th June. In reply to the last part, I am advised that the policy of allocating traffic to particular routes was adopted with a view to facilitating transit and that, generally speaking, it has had the desired effect.

    FEEDING-STUFFS (PRICES).
    Lieut.-Colonel MURROUGH WILSONasked the Food Controller whether he is aware that the prices of linseed cake, cotton cake, and other feeding-stuffs have increased by nearly 50 per cent, since May, 1919, and are still rising; and what steps he proposes taking to enable farmers to obtain feeding-stuffs at a price in some way commensurate with the controlled prices of meat?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I understand that the rise in the price of feeding-stuffs since May, 1919, is considerably less than the figure quoted by the hon. and gallant Member. The whole question of the supply and price of feeding-stuffs is receiving careful consideration, and every effort will be made to provide supplies at prices on a parity with the prices to be fixed for meat during the coming winter.
    Lieut.-Colonel WILSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to control the price of feeding-stuffs?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I cannot say any more at the moment.

    FOOD RETAILERS (FRAUDULENT PRACTICES).
    Mr. J. JONESasked the Food Controller whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the Islington Local Food Control Committee expressing regret that they are hampered in their endeavour to protect the public from fraudulent practices on the part of the food retailers, on whom the fines inflicted have no effect; whether he has been supplied with a list showing the penalties inflicted for breaches of Food Ministry Orders; and whether any action is being taken in the matter?
    Mr. ROBERTS: My attention has been called to the Resolution referred to by the hon. Member. It is always rather invidious to comment on penalties inflicted by magistrates of experience, but I am clear that the comparative leniency of the fines more recently imposed has discouraged the Islington Food Control Committee in its efforts to secure the observance of the Orders issued by my Department for the protection of the public, and I am in communication with the Home Secretary on the subject.
    Mr. RAPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider substitution of imprisonment in every case for fines?
    Mr. ROBERTS: That is not a matter within my province.

    TILBURY DOCKS (FIRE).
    Major PRESCOTTasked the Food I Controller if he will give the date when he was notified of the fire which took place at No. 24 shed of the Tilbury Docks on Saturday, the 5th instant; whether he is aware that at the time of the fire large quantities of sugar, condensed milk, American hams, flour, cocoa powder, etc., were stored in this shed; whether it has been reported to him that over 2,000 tons of sugar in bags were not touched by the fire but were saturated with water; whether he is aware that over 40,000 of the sugar bags were left in this saturated condition as late as Friday last with streams of syrup oozing out of the broken bags; whether the sugar is the property of the Government; if so, why immediate steps were not taken to prevent it
    900
    becoming practically a total loss; and, if not, why prompt action was not taken to manipulate the salvage in view of the present shortage of sweetening material?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Notification of the fire at No. 24 shed of the Tilbury Docks was received by the Royal Commission on Sugar Supply on July 10th. I am advised that the quantity of sugar involved was only 312 tons, and that immediate steps were taken to prevent this stock becoming a total loss. I am satisfied that the question of salvage has been dealt with in an efficient manner. The damage to flour is estimated at £200. The other foodstuffs stored in the shed at the time of the fire were not the property of my Department.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE (WELSH INTERESTS).
  Sir J. CORYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture (1) why the Welsh National party was not consulted with reference to the nomination of a local representative to serve on the Royal Commission on Agriculture; (2) whether Mr. T. Prosser-Jones, of Ystradgynlais, who has been appointed a member of the Royal Commission on Agriculture, is intended to be a representative for Wales; if so, what Welsh interests were consulted before he was selected; and, if not, what qualifications the Board considers he has to act for Wales on this body?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Welsh Parliamentary party was not formally consulted as to the nomination of representatives on the Royal Commission because, by a Resolution passed at a meeting of the party, confirmed on 8th May by a deputation to the President, the party decided to demand a separate Commission for Wales, and intimated their refusal to take any part in the Royal Commission unless their demand was satisfied. The nomination of Mr. Prosser-Jones was made on the recommendation of the chairman of the Welsh National party. Mr. Prosser-Jones has worked on a farm, and possesses a wide knowledge of labour conditions in Wales.
  Mr. HINDS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what is his authority for saying that the Welsh party passed a resolution that they would not have anything to do with the Commission unless they had a separate one for Wales?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The information was conveyed to me by the chairman of the Welsh Parliamentary party.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the Welsh National party is a branch of the National party?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am not aware that it is, but it may be.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Inasmuch as there are still vacancies on the Commission, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the appointment of a representative of the tenant farmers?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: There are no vacancies on the Commission now.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say where Mr. Prosser-Jones comes from?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am sure the hon. Member can pronounce it as well as I can.

  RABIES (MUZZLING ORDERS).
  Mr. HOLMESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture how many cases of rabies have been reported during the past month; and whether he can give an approximate date for the cancellation of the Muzzling Order?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: During the period 18th June to 17th July eleven outbreaks of rabies have been confirmed by the veterinary officers of the Board, and reports have been received of seventy-four suspected cases. It is impossible to give any idea when Orders as to muzzling will be revoked, as their revocation or oven modification must depend on the position in respect to rabies in any locality, which obviously cannot be foreseen.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman ask the Board of Agriculture to consider the desirability of imposing a muzzling Order over the whole of the country?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We have considered that very often, but we are not of the opinion that it would be an advantage. The only way in which we can effectively carry out a muzzling Order is by having
  902
  the general support of the public, and I do not think we should get it if we were to impose a muzzling Order in places hundreds of miles from the nearest case of rabies. Our view is that it is much the best to confine the Orders to areas in neighbourhoods where cases have been established, as was done by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty at the time of the last outbreak. Up-to-date fresh outbreaks have been entirely confined to the existing areas.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Is it not the fact that rabies are spreading gradually over a good part of the South of England, and would not it be far wiser to muzzle the dogs in the whole of the country in order, finally, to stamp out the disease?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, Sir; rabies has not been spreading gradually. It has been, on the whole, confined to three small areas, and so long as that is the case, we think that a General Muzzling Order is unnecessary.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is one of the areas referred to by the Order the seat of the Ulster Provisional Government?
  Lieut.-Colonel MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the advisability of having the same system carried out as that of the First Lord of the Admiralty, which, for so many years, has been effective?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That is precisely what we are doing.

  REGENT'S PARK (CANAL FENCING).
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the First Commissioner of Works what steps have been taken with a view to secure the repair of the fencing between the Regent's Park and the Regent's Canal, which is in a dilapidated condition; and when it is intended to reopen those portions of the Regent's Park between the Outer Circle and the canal to which the public formerly enjoyed access?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The Regent's Canal and Dock Company are responsible for the fence in question and have repeatedly been pressed by my Department to renew it. The Canal Control Committee of the Board of Trade has also

  903
  recently urged the Company to expedite the repairs. Until these have been effected, I regret that those portions of the park referred to by the hon. Member cannot be reopened on account of the danger to the public.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Is there any chance of an early opportunity of the people again using this park which is so much required in that part of London?
  Sir A. MOND: I am doing my best. It is a very old question, and a difficult one to get the repairs done.
  Captain REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to repair this with the timber used for the seats of the stand of Members of the House of Commons on Saturday?
  Sir A. MOND: The question is not one under the control of my Department.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE:Is it not the fact that ammunition boxes were used for the stand for Members of Parliament?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    POST-WAR CONDITIONS OF SERVICE.
    Mr. RAPERasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry if he can now make a statement as to post-war conditions of service in the Royal Air Force?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for AIR (Major-General Seely): The rates of pay, pension and allowances for officers of the reconstituted Royal Air Force have now been approved, but, as the details are too lengthy to be brought within the compass of an answer to a question, I will ask my hon. and gallant Friend to allow me to circulate the full statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    An important feature of the new system is that, whereas at present the various branches have each had their own rates of pay, in future there will be uniform rates for all branches, with the exception that certain branches, such as medical works, schoolmasters, will continue to have special rates as hitherto. Except for these branches, all officers joining the Royal Air Force in future will pass the flying test.
    The rates have been fixed with reference to the present high cost of living, and it
    904
    has been decided that 20 per cent, of the rates of pay and retired pay will be considered as due to the present high cost of living and will be subject after five years to change, either upwards or downwards, according as the cost of living rises or falls. Subsequent revisions will be made at three-yearly intervals on the basis of Board of Trade food prices.
    The new rates are intended to apply to those officers who are given permanent or short-service commissions in the force as reconstituted or who are seconded to the Royal Air Force from the other Services.
    With regard to the pay of other ranks, I hope to be in a position to make a statement during the present week.
    The following is the statement referred to:

    Officers, Royal Air Force—New Scale of Emoluments.
    1.The rates of pay, pensions, and allowances for officers of the Royal Air Force have been under review, and the standard rates now authorised are as shown in the accompanying statements. The present system, under which the various branches each had their own rates of pay, has been replaced by a uniform system of rates for all branches, with the exception that certain specialist services (such as the Medical and Dental) will continue to have special rates as hitherto. These specialist services will be dealt with separately, except in so far as reference is made to them below.
    2.The rates have been fixed with reference to the present high cost of living, and it has been decided that 20 per cent, of the rates of pay and retired pay will be considered as due to the present high cost of living and will be subject after five years to change, either upwards or downwards, according as the cost of living rises or falls. Subsequent revisions will be made at three-yearly intervals on the basis of Board of Trade food prices.
    3.The new rates will not apply to officers awaiting demobilisation or who are temporarily retained. They are intended for those officers who are given permanent or short-service commissions in the force as reconstituted or who are seconded to the Royal Air Force from the other Ser vices.

    Pay.
    The rates will be as follows, and will apply generally to officers (including Staff

    905
    officers) performing duties of the present Flying, Technical, and Administrative branches:

    Rank.

    Pay per diem.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Cadet

    5

    0

    Cadet, after 1 year

    10

    0

    2nd Lieutenant

    18

    0

    Lieutenant

    1

    3

    0

    Lieutenant, after 2 years as such

    1

    5

    0

    Captain

    1

    9

    0

    Major

    l

    14

    0

    Major, after 5 years as such

    l

    16

    0

    Lieutenant-Colonel (rising by 1s. per day after each year to a limit of £2 10s.)

    2

    0

    0

    Colonel

    2

    15

    0

    Colonel, after 2 years as such

    2

    18

    0

    Colonel, after 4 years as such

    3

    1

    0

    Colonel, after 6 years as such

    3

    4

    0

    Brigadier-General

    3

    4

    6

    Brigadier-General, Command Pay

    5

    0

    Major-General

    5

    0

    0

    Lieutenant-General

    6

    0

    0

    General

    7

    0

    0

    Special Rates for Quartermasters.

    Rank.

    Pay per diem.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Lieutenant, on appointment

    19

    0

    Lieutenant, after 4 years

    1

    1

    0

    Captain, after 8 years

    1

    3

    0

    Captain, after 12 years

    1

    5

    0

    Major, after 15 years

    1

    10

    0

    Lieutenant-Colonel

    1

    15

    0

    (The establishment of Lieutenant-Colonels will be a very small one.)

    Special Rates for Chaplains.

    Pay per diem.

    £

    s.

    d

    On entry

    1

    0

    0

    After 3 years

    1

    3

    0

    After 6 years

    1

    6

    0

    —

    Up to 8 nights in one place.

    After 8 nights.

    Daily absence 5–9 hours.

    Daily absence over 9 hours.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    A. Officers of the rank of Colonel (or similar staff grading) and upwards

    30

    0

    15

    0

    6

    0

    15

    0

    B. Officers below the rank of Colonel

    22

    6

    12

    6

    4

    0

    11

    6

    £

    s.

    d.

    After 9 years

    1

    9

    0

    After 12 years

    1

    12

    0

    After 15 years

    1

    15

    0

    After 18 years

    1

    18

    0

    After 21 years

    2

    1

    0

    After 24 years

    2

    4

    0

    After 27 years

    2

    7

    0

    After 30 years

    2

    10

    0

    Chaplain-in-Chief £l,000 per annum.

    Temporary Chaplains in the Royal Air Force will receive a gratuity of £50 for each complete year of service, subject to conditions to be hereafter published.
    Medical Officers will receive the same rates of pay as may be approved for the Medical Service of the Army.

    Pay of Officers employed at the Air Ministry.

    Directors

    £2,000 per annum*

    Deputy-Directors,1st Class

    £1,500 per annum*

    Deputy-Directors,2nd Class

    £1,200 per annum*

    *Consolidated Rates.

    Other Officers:
    Down to and including the rank of Major, Full pay and allowances, plus £100 per annum.
    Below the rank of Major, Full pay and allowances, plus £75 per annum.
    Rate.
    Attached officers.—Full pay and allowances of their rank plus 10s. a day up to three months; thereafter they will come on to the ordinary Air Ministry scale.
    Allowances.
    The allowances will be as given below, and will be reviewed periodically:
    Table Money.—Is under consideration.
    Subsistence and travelling allowances.
    Lodging, fuel, light and ration allowances (Home Stations).
    The standard rates will be as follows—

    —

    Lodging.

    Fuel and Light (average).

    Rations.

    Per diem.

    Per diem.

    Per diem.

    2nd Lieutenants and Lieutenants

    …

    3s. 6d.

    1s.

    No change

    Captain, Major and Lieutenant-Colonel

    …

    4s. 6d.

    2s.

    No change

    Other officers

    …

    No change.

    Increase of 1s. per diem.

    No change

    NOTE.—Married officers over 30 years of age, for whom no married quarters are available and who are therefore obliged to provide accommodation for themselves and for their families, may draw lodging, fuel, and light allowances.
    Servants Allowance.
    2s. for each authorised servant at home and abroad if no servant is provided.
    Field Allowance.
    To be granted to all officers on active service in the field, and to be issuable whenever officers are under canvas. The rate is still under consideration.
    Children's Allowance.
    Existing rates of children's allowance will continue until the end of 1919, after which they will be abolished. In the meantime children's allowance will be continued, and officers now receiving the allowance will not become ineligible for it if the effect of the increases in pay now granted is to raise their salaries beyond the limit of income laid down for the grant of the allowance.
    Colonial Allowance.
    The same as for the Army.
    Conveyance of Families.
    The cost of conveying the wives, families, and baggage of officers will be charged to the public only in respect of changes of station in this country.
    Furniture Allowance and Charges.
    Furniture allowance and furniture charges are abolished. In future all quarters, including the commanding officer's quarters, will be furnished.
    Mess Allowance.
    This allowance is abolished.
    Travelling Concessions.
    The question of the continuation

    (a) Of the rule allowing officers proceeding on leave two free passes a year,

    (b) Of the reduced fare for officers travelling on leave, is still under consideration.

    Pensions.
    (Applicable to officers performing duties of the present Flying, Technical, and Administrative Branches.)
    A.—General Officers.
    Lieut.-General.—£975 after twenty-four years' service, increased by £22 for each year beyond twenty-four, with a maximum of £1,195.
    Major-General.—£790 after twenty-two years' service, increased by £22 for each year beyond twenty-two, with a maximum of £1,010.
    Brigadier-General.—£650 after twenty years' service, increased by £22 for each year beyond twenty, with a maximum of £950.
    An officer must complete three years' service in any of these ranks before being entitled to the special pension attaching to it. This condition will not, of course, affect his title to the pension earned by service in the ordinary way, and an officer may reckon service as lieut.-general or major-general towards his service in a lower rank if that would entitle him to special pension for that lower rank.
    B.—Colonels and lower ranks.
    There will be a minimum qualifying; period for pensions—twenty years.
    Subject to this the scale is as follows:

    —

    Age.

    Retired pay.

    Service.

    Addition for each extra year of service.*

    Reduction for each deficient year of service.*

    £

    55

    790

    24

    22

    15

    Colonels retire at 55, maximum retired pay, £900

    54

    765

    24

    22

    15

    53

    742

    28

    22

    15

    52

    720

    23

    22

    15

    51

    697

    22

    22

    15

    50

    675

    22

    15

    15

    Lieut.-colonels retire at 48, maximum retired pay, £600.

    49

    637

    21

    15

    15

    48

    600

    21

    15

    15

    47

    562

    20

    15

    15

    46

    525

    20

    15

    15

    Majors retire at 45, maximum retired pay, £450.

    45

    487

    19

    15

    15

    44

    450

    19

    15

    15

    43

    412

    18

    15

    15

    42

    376

    18

    15

    15

    Captains and subalterns retire at 40, maximum retired pay, £400.

    41

    387

    17

    15

    15

    40

    300

    17

    15

    15

    * Limited to 5 years.

    Gratuities to officers who retire before qualifying by length of service for Service pensions:
    A gratuity of £75 for each completed year of service will be awarded, with a maximum of £1,000, provided that no officer is to be allowed to resign with a gratuity unless he has completed ten years' service.
    While these pension scales will be applicable generally to officers appointed to perform the duties of the present Flying, Technical, and Administrative Branches, including chaplains, the following will be dealt with under special Regulations, which will shortly be issued:
    Officers seconded from the Navy and Army. Officers who may be appointed as quartermasters on the special quartermasters' rates of pay.
    Commissioned warrant officers, warrant officers and ratings from the Royal Navy on regular engagements who have been given temporary commissions in the R.A.F.
    Warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men from the Army on regular engagements who had been given commissions in the Army or were given temporary commissions in the R.A.F.
    It should also be noted that these scales do not apply to specialist services such as medical and dental officers, pay officers, and schoolmasters.
    Notes.
    1. The application of these standard rates of pay, pensions, and allowances to the existing and future personnel will be carried out under administrative Regulations which will shortly be published.
    2. The new rates will begin to take effect from the date of the first Gazette containing the names of officers appointed to permanent and short-service commissions in the Royal Air Force. They may begin at somewhat later dates for officers not dealt with in the first Gazette.

    ADJUTANTS (PAY).
    Lieut.-Col. MEYSEY-THOMPSONasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether he is aware that the pay of an adjutant at a flying training depot amounts to less than the pay and allowances received by a lieutenant at the same depot; that this is justified on the plea that the adjutant is not a pilot; whether he is aware that the adjutant must frequently fly in order to carry out his duties efficiently; and whether the Air Minister will consider the claims of these adjutants to more favourable treatment?
    Major-General SEELY: As I have stated in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Islington, there will, in future, be uniform rates of pay for all branches, including the Administrative Branch to which adjutants belong. The rates now in force for adjutants have been governed by the fact that the adjutant has not hitherto had to fly as part of his duties.

    AIR CONVENTION.
    Captain W. BENN(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the Air Convention can be laid before Parliament?
    Major-General SEELY: I am glad to say that the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference have agreed to the publication of the Air Convention, and I trust that the text will be circulated to Members tomorrow.

  INVALIDED LIEUTENANT

    STATEMENT BY PENSIONS MINISTER.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Pensions Minister whether he will give an explanation of the circumstances in which a lieutenant invalided out of the Army suffering from neurasthenia was recently directed by telegram, sent to a hotel at which he was staying, to proceed to the London Lock Hospital, Harrow Road, which is an institution for women suffering from venereal disease; whether, having been certified by two medical men employed at his own expense as free from such disease, and having protested against being sent to the men's branch of the Lock Hospital, situated in Soho, to which he had been referred from the women's institution, he was informed by the Ministry of Pensions that an officer's unreasonable refusal to undergo treatment renders him liable to have his pension reduced by half; whether he will say who is responsible for this course of action; and what reparation is being made to the officer in question?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir L. Worthington-Evans): I am glad to have the opportunity of expressing publicly my deep regret for the annoyance and trouble given to this officer.
    The doctors are not able to decide affirmatively what is the cause of his illness. He was sent to a tuberculosis specialist and examined by him, but the report was negative; he advised that the officer should be admitted to hospital and kept under medical observation in case the illness was occasioned by general paralysis.
    Arrangements were made for a private room at the Lock Hospital, where it was intended that the specialist in general paralysis should make the desired observations so as to exclude general paralysis, as
    912
    tuberculosis had been excluded, if such turned out to be the case. The telegram never ought to have been sent, although no serious consequence would have arisen if it had been opened by the officer. It was, however, opened at his request and read to him on the telephone by someone at his hotel.
    With regard to the letter the officer came to the Ministry after the letter was written and before it was delivered, and saw one of the doctors. The doctor heard his explanation and withdrew the letter and apologised for the telegram. The letter ought not to have been sent, but being in the post could not be recalled. There was no question of unreasonable refusal to undergo treatment; no treatment had been decided upon. The officer was asked to go to the hospital for observation. Treatment could not be decided upon until after the result of the observation was known. The officer himself has since proved that there is not the slightest reason to suppose that he is suffering from general paralysis due to venereal disease. I fully accept that conclusion.
    The clerk at the Ministry who was responsible for the letter will not in future be engaged in this class of work, and steps have been taken to ensure that no warnings of withdrawal or reduction of pension shall be made until the case has been considered by a principal medical officer.
    I have myself seen this officer when he called at the Ministry. I have expressed to him my deep regret for both the telegram and the letter, and I have offered to refund to him the expenses to which he has been put in obtaining the medical certificates referred to.
    I explained to him what I have now told the House, and I trust that the blunder made by an administrative clerk will not discredit the really excellent and efficient work done for thousands of officers and men by the medical officers employed by the Ministry.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    ARREARS OF PAYMENT.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that Gunner A. C. Lee, No. 283702, Royal Garrison Artillery, who was discharged in May, 1918, partially disabled, has written repeatedly to the Superintendent, Pension

    913
    Issue Office, London, concerning his pension, payment of which is six weeks in arrears, and can obtain neither answer nor pension; and, if so, will he ensure speedy attention to this undisputed claim?
    Sir WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Payment of the pension was suspended because a life certificate sent to Mr. Lee was not returned; but pension has now been issued without life certificate, and a letter of explanation was sent to Mr. Lee, enclosing a duplicate life certificate for completion.

    STATUTORY RIGHTS.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Pensions Minister if he is aware of the feeling prevailing in the country regarding the neglect of the Ministry to grant a statutory right to pensions to the disabled and the dependants of the fallen; and if he is prepared to make a statement as to the Ministry's future policy on this matter?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have already given evidence on this question before the Select Committee, and it is now under their consideration. As soon as their Report is received I hope to be able to make a statement.

    WAR GRATUITY (LANCE-SERGEANT G. DIXON).
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Pensions Minister whether he will have inquiry made into the case of Lance-Sergeant G. Dixon, No. 9813, B Company, 1st Battalion, West Yorkshire Regiment, who was discharged on the 10th March, 1916, and whose war gratuity was handed to the Controller of the Post Office Savings Bank under Schedule No. C 184, Green Card No. X 93658, but who, up to the present, has been unable to obtain payment of the same; and if he is aware that this is only one of many similar cases?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pease): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I will have inquiry made, and will write to the hon. Member.

  NEW MOTOR CHASSIS.
  Major NALLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if delivery is still being taken of new motor chassis; and, if not, what was the last date on which a new chassis was delivered by the makers?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: There are approximately 550 new motor chassis remaining to be delivered at the manufacturers' option, by the terms under which the contracts are being liquidated.
  Major NALL:Is it not possible to put the vehicles in order and sell them direct to the public, instead of leaving them out in the open to go rusty before they are sold by auction?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: That is not what is being done at all. These chassis are being delivered because, under the terms of the liquidation, we thought we could do better by taking them.
  Major NALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that from factories in the Manchester district new chassis are being sent South, dumped outside, and left until they are rusty, and then are offered for sale
  Mr. KELLAWAY: No, Sir; I am not aware of any such fact; all the new chassis offered are being sold quite readily.
  Major NALL: I will send the hon. Gentleman particulars.

  MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (STAFF).
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions how many officials were employed by the Ministry of Munitions at a salary of £100 a year and upwards on 11th November, 1918, and at the present time, respectively?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: The total staff of the Ministry numbered 25,144 on 11th November, 1918, as against 14,019 at present. Approximately, 1,500 of the present staff and a slightly larger proportion of the staff on 11th November, 1918, were or are employed at salaries of £100 per annum or less.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is there any prospect of a further early reduction?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Yes, Sir.

  EX-SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT).
  Mr. RAPERasked the Minister of Labour what percentage of the ex-Service men for whom employment was secured through the Labour Exchanges for the

  915
  two periods 8th June to 8th November, 1918, and 11th November, 1918, to 11th June, 1919, were on the disabled register?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Robert Home): The percentages for Great Britain are 46.1 in the earlier period, and 18.7 in the later period. The number of disabled men placed through the Exchanges was, however, actually larger in the later period than in the earlier. I am having the figures circulated with the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  The following are the figures referred to:
  The proportion of ex-Service men placed in employment through the Labour Exchanges in Great Britain, who were on the disabled register, is as follows:

  Period.

  Ex-Service men placed by Exchanges.

  Disabled men placed by Exchanges.

  Percentage of disabled men.

  8th June to 8th November, 1918

  …

  22,546

  10,411

  46.1

  8th November, 1918, to 6th June, 1919

  …

  105,880

  19,852

  18.7

  Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the number of disabled men who have been discharged from Government offices, whilst married women whose j husbands are in employment are being kept on?
  Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid I must have notice of that question.

  WATCHMAKERS AND JEWELLERS (APPRENTICESHIP SCHEME).
  Captain DOUGLAS HALLasked whether the scheme of apprenticeship in connection with the trade of watchmakers and jewellers has for some months been under consideration by the Ministry of Labour; whether such scheme has been approved; and, if so, from what date it will come into force?
  Sir R. HORNE: The Memorandum explaining the scheme for interrupted apprenticeships was sent to the Joint Industrial Council for the gold, silver, horological, and allied trades (which covers watchmakers and jewellers),on 31st December, 1918. In consequence of difficulties within the council, the scheme was not considered until 3rd May. Since that date several communications have been sent to the council asking them to complete the negotiations, but this has
  916
  not been done. Under these circumstances, no scheme for this industry has been submitted to the Department for approval.
  Captain HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question?
  Sir R. HORNE: I thought I had answered the whole of the question. I have answered it by implication, because it does not arise, inasmuch as no scheme has been submitted.
  Sir JOHN BUTCHER: Has this scheme been delayed owing to the very large number of persons of alien birth employed in the watchmaking trade?
  Sir R. HORNE: No, Sir; that is not the reason.

  MINERS' STRIKE (YORKSHIRE).
    PITS FLOODED—GRAVE SITUATION.

      STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.
      Mr. KENNEDY JONES(by private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has received information that owing to the calling out of the pumpmen in the Yorkshire coal area many mines in Yorkshire are being flooded; what the situation now is, and what steps the Government have taken to meet this grave situation?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): As the House is aware a strike has been going on for some days in the Yorkshire coalfields. The question at issue is one of piece rates, on which the Mining Conference last week passed a resolution that all men should remain at work, pending a meeting on the subject between the Government and the Miners' Executive, which has been arranged to take place on Thursday.
      The last twenty-four hours have witnessed, as the hon. Member (Mr. Kennedy-Jones) stated, a grave, and I think I may say an unprecedented development in this dispute. Unfortunately, the miners on strike in Yorkshire have called out the pumpmen and enginemen, and thus many of the mines in that district are at present

      917
      suffering from the rise of the water, and are threatened with destruction. As far as information is at our disposal, the present situation is as follows:
      At fifty-eight mines, the regular workmen on the pumps are continuing at their duty.
      At eighty-five, pumping is entirely stopped.
      At thirty-five, the pumping is being worked by the officials of the mines.
      At twenty, where the water is necessary for public use, pumping is being continued by arrangement.
      Three mines are already entirely flooded.
      Twelve others are likely to be flooded within a day or two.
      It is obvious that these circumstances create a very dangerous situation. Some of the Yorkshire mines would be ruined in a very few days by flooding. Others would be thrown out of operation for a long period.
      The Yorkshire coalfield has an output of 35,000,000 tons a year, which is the second largest in the Kingdom, and many industries are dependent upon it.
      In view of these serious consequences, the Government was compelled yesterday to send men from the Fleet to aid in pumping the mines. To-day the Minister of Labour has sent a message to the Mining Federation asking what action they are pre-pared to take to induce the regular pumpmen to resume their duty. If they return to work, the men sent up by the Government will immediately be withdrawn. Until this happens, the Government will take every means in their power to save the mines, and will afford every protection to those who are, willing to render help.
      The Government has asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cam-bridge to proceed immediately to Yorkshire to make all necessary arrangements to co-ordinate the efforts of the community in overcoming this new and serious menace with which it is faced in the destruction of these mines.
      I venture to appeal to the whole community in Yorkshire to support him in this endeavour. The action which has been taken by the miners in that district has not only jeopardised their own means of livelihood, but also threatens with disaster everyone in the district in which they live.
      Mr. LUNN: May we take it from the right hon. Gentleman that the statement
      918
      in the Yorkshire Press this morning that the dispute is settled, is not correct? I have seen the "Leeds Mercury" this morning.
      The PRIME MINISTER: We certainly have received no information to that effect; quite the contrary, so I am informed by my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Horne).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir DONALD MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House a question with regard to the Motion which stands in his name as to the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night? If, as is generally anticipated, a large number of the Members wish to take part in this Debate, will he press the extension of the time so far as to bring all the stages of these two Bills to a conclusion, or, in view of what may happen, will he just ask the House to sit, say, till twelve o'clock, and then if it is necessary take another day?
Mr. BONAR LAW:As I indicated last week, the Government will be in the hands of the House in this matter, which will be in charge of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister himself. We have no desire to use pressure to compel the House to come to a decision on a matter so vital, but if we do not there will be great inconvenience, especially as to-morrow so many Members will be away seeing the Fleet, and I do not know when we shall have another opportunity. It is a matter entirely for the House to decide.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on the Treaty of Peace Bill and the Anglo-French Treaty (Defence of France) Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  SIR SAMUEL EOBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D (added in respect of the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Bill [Lords] and the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill): Mr. Bridgeman; and had appointed in substitution (in respect

  919
  of the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Bill [Lords] and the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill): Colonel Leslie Wilson,
  Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
Fylde Water Board Bill, with Amendments.
Stoney's Divorce Bill [Lord.] and Pallin's Divorce Bill [Lord],—The Lords communicate the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings taken arid the Documents deposited upon the Second Reading of Stoney's Divorce Bill [Lord] and Pallin's Divorce Bill [Lords], as desired by the Commons, with a request that the same may be returned.
Transport (Metropolitan Area) (Select Committee),—The Lords give leave to the Viscount Cave to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Select Committee appointed by the Commons on Transport (Metropolitan Area), his Lordship consenting

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  TREATY OF PEACE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I am sure that we shall all feel regretful that the Prime Minister who has only just returned from a brief and very well-earned rest, has to take upon his shoulders so arduous a duty as that of which we have with deep regret heard at Question time to-day. We have controversy with the Prime Minister, but no controversy which in the slightest degree prevents us from gladly affording to him all the laurels which were accorded to him by his fellow countrymen on the occasion of the celebration of Peace. He has exhibited a skill, an energy, and an indomitable optimism in the darkest days for which we are all very grateful. We desire also to join in the tributes which he has paid to those who have assisted him throughout the very arduous and difficult duties in connection with the carrying of the negotiations for Peace to this the first stage, because, of course, they have not gone very much further than that. I may be forgiven, as a House of Commons man, for paying another tribute on the part of all of us to the Leader of the House, the Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Bonar Law). While the Prime Minister has been away, his duties not only here but in Paris have been of unexampled difficulty, and all the while he has, as we know, borne the burden of a private grief which is heavy on his heart. Not for one moment, however, has he slackened in his attention to this House, and his tact, his courtesy, and his ability has been one of the real assets of the House of Commons. I do not know whether I may just infringe one of the rules of the House to say in one sentence bow much the whole country is indebted to the King and Queen for all that they have done for us during these dark days.
  4.0 P.M
  It is not for me to pay, or to attempt to pay, a tribute, inadequate as any words of mine must be, for what the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force have done. There is no oratory which has been used throughout the history of the world that can be anything but a weak paraphrase of the passionate feelings of gratitude in our hearts for what these men have done.
  952
  No one who watched that wonderful procession on Saturday last could have been other than deeply moved to the very centre of his being as the Allied forces and their representatives passed the monument to the glorious dead. I can only think of the-glorious words of John Bunyan when he spoke of the departure of Mr. Valiant for-Truth. Each one of these men was a Mr. Valiant-for-Truth.
  "When the day that he must go hence was come many accompanied him to the river side, into which, as he went he said Death, where is thy sting? And, as he went down deeper, he said, Grave where is thy victory? So he passed over, and all the trumpets sounded for him on the other side."
  The War has been won, and we are thankful from the bottom of our hearts that two, at any rate, of the great objects for which we unsheathed the sword have been accomplished. I should like to remind ourselves of what, I think, will be the classic words which wore spoken by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, as to the objects for which we entered the War—
  "We shall never sheathe the sword,"
  he said,
  "which we have not lightly drawn until Belgium recovers in full measure all and more than all that she has sacrificed, until Prance is adequately, secured against the menace of oppression, until the rights of the smaller nationalities of Europe are placed upon an unassailable foundation, and until the military domination of Prussia is wholly and finally destroyed."
  I am sure everyone would wish, apart from these Debates, to say a word of recognition—everyone, on both Front Benches and Members of all parties, would like to pay tributes to the great labours of Mr. Asquith, Lord Grey, and Lord Kitchener. Democracy has won this War. Are we getting or likely to get a democratic peace? That naturally is a question which I have addressed to myself in asking whether or not I will vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. I have no hesitation in answering that question. Of course I intend to vote for the Second Reading, but I have had to put to myself one or two questions, and the first is this: Who signed the Peace? After all, Democracy has signed it. The Prime Minister signed it, and I am not sure I am not right in saying that he is Prime Minister of the most democratic nation in the world. Then we have the President of the United States—the latest expression of democracy on the greatest scale by means of a settled written constitution which the world has

  953
  known. I will only mention two more names, those of General Botha and General Smuts, in addition to the Premiers of our own self-governing Dominions. I mention those two names especially because not so many years ago both these men were our enemies in the field, and they, having gone through the whole of these long and toilsome days came to the conclusion that it was their duty to sign this Peace. There are many points of gloom, as well as, I am thankful to say, of brightness in this document. I am quite sure that one of the best of them is Clause 13, dealing with the question of labour. For the first time in the history of the world we have had laid down by the solemn consent of responsible representatives of the powerful nations who have signed this document, conditions to which they have pledged themselves, and which if only partially, and to some extent substantially carried out, will change the face and conditions of international labour all the world over.
  Let me pass on to the questions of reparation and indemnity, matters which must inevitably cause considerable debate to-day and in the future, as they have undoubtedly done in the past. As far as I am concerned, I say that no money or material recompense can ever wash out the inexpiable crimes of Germany. I fully realise that. But there are some points with which I would like very briefly to deal. I fully recognize—and I saw something of it myself in the last week of the War—I fully recognise that many of the acts of spoliation—to put it mildly—carried out by the German arms in the last stages of the War were equal in their devilry to many things that happened in the first onrush of the Armies into Belgium and Northern France. That makes it more difficult for me to fully comprehend the cold-blooded calculation with which they set about, as far as they could, to destroy any opportunity for years to come of the economic revival of parts of the territories which for the time being they had in their possession. I say these things in order that I may disabuse the minds of Members of any idea that I am not fully conscious of the cruelties and wickednesses of our enemies. But after all we have to look at these things, not only from the point of view of meting out justice, but also from the point of exacting reparation and of getting some indemnity. The first charge obviously
  954
  must be in favour of Belgium and Northern France before any of the Allies have a chance of getting anything from Germany.
  A great and national prejudice exists against trading with Germany. But how are you to get payment unless you do trade with Germany? One of the criticisms which I feel compelled to make with regard to the Treaty is this, that in an attempt to fulfil obligations which are undertaken there have been imposed on Germany terms which in themselves, in their necessary operation, will prevent her from giving that immediate reparation and making that swift payment of some of those indemnities which she ought to be compelled to make at the earliest possible moment. The money must be got, but opportunity must be given for the debtor to pay, and I think it would have been very much better if our representatives and their colleagues could have seen their way to fix a definite sum instead of leaving the whole thing indeterminate, say, for fourteen, fifteen, or perhaps twenty years to come. How are you going to raise your £20,000,000,000? The vista before us is indeed dark and gloomy in the position in which we now find ourselves, and there is this additional trouble, that to enforce these tremendous payments we shall have to lay upon ourselves a military and a naval burden which I very gravely doubt our capacity to bear. We must give to our debtor some hope, not only of being able to pay his way and to support himself, but also to pay a clean-cut definite sum within a real, clear well-defined period. Every business man knows that that is the way to get your debtor to make good his obligations. If there is no hope of recovery little is done to meet or bear the burden.
  These questions are inextricably inked up with those very important parts of the Treaty of Peace which relate to the subjects of trade and commerce. I will, for a moment, ask the Prime Minister's attention to points which I shall raise more definitely in Committee. I am referring to Sub-section (2) of Section 1 where power is given by Order in Council made under this Act to provide by the imposition, by summary process or otherwise, of penalties for breaches of the provisions therein contained. As it stands at present it looks like a prospectus of D.O.R.A. Unlimited, and perhaps the Prime Minister will give me some reply on that point when he speaks later in the Debate. We have had enough of D.O.B.A., and I may tell

  955
  the Prime Minister I am quite sure that the House will be very chary of giving to any Government power by Order in Council to create a large number of new offences punishable by penalty in connection with trade or commerce over the whole wide range, the extraordinary range, of the provisions of this Treaty. I hope when we come to the Committee stage we shall have some inquiry into that, and got to know exactly what the Government means by the use of these very wide words. We all know that Orders in Council are laid on the Table of the House which has to say "Yes" or "No" to them; and some provision should be put into the Bill whereby the House can amend them, and after Amendment discuss and notify its assent or dissent, as the case may be. Now let me say a word or two on provision 227 relating to the trial of the Kaiser in London. As far as I am concerned—and herein I differ from quite a number of my Friends I have no hesitation at all in saying that I support the trial of the Kaiser. I said so at the election and I say so now.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In London?
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I am going to speak on that later. There is no reason at all why this man who, as far as we can see, has been personally responsible for some of the grossest acts of cruelty which have disgraced the War—there is no reason why this man, who has been rejected by his own people and now is no more than any other ordinary person, should not in the adequate words of this Section be brought to "fair and solemn trial." Where I do dissent from the statement made by the Prime Minister on the last occasion on which he spoke here is the proposal that the trial should take place in London. The people in this country want no Roman triumph. That would not be worthy of the dignity and suffering of this nation. Why should we bring this man here? Why should we not let him be tried in some neutral State—in, I will not say obscurity, but in surroundings not so dignified as would prevail here in the heart of the Empire? We do not want to give him any halo or allow him any chance of encouraging a movement among his own people in revival of their interest in him. So far as I can have any authority in those matters, I tell the Prime Minister very respectfully that I do
  956
  not think public opinion really supports the proposal that the Kaiser should be tried in London.
  I now turn to the question of the regrouping of some of the nationalities of Europe. On the 4th August, 1914, the map of Europe was rolled up. It is unrolled to-day. But we must bear in mind, because I think we are very likely to forget it, that the present Treaty before us is only part of a whole—an important part, but, nevertheless, only a part. We do not know as yet what is to be the position with regard to Fiume, or the settlement between the Italians and the Jugo-Slavs on the Eastern shores of the Adriatic. Bulgaria is still fighting. Generally speaking, there is the question of the settlement of the Balkans, the whole question of the destiny of the Turkish Empire and the fate of the Armenians, and the question of Hungary and the Government of Bela Kun. With regard to these, only two points are to be taken as already settled. There is the question of the Polish corridor. I do not know whether military operations are going on there still or not, but quite recently they were. It might have been necessary at the moment but it is a very dangerous experiment. Take even the question of Alsace-Lorraine. You had extraordinary unanimity as to the justice of the restoration of Alsace-Lorraine. It is complicated, unfortunately, with very difficult questions regarding the Saar Valley. The whole of the Near East is still politically a seething cauldron, full of the gravest dangers and difficulties. What is the real factor which is going to decide the question there? With all submission, I say it is not so much Germany as Russia. Russia, friendly or hostile—that question is one of vital importance to us. Russia affects the Polish question, the whole Balkan question, the Turkish question, all the vast range of Asia and the confines of our Indian Empire and our interests in China. The question is whether we are going to have in two or three years a hostile or a friendly Russia. It may have been impossible—I do not know; it is not for me to assume to know the facts—but at any rate, the Government has suffered, and will continue to suffer until it is settled, through no definite policy with regard to Prussia. There have been overtures first to one side and then to the other. The Prime Minister a couple of months ago made a speech in this House on that question, with every

  957
  word of which I heartily agree. The whole range of his speech on that occasion dealt with that point, as I thought, in line with the lessons of history and with statesmanship. He dealt with the present problem, and was full of hope as to the future. I hope he has not gone back on that.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George)The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George) indicated assent.
  Sir D. MACLEAN:I am glad of that assurance, because if we are going to link ourselves up to reaction in regard to Russia, whatever we do in Central Europe, our future outlook must be unsatisfactory. Perhaps I have drawn a rather gloomy picture of this part of the Treaty. There is one part which is not gloomy, but which is a bright and shining hope. That is the League of Nations. This document will be debated a thousand years hence as to the policies which inspired it and the difficulties which its negotiators had to overcome. But I feel quite confident that as they look back on it, and write of it, someone may say: "Never mind! In the beginning was the League of Nations." We, as Members of the House of Commons and as citizens of this country, desire to pay our full, warm, and hearty tribute to the work which the Noble Lord, the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) has done in connection with that great matter. Our future depends upon what our real attitude is as a nation and as an Empire—whether it shall be revenge or regeneration? That is the real question we have to decide morally and spiritually. If we decide it on lines of revenge, we shall swing back to the horrible past. On the other hand, if we turn our faces the other way, there is more than a chance of all the sacrifices having been worth while. I am not sure that the noblest words of this War were not spoken by a woman—Nurse Cavell. She knew what German infamy was, and for years—at any rate, for many months—shehad known the atrocities Germany had committed, and she herself fell a victim to their lust for cruelty and revenge. But what did she say at the end of all?
  "I realise that patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone."
  As far as I am concerned, I confess that that is a counsel of perfection, but, undoubtedly, it is the right ideal. If, in the main, we so work together at home and abroad in that spirit, some day or
  958
  other—it may be distant; I daresay it will be—we shall have lifted the whole life of humanity one step forward towards the achievement of the ideal that one day judgment between man and man shall run down like many waters and righteousness—international righteousness—as a mighty stream.
  Mr. CLYNES:I join with my right hon. Friend who has just sat down in his words of praise and acknowledgment justly offered concerning those whose labours are more or less completed by the Treaty which the House has to consider this afternoon. I am sure the House will not begrudge me the right of adding a word of praise to the very large number of unnamed and unknown men who have also done their share in the War—I refer to the general body of the working classes, of this country. I am sure the House will not at any time allow itself to forget the great contribution of our big industrial population because of any occasional lapse into wrong-doing or error that may stand to the account of a section of the workers. I, therefore, recall the fact that just as the workers are the greatest sufferers by war, they are perhaps the greatest contributors to the victory which this country now enjoys. Before there was a Conscription Act compelling them to serve, many millions of them had voluntarily joined the Colours. As we have heard very much in this House during the past few days about coal, may I recall the fact that our first experience of a coal shortage, two and a half or three years ago, was due to too many miners having walked out of the pit and into the trenches in defence of their country. If we set aside the inevitable fact that a number of the working classes did incidentally profit by service on munitions, it still remains that the great majority of the masses of our people, who in a material sense, in the sense of possessions, land, or property, had no country to fight for at all, went out and fought for their country as valiantly as any man.
  I am asked to present to the House a few considerations from the Labour party standpoint in regard to this Treaty. I want to approach it in the spirit of my right hon. Friend who has just sat down. We must not give a vote to this Treaty because of certain blemishes in it. We must balance the great gains now enjoyed—which I hope will be perpetuated for the benefit of mankind—as expressed in the Treaty, against the defects that we may

  959
  consider are within that Treaty. On balance, we must all feel the immense sense of relief that the world has secured by the victory of the Allied arms and, consequently, by the defeat of the military spirit, which itself was the cause of this War. I cannot leave out of account what I know to be the feelings of a very large body of working-class opinion in relation to this Treaty. I believe that spirit has been very eloquently expressed by a man who himself played no small part in the conduct of this War—I refer to General Smuts. Only a few days ago, in regard to this Treaty, he wrote:
  "I have signed the Peace Treaty not because I consider it a satisfactory document, but because it is imperatively necessary to close the War, because the world needs peace above all, and nothing could be more fatal than the continuance of the state of suspense between war and peace."
  We, therefore, wish to have pence concluded, in order to begin the new era which we trust this Treaty symbolises, and to come immediately to all those opportunities for that urgent work of reconstruction which this House has specially elected to take in hand. The Labour party has had an opportunity of considering this Treaty, and at the Southport Conference a Resolution was unanimously passed which expresses the views of the party in relation to this Treaty. It declares:
  "That the Conference is of opinion, now that Germany has decided to sign the Treaty of Peace, thereby opening up the opportunity of co-operation with the democracies of the world, that its speedy admission to the League of Nations, and the immediate revision by the League of Nations of the harsh provisions of the Treaty, which are inconsistent with the statements made on behalf of the Allied Governments when the Armistice was made, are essential both on grounds of honour and of expediency, and it therefore calls upon the Labour movement in conjunction with the International to undertake a rigorous campaign for the winning of popular support to this policy as a first step towards the reconciliation of peoples and the inauguration of a new era."
  The Labour party does not speak in these terms out of any feeling of friendliness for the German people or the German Government. It takes many countries and many different peoples to make a war, and we can put ourselves in a position at times of too great righteousness by considering that we alone are an influence for good, and that all others in every part of the world are influences for harm, and what we are afraid of in respect of this Treaty is that in the moment of our victory we
  960
  have committed some of the blunders of victors of previous wars whose battles were well conducted, but whose peace arrangements only laid the foundation for further struggles, and the question we ask ourselves is, "Will this Treaty make in any other part of the world any other Alsace Lorraine for the generations of the future?" We trust it will not, because we can turn to the League of Nations as the international machinery which in the years ahead of us will be able to deal with the blemishes of the Treaty, and acting, as we can see it will, under the influences and the pressure of a more potent democratic body of opinion than has ever previously existed, the defects; of this Treaty may in that way be diminished or entirely removed by the machinery of the League of Nations. We are conscious that the crime of the German Government was a colossal one. We are equally conscious that the penalties imposed upon certain sections of the German people may be too heavy for the particular offences for which they were responsible, and we look with some degree of concern and fear upon the fact that the Germans have been parcelled out and put under the authority and government of other Powers, and that the principle of self-determination has not been jealously applied and followed carefully in every one of these instances. If self-determination is so good a gospel as to cause us to preach it as we do, it should be recognised in the case of considerable portions of German territory and of the German people just as well as of the people in any other land. I have here a communication which to-day reached me from the offices of the Labour party from a body of German workmen, and I do not fear to read it to the House. It is from the Birnbaum Workers' Council. It states that the council represents an almost exclusively German town. It protests against the town and the neighbourhood being ceded to Poland. The town is five kilometres from the proposed frontier:
  "We claim the right of self-determination. According to vote there are ninety per cent. Germans who wish to remain united to Germany in her present need. We socialists and democrats ask you to help us to protect our new political and social gains."
  The PRIME MINISTER: What is the name of it?
  Mr. CLYNES: The Birnbaum Workers' Council. I have said the Labour party's attitude in relation to this Treaty is in no

  961
  way determined by any considerations of tenderness for the German people themselves. Their crime has been so enormous that the penalty naturally must be severe. But the truer statesmanship will be found in making this Treaty acceptable to all who are affected by it, and therby preventing the development or growth of that spirit of revolt or revolution which was naturally developed in the case of France, following the German victory in 1870. We can make the mistake of committing excesses now against standards of self-determination and just treatment to a vanquished foe. They must pay for many years to come a heavy and bitter price for the enormity of the offences of which they were guilty. We hardly need to strengthen their case by inflicting any kind of territorial or other injustice upon masses of people who, collectively or individually, have been in no sense the offenders. I have heard it said in connection with the League of Nations that we must look upon it with suspicion because it has been set up by the victors. It is just for that reason that I think the League of Nations will be all the stronger and all the more welcome to the musses of mankind. The countries of the Allies could have avoided this method of preventing differences between Governments or countries in the years ahead. I am glad this country has played such a leading part and such an effective part in the institution and development of this League of Nations. As an instrument for providing, through the medium of International Courts and international action, an opportunity for considering differences as they arise, it offers to mankind the greatest hope of avoiding future conflict which has ever been afforded to it. If I may single out by name any one man more than another to whom Labour is indebted for a great part played in the de-velopent and building up of this international structure, it is the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil). If he has at any time run the risk of forfeiting the good will of Labour, he may feel confident that the great work he has done in this regard entitles him to the respect, and, I hope, the confidence, of the working classes in connection with any public labours in which he might indulge in the future.
  But we want to consider how soon this League of Nations can get to work and carry out the great labour for which it was created. It must not be a League of come nations. It must not be a League of victorious nations. A band of conquerors
  962
  acting together in a league would not at all serve the purposes for which it was intended. I have read somewhere that the representatives of Germany who eventually were delegated to sign this Peace Treaty publicly declared that in doing so they meant to sign in the most real sense possible, and honourably to carry out their undertakings, and they referred to their desire to be admitted to the League of Nations. Probably the right hon. Gentleman is fully aware of all their statements on the matter, and we should like to ask when can we be informed as to the admission of the representatives of the German Government to this League? We believe they ought not to be kept out for any mere purposes of vindictive treatment, and that as soon as their Government is composed enough, and as soon as their representatives can act in a responsible manner, the gates of the League should be widely opened to them, and we therefore trust that every inducement, and every invitation, if necessary, will be held out to the representatives of these former enemy nations, in order that this League may be made the real and potent force for international peace that we desire it to be.
  I cannot leave the subject of the League of Nations without referring to that part of it which is exceptionally welcome to our industrial population. The industrial and economic structure within the League of Nations, as part of the League of Nations, affords Labour in this and other countries a means for making more uniform, and I hope more humane, the industrial and working-class conditions of this great mass of population in different countries. Whilst we could not consider my right hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes) to be an officially appointed Labour representative at the Peace Conference, we have the greatest admiration for the work he has performed. We know of no other man, if it came to a choice of men, who could bring to bear such capacity, such experience, and such sympathy and knowledge as he possesses for a work so delicate and so important as this. I am sure the working-classes of many lands in future generations will bless the name of our right hon. Friend for the great work which he has done.
  The provisions in this Treaty will be viewed with a great deal of suspicion by the masses of the industrial population unless very soon their minds can be made quite composed and clear upon two points.

  963
  One is Conscription, and the other is armaments. We have by this Treaty killed Conscription in Germany. We have insisted upon the German Army, such as it is, being raised upon a voluntary basis. We have limited it to a very small number. All these things are the penalties which a defeated foe must suffer. This country at length accepted Conscription as a dire necessity, as the last item in the balance that was to turn the scale in our favour. The House will remember that organised Labour reluctantly consented to a condition of Conscription as a matter of the greatest urgency in view of the military situation then existing, but it accepted Conscription with the clear understanding that it would be for the duration of the War only, and that it was not to be possible in any way so as to become a permanent part of our military system. The Prime Minister, on account of his business elsewhere, has not been so closely associated recently with opinion in this House or with working-class feeling in the country, but I can assure him that there is a profound suspicion and distrust of the Government arising from this one question alone. The workers joined for the duration of the War, and, though the Armistice was arranged last November and though Peace was well on its way in the early part of this year and everything pointed to the physical impossibility of Germany being able to resume anything like a fight, the workers did not find themselves liberated from the conditions of enforced military service. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Ireland?"] Ireland, I am sorry to say, has no part in this Treaty. Therefore, it is outside my theme. I hope during this Debate that the Prime Minister will be able to reassure the working-class men upon this very disturbing point.
  Finally, I want to touch on the second of these two important matters, namely, armaments. A great deal of distrust of the Government and misunderstanding as to a War like the one we have gone through is arising because of the fact that so much of our armements in this country were provided at an immense profit to those who manufactured them. I hope I have not fallen so low in my estimate of mankind as to believe that any class would trade in the making of armaments for the purpose of profit and having no other motive in their business than that of seeking wars in order that they may increase their profit. I have never shared that
  964
  view, but I say with regret that it is a view widely held. Accordingly, we of the Labour party have reached the conclusion that so far as armaments in a country are necessary for such purposes as future conditions may require—for even the League of Nations, I conclude, will require some strength and some form or manner of physical force behind it, so as to make its decrees effective—no matter to what degree armaments in the future are required, it is essential that they should be made alone under the responsibility and control and ownership of the Government, and not of any private firm. We have in relation to armaments as well as in relation to Conscription, ourselves expressed to Germany a doctrine which I hope the Prime Minister, if he is to speak in this Debate, will not entirely ignore, and I should like to draw his particular attention to it. In the 12th paragraph of the Allied Note in reply to Germany that was published some weeks ago, we speak to the Germans in this language:
  "The German reply also ignores the immense relief that will be caused to her people in the struggle for recovery by the enforced reduction of her military armaments in future. Hundreds of thousands of her inhabitants who have hitherto been engaged either in training for armies or in producing instruments of destruction will henceforward be available for peaceful avocations and for increasing the industrial productiveness of the nation. No result should be more satisfactory to the German people."
  If that is a doctrine which it is good to preach for the benefit of the German nation, it is a doctrine which cannot be bad to preach and practice for our own nation. It expresses the whole philosophy of how much a nation can benefit in material wealth resulting from the energy, the hand and the brain of her people by following what are termed peaceful avocations and the production of the ordinary needs of existence, instead of wasting their energies in the barrack yard, in the armament factory, or in any other way such as a condition of war has always compelled men to do. Therefore, I would like this gospel to be more commonly preached by our principal statesmen, and by public men in this country. It would do no harm if the Prime Minister, either on the floor of this House or on any platform in the land, would explain and emphasise this truth. Indeed, it would help as much as anything to turn the minds of the country to that great work of reconstruction of which so little has yet been done.
  I said at the beginning that we have had to balance considerations in relation to

  965
  this Treaty. Our view is that with all its defects, with all its blemishes, it is the work of men who, in the circumstances which surrounded it, must have acted with motives of the highest patriotism and with the highest and noblest considerations for human government. We have stated what may seem to some to be rather narrow points of criticism, but I can assure the House that that is not our view. We want not merely our class, but the whole human family to be saved by future provision from any awful and ghastly state of things such as we have recently gone through. We do not begrudge our word of praise to those who seldom are praised from working-class platforms. I refer to the well-to-do-men, the favoured, the rich, those who have land, power, authority and affluence, and who sot them all aside, turned their backs upon a life of ease in the early months of the War and went out and led our men and found soldiers' graves, just like the men in the ranks. These things but show how the great needs of the nation called forth equality of sacrifice and got equality of service. That ought to show all of us now that the War is over, that as the War lasted five years, and in that time all classes fought and struggled together for a common purpose, that if we can only last together for the coming five years, if all classes would think, in the main, in the terms of their country, and be moved, in the main, by those inspirations of real patriotism which caused our men, rich and poor alike, to offer the highest that man can offer—their life for their native land; if only for five years we can allay differences and unite for the purpose of repairing all the ravages of war, we can then, perhaps, begin in a much more enriched condition, certainly in a much more secure position, to engage in those narrower class struggles and, perhaps, selfish demands which both poor people and rich people at the present moment are, in my judgment, pressing too far. We ought not to entirely lose the lessons of this War, and that sacrifice of the men who can only be honoured by silence or by the spoken word should be a signal sufficient for us to begin now to march on and on towards the light, to avoid the calamities which have befallen other countries, and to unite as well as we are able for the welfare of our native land, and to make it a place far, far better, especially for the masses of the people, than it ever has been up to the present
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. G. BARNES(Minister without part-folio): My task is an unenviable one, following the speech we have just heard from my right hon, friend. I think the House and the country, especially Labour, can be congratulated upon the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was sent to this House. If Labour platforms resounded to such speeches more often I venture to think that the position of our country would be different and better than it is to-day. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) pay a well-merited tribute to the Prime Minister. It would ill-become me to add a word in regard to the tributes paid to the Leader of the House and others in high places; but it would not be out of place if I referred to the Prime Minister, because it was my good fortune to be in Paris for five months and to take a small part in drawing up the great Peace document, and I know how that great document is largely the work of our Prime Minister. No man worked harder and no man worked more effectively than he did, and it is not too much to say that the document we are discussing to-day, or the document to which effect is to be given by this Bill, is largely the work of the Prime Minister. I was also glad to hear the tribute that was paid to the unnamed men and women of the working-class ranks of this country by my right hon. Friend who has just spoken. As he spoke, my mind went back to the autumn of 1914 when men from all parts of the country, young, and with all life's prospects open to them, left that life, with all its prospects, and went to the War. Some of them had never thought of war. War was far from their minds, and they were content to go on working for an honest living and adding to the wealth of the community. These men left the workshop and the factory and went to the War, and they have maintained with credit the great traditions of our Regular Army. It might be thought that those men who were un-organised for war, and had no mind for war, might be found lacking in the qualities which were necessary to carry it on. On the contrary, those men went forward into the Army and did everything which was humanly possible to win the War. I was also glad to hear the reference made to the pylon in Whitehall, the monument to the other unnamed men who made the supreme sacrifice in the War. The right hon. Gentleman applied a classic reference to it, but I think better than any classic refer-

  967
  ence was a statement which I saw in one of the newspapers, which was said to have been made by a woman who went to Whitehall and stood against the monument because she said she wanted to see Haig and Beatty salute her Jim. Judging from the speeches which we have heard from the light hon. Gentleman opposite, our little Bill is going to have an easy passage.
  Mr. HOGGE: No.
  Mr. BARNES: My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh may have something to say about it, but so far as the discussion has gone up to the present there is very little to reply to, and as I have been put up to reply to what has been said, as well as to refer to my own particular corner, I find but little to go on with. There was something said about the reparation Clauses which I think was uninformed. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) referred to what was claimed from Germany. I quite agree with much of what he said about the reparation Clauses, but I am not aware of any provision in the Peace Treaty that requires Germany to pay £20,000,000,000, and moreover, whatever the terms of the reparation Clauses may be, and whatever may be the requirements from Germany, I venture to say two things. The terms are quite within the limits of justice, having regard to what the Government of Germany have done, and, further, modifications may be made in practice as Germany shows good will and gives guarantees for the due fulfilment of the terms of the Peace Treaty.
  An HON. MEMBER: And shows a change of heart!
  Mr. BARNES: I am glad to say that there is some little indication of change of heart. I have read speeches which were made a week or two ago, one by President Ebert, and one by Dr. Muller, and then we had a proposal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the gentleman who is acting in that capacity in Germany. He has made proposals for a very stiff tax on capital, and, judging by these speeches, I should say that there are at all events large numbers of people in Germany who are disposed to shoulder the burden. I hope that, if they go on showing that spirit, we shall resolve to meet them half-way, and admit them into the happy family of nations as soon as possible, and I might say, having regard to our own particular,
  968
  corner of the Treaty, the Labour part of it that the Labour organisation has now got authority from the Big Four to admit Germany into the organisation of Labour, even before she may be admitted into the League of Nations.
  But I should like now to offer a few observations on the Labour aspect of this Debate. My mission in Paris was to get some provision made for the special protection and advancement, of Labour interests. After what has been said by my right hon. Friend who has just spoken. I am very glad that what I have done has met with his approval, and I hope and believe with the approval of the great mass of labour throughout the length and breadth of the country. At the same time I should have preferred—I say it quite honestly and frankly—if organised Labour, as part of the Government, had been represented in Paris, and if Labour had decided that way nobody would have been more keen than I to support any nominee they would have chosen. They decided otherwise, and it fell to my lot to fill up the gap. I have filled it to the best of my ability: at all events, I can say this, that I went to Paris with my mind fully-made up as to what was wanted. In an interview with the representative of the "Daily Chronicle" several months ago I said
  "I advocate some kind of international machinery which would set up and maintain decent standards of life. I do not say that they would be identical for all countries because conditions differ. What I do say is that every worker in every country should be guaranteed fair conditions of pay and fair conditions of work."
  I further said at the same time that I agreed with Mr. Samuel Gompers, who had put forward the general principle that Labour should not be regarded as a mere commodity, but should be treated on fair and square terms. What Mr. Gompers and I had been flunking had during this War become the current thought of the world. We found that our own Civil servants here in the Home Office and the Ministry of Labour had not only been thinking the same as we had been, but also had been applying their minds to the question how best to give practical effect to these teachings. We also found that the trade union leaders had been thinking along the same groove, and we had their views, which were freely given to us when we asked for them. Representatives from other countries were also brought in, be-

  969
  cause, as it will be remembered, the Peace Conference remitted this matter of labour organisation at its first sitting to a Commission, and the result is the chapter of Labour which now appears as part of the Peace Treaty.
  That chapter, as hon. Members will know, opens up a new era as regards the international regulation of labour conditions. It is true that there have been in times gone by conferences sometimes of representatives of a few Stales, sometimes of workmen's organisations or organisations representing other interests, which have put forward schemes of a far-reaching character or made demands of a sectional character. But the difficulty has been that there has been no machinery to give effect to what has been decided on. That has been the weakness in times gone by, and therefore little practical result has been achieved. This is the first time, so far as I know, that any attempt has been made to embody in a Treaty of this kind practical conditions that apply to all people. Treaties in the past have been limited to countries and classes. This time we are endeavouring to include all countries and classes in a common effort for the common good. There are two causes which seem to me to be contributory to this. First, there are the new ideas and impulses which are surging through the minds of people of all countries, and, secondly, there are the practical difficulties inseparable from the task of one country trying to raise itself above other countries in the general scale of wages and labour conditions. I will just say a word or two on each of those points before proceeding to say anything in explanation of the Labour chapter in the Peace Treaty.
  In regard to the first, I want to make an appeal as earnestly as I can for the co-operation and good will for all men and women in our country. I know something of the early struggles of the working classes and how those struggles have affected their mentality. I know of their long hours of work sometimes and their lack of work at others. I know of the privations of workers in times gone by, and how it has made the iron enter into their very soul, and I am afraid has diminished production and diminished comforts. We have all been going round a vicious circle which has brought ill results to everybody, but the present is not the time for harbouring those memories.
  970
  It is the time for meeting one another more than half-way. After all, hard conditions of life are not due to any conscious cruelty on the part of any class or any individual. They are rather due to fundamental causes which can be removed only by the co-operation of classes. To say that if one class is poor, therefore there ought to be a class war between that class and other classes is a notion that I never did believe in, but I say, as a result of recent experience, that to put that notion forward now is little better than criminal lunacy on the part of anyone who does so.
  Class war has engulfed all classes in Russia in universal ruin and starvation. Class war, to the extent to which it may be applied anywhere—and when I say anywhere I include both Yorkshire and South Wales—is bound to have exactly the same results, and scarcely less insane is the fanatical advocacy of straight-laced economic theories as the only remedy for our ills. It is a mistake to believe that out of any atmosphere of ill-will and friction and strife an economic system could be set up which could bring good to anybody, and what we have got to do just now, above all times, is to pull together as a team, so as to make good the ravages of war. If we go forward in this spirit I am convinced that there are no wrongs in this country which cannot be righted, but if the spirit of aggression gets hold of people, if foolish advice be followed, then we shall only have got rid of war abroad to get in its place civil strife at home. What it seems to me is needed is the application of that larger social sense, which, I am glad to find, is growing up among us, to the peculiar needs of our life. That is just what is aimed at in our Labour chapter.
  That brings me to my second point, namely, the difficulty of one country rising in the scale of wages and general labour conditions above another. How often have I heard the plea from employers about foreign competition! It may not be a good plea. I do not express any opinion on it, although I am inclined to think that good wages and high conditions of labour pay the employer as well as the employed, and that they pay the community as well. Still, we have heard in days gone by and still hear a great deal about this foreign competition. Employers in this country have told us that they cannot afford to pay high wages because high wages are

  971
  not paid in Germany, or France, or somewhere else. Employers in Germany and France have said that they cannot afford to pay high wages because of the better industrial organisation of this country. America has said she cannot afford to pay higher wages because of the low conditions of Europe; and then they all say they cannot afford to pay higher wages because of Eastern competition. Whether those pleas are valid or not, the way to take the" sting out of this plea of foreign competition is to get concurrent advances in all countries. That is what we have tried to do by this Labour chapter. It does not provide for the enforcement of the condition. I notice the hon. Member for East Edinburgh takes up that point. Let me frankly confess that I went into this matter in the same frame of mind as he appears to be in now. I thought we might set up a sort of super-Parliament, which would issue decrees and somehow or other compel all countries to fall into line. The time may come for that, but it will not be in my day or generation; and happy is the man who can do a little towards mobilising the forces of humane public opinion throughout the world, and making that public opinion effective by persuasion, by publicity, and by education.
  Having now, I hope, conveyed a right impression of the principles upon which this Labour chapter is founded, let me say a little in explanation of its machinery. It will consist of a conference of delegates, an executive body which we will call a governing body, and a permanent Labour office. It is part and parcel of the League of Nations. It includes all the members of the League of Nations, and also Germany at any time that the Conference decides that Germany should be brought in, before she is admitted to the League of Nations. It will be financed by the League of Nations and will have its headquarters at the capital of the League of Nations, and its conferences and Labour offices there, although special conferences or meetings may be held elsewhere if there is some special reason why that should be done. The Conference of Delegates will be, of course, the supreme authority, and the conferences will be held once a year. There are to be four delegates to the Conference from each country, two representing the Government and two representing the employers on the one side and the employed on the
  972
  other. Each of the delegates will be entitled to take advisers—it maybe one or two advisers on each topic appearing on the agenda. Moreover. we have decided to introduce a rather novel form of voting. Each delegate will be entitled to vote "on his own," although it is most probable that the two Government delegates may vote together, because we hope that before these Government delegates go to the Conferences they will have been given some sort of instruction or mandate. That is part of our scheme. We do not want the Conferences to be a sort of sounding-board for re-echoing pious aspirations; we want them to yield practical results. All the other delegates can vote independently of one another, that being for the double purpose of promoting a spirit of internationality and also of enabling Labour in this or any other country to make common cause with Labour in all countries.
  Objections have been raised, I know, that Governments are over-represented as compared with Labour and with employers. I want to say again that that is part of our scheme. It has been said that, if the Governments are there, there will be a sort of sprag on the wheel. That is based on an entirely wrong conception of the organisation. We do not want this organisation to be simply an addition to the many propaganda international organisations set up in days gone by. We have endeavoured to set up an organisation for practical results. We aim at this—that the State shall be represented in such proportion that it will feel itself morally bound to give effect to the decisions reached. We hope that quite responsible persons will be sent to represent States, possibly—even probably—that Cabinet Ministers and people of that sort will be sent. Just think of what would be the case supposing we gave the Governments the same representation as Labour and employers. The consequence would be that probably Governments would not feel themselves under any moral obligation to give effect to the results of the conferences. In that event our machinery as a whole would gradually, and perhaps rapidly, fall into disuse. Conferences for propaganda purposes are necessary. We want the conferences to get industrial questions brought down from the clouds and into the arena of practical affairs.
  There has been another objection, raised by the womenfolk. I have been waited upon in Paris, and in London since I

  973
  came home, by bodies of women, or representatives of organised women, both industrial and political, and they have made the claim that women should be specially represented at the conferences. No one would be more glad than we should be if women were to find a place at the annual conferences. We have stipulated that women shall not only be eligible as delegates to the Conferences, but we have made it a condition that women shall be employed in the International Labour Office, and shall be eligible, just as is a man, for any office that has to be filled. But it is quite another thing to say that women shall be sent to the Conference by the Government. After all, it is a question of getting the most suitable persons—that is to say, the person who has had most experience and is most directly representative of Government. Women must recognise that that cannot be said of them today. There is one provision we have made. Each delegate is entitled to take along with him advisers upon the topics on the agenda. For the special Conference to be held this year there are upon the agenda questions directly affecting women—the question of the maternity benefit, provision for exempting women from industrial employment for some weeks before or after childbirth, questions about exempting women from night work. It would be the most proper thing for a delegate, if ho happened to be a man, when these questions came forward, to change places with his advisers on those particular topics, and therefore, although no special provision is made for the inclusion of women as delegates, yet at the same time it is the proper and the right thing that the delegate, whoever he may be, should exchange places with his women advisers when these questions come on.

  The Conference will draw up what we call Conventions. Each country will be free to accept or reject those Conventions with certain exceptions. Of course it will have to put the Convention before its competent authority, which in our case will be the House of Commons. The exception is the Federal Governments. We were up against this difficulty, that there are some Governments which have no right to make bargains of this kind on behalf of their constituent States. The United States of America provided a case in point. They have no power to enter into bargains in regard to labour conditions m their constituent States. They have no
  974
  power even to say that those constituent States shall put a Convention of this kind before their competent authority. Therefore we had to decide that in regard to those Federal Governments Conventions should be simply passed on by the Federal Governments to their constituent States, leaving those constituent States to adopt them or not as they think proper. We have made one provision which is something in the nature of coercion, and that is this; I have already said that States will be under a moral obligation to submit to their competent authorities whatever is decided on at the Conferences. But we have gone a step further than that, and we have said that if that State does not submit the Convention or recommendation, as the case may be, to its competent authority, then the League of Nations can be brought in to the aid of Labour; further, that if the State, having submitted a Convention or recommendation to its competent authority, and having got it endorsed by that competent authority, does not give effect to it, then, again, the League of Nations can be invoked by Labour to see that effect is given to it.
  I said a little while ago that we had not attempted to set up a super-Parliament, but at the same time there are ways and means by which a country, if it elects to paddle its own canoe irrespective of anyone, can be left to its own devices. Therefore we have made a provision that the League of Nations can, first of all, on complaint being made either that the country has not submitted the Convention or recommendation to its competent authority, or having submitted that Convention or recommendation to its competent authority, and having got it endorsed, has not given effect to it, set up a Court of Inquiry selected from a body we have provided for. That Court of Inquiry makes investigations into the complaint, which may be made either by employers or by workmen's associations or by the State, or it can be set in motion by the Governing Body itself, and if, after inquiry, the State in question is still stubborn and will not do as suggested to it by the League of Nations, then the League of Nations can advise the members to apply such economic pressure as the League thinks proper in the circumstances. That is the machinery so far as giving effect to conventions or recommendations is concerned. The time may come when further coercion

  975
  may be necessary; I do not know. But, at all events, we must make a start under the conditions in which we find ourselves living, and, looking at the matter as common-sense men, and remembering that politics is the science of the possible, we must have regard to the fact that States jealously guard their own rights, and we cannot, at this stage of the world's history, cut into those rights. We have done the next best thing. Let me say a word about the Governing Body. The Governing Body will be a permanent body for giving effect to the decrees of the Conference and also for arranging the agenda of Conferences. The Governing Body will consist of twenty-four members made up in the same proportion as the Conference—that is to say, half of the representatives being State representatives and the other half representatives of employers and of workmen. Eight representatives of States will be from the States of the greatest industrial importance, and four will be representative of smaller States chosen by the delegates of those States at the Conference, and this body will have under it an International Labour Office, which in the future will, I hope, be the eyes and ears of sympathetic Governments and sympathetic peoples to investigate labour conditions all over the world, and to throw light into dark places, wherever such may be found to exist, and to ascertain where there is sweated labour and where there is oppressed labour, and, wherever such be found, to bring all the resources of mobilised public opinion to bear in order that that labour may be relieved and helped. It will be under the direction of men selected for the purpose by the Conference. We have at present a body sitting to make arrangements for the first Conference, which will be held this year at Washington, and the arrangements are fairly well advanced for the holding of that Conference. There is now a committee of seven, six being representative of the States which were represented in Paris, the seventh being a Swiss representative to bring in the neutral nations, and that committee has done a great deal already in collecting information for submission to the Conference at Washington. The agenda for that Conference is already made up, but the agenda for all future Conferences will be made by the Governing Body when set up, and will be made up from items sent in by the affiliated States themselves. In order that we should get the fullest practical concurrence
  976
  in whatever may be agreed to at the Conference we have decided that any one of the affiliated States will have the right to object to any item which it finds on the agenda, the agenda having been submitted first in draft to all the affiliated countries at the Conference. The Conference, after objection being taken, may decide by a two-thirds majority to discuss that particular item at the next meeting of the Conference when it is held.
  Such is the scheme which will, of course, be ratified as part of the Peace Treaty. I believe it starts with the good will of all well-wishers of Labour as well as with the assent of the Peace Conference. I know that it was drawn up in collaboration with men and women of experience, first of all in this country and then in Paris. It was designed to deal with practical questions. It will, I firmly believe, help to mobilise the moral forces of the world, and to straighten out existing tangles in the interests of labour as well as in the interests of permanent peace. I hope and trust that it will be taken full advantage of by Labour in this and other countries. It does not enter into competition with any existing organisation. International conferences have been held from time to time, convened by sometimes sympathetic Governments and sometimes by voluntary organisations. In so far as international organisations may call such conferences in the future we have nothing to say of thorn but words of good will and good luck; in so far as they can contribute to a sane and humane view being taken of life, and in so far as they may formulate schemes for the advancement of labour, we have nothing to say against them. But we do say this, that, after all, little has resulted from conferences of that sort and kind. They have met and they have passed resolutions, and they have recorded their pious aspirations, and, as a rule, but little has followed. We hope that now, when for the first time the forces of Governments are being brought in to aid an organisation of this kind, and when for the first time Governments have put a chapter of Labour into an international Treaty and made labour conditions a matter of international agreement, that the opportunity will be seized by both hands by Labour of this and other countries. I believe, if Labour does that, that this organisation will be found to be one that will lift labour from the low position it has occupied, and give it a better chance and a better place in the world than it has had in the past.
  Mr. SEDDON: We have listened, I am sure, with very great interest not only to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who have just spoken but also to the two speeches which preceded it. I consider it will not be out of place if I join with the other speakers in paying my meed of tribute to those who were responsible for the Treaty we are discussing. I think it can be said with full truth, whatever may be the points in it upon which we may differ, that the good intentions and largeness of view expressed in those documents are testimony to the statesmanship and wisdom and heart of those who have been responsible. As to my right hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), I am quite sure, whatever may have been the jibes from certain sections of the community in this country, he may take it as an assurance that that organised and that sane element which is the backbone of the trade union movement were not only delighted that he was there to represent them, with his experience and his services to Labour, but delighted also with the fruition of the work in which he has taken such a valiant and noble part. With regard to the first two speakers, as I listened I was wondering whether it was a matter of playing for place or whether it was merely trying to put a position which would have to be further elucidated as the Debate proceeded. With reference to the Leader of the official Liberal Opposition, he certainly gave his blessing, but I find, on looking at the Order Paper, that he docs not speak even for the small group under ids leadership at present, and I will look with interest to the proposed opposition to his view which will come from the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) and the hon. Member for Hull (Lieutenant-Commander Kenworthy). With reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for the Miles Platting Division (Mr. Clynes), I would say that I echo and endorse to the full the sentiments he expressed at the close of his very able and eloquent speech. Those sentiments, in my opinion, are the child of this great struggle we have gone through. Hitherto it has been taken for granted that each class of the community were justified in glaring at each other. In August, 1914, had there been no war, I am profoundly convinced there would have been a great clash between capital and labour which would have been disastrous to the commerce of this country.
  978
  Whatever the War may have done in destroying our material wealth and taking the best blood of our race and flower of our manhood, it has certainly had this one effect, that a large number of those who hitherto belonged to one class of the community and looked glaring at the others, recognise in common suffering and sorrow that there is something to be said for the other side as well as the side they stand upon. Therefore, it is to me a source of infinite pleasure that my right hon. Friend has had the courage to express in this House those sentiments which are to a very large or to some extent being repudiated, while opposite sentiments are being expressed by his own Friends of the party with which he is associated, and so brilliantly associated, at the present time. I hope that, as he has moved this House with those sentiments and lofty ideals, he will use his great personal power with the Labour platforms which to-day seem for the moment to be dominated by a certain section who prefer revolution to reconstruction, and that he will use not only his weight and influence, but will insist that the sane voice of Labour shall not be drowned by the clamour of such revolutionists, who, if revolution were to come, would be the first to scuttle away and leave the people to face the guns and barricades. After all, Labour dose occupy a fundamental and important place in the nation find in (he industrial comity of this country. We see obvous signs of unrest which I think may be described as due to some extent to the tension through which we have passed. Most people have got grievances, real or imaginary. The workers for five years past have given of their strength, and they feel some little irritation, but I think it is only a passing phase. On Saturday those who were responsible for that magnificent pageant were wise in their day and generation when they not only gave the opportunity of seeing those gallant men and women who marched through our streets, but also in giving an opportunity whereby the toiling millions of London might have some social intercourse and pleasure in our great parks. I hope the Government will take a lesson from Saturday, and I may say in passing that I hope they will have something on the subject to say to the First Commissioner of Works. Evidently he had his eye upon £ s. d. rather than the convenience or the pleasure of the community, because I find that when visiting Hyde Park the people of

  979
  London were asked to pay 6d. for a penny seat, and if he had been there—I did see him walking along the road, but evidently he was not known to many people—
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has this any connection with the subject under discussion?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I do not see that it is out of order.
  Mr. SEDDON: I am glad to know we have one person here who knows the Rules of Order, if there is onèwho does not, and also the rules of courtesy as well. I was pointing out that in the Peace celebrations, from one end of this great City to the other, the people came out in their hundreds of thousands to pay tribute to our mighty Army, and their joy was increased by the common association and amusement which was provided for them; but so far as the First Commissioner of Works was concerned, I condemn him root and branch for allowing 500 per cent. profit to be made out of the chairs, a profit which was coming out of the pockets of many of the poor people, who could ill afford 6d., although they were prepared to spend it in showing their joy and their pleasure at the great victory which we have achieved. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Opposition, referring to the Kaiser, said that he did not want him tried in this country. I do not know that he could have a better country to be tried in. For centuries this country has been a by-word for fair-play, and I am quite sure that he would get as much justice in London as in any other country. But why should we ask other people to have a disagreeable job put on them? Why should we say to neutrals, "We are afraid of consequences, but you can take them, and if there is any odium in trying the Kaiser it will be on the country in which he is tried, and that will not be England?" For myself, and I think I speak for the great mass of the people of this country, they ask that the Kaiser shall be tried, and they do not care a hang whether it is in London or elsewhere. All they are anxious to know is that the penalty shall fit the crime, and if that happens, the next consideration is where shall his remains go to, because they will not want him here. [An HON. MEMBER:" Put them on the pictures!"] It will be a gruesome picture, and—
  Mr. J. JONES: Who will get a commission on the deal?
  Mr. SEDDON: The hon. Member probably knows something about commissions; I do not. With reference to the-right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Labour party, I take exception to one remark he made. He pointed out, rightly, how the workers of this country flocked in their millions to fight the battles of their country, but he said people without a country, and I take the strongest exception to that.
  Mr. CLYNES: My hon. Friend is not accurately representing what I said. I said they were without a country in the sense that they had not land or property, or any of those material possessions of other people.
  Mr. SEDDON: I accept the correction, but it only adds to my argument. A country does not merely rest upon possession of either land or money. The sacred spot in this country is that which contains the remains of one nearest and dearest to me, and what applies to me applies to thousands and tens of thousands of others. They went out to fight because this country was the grave of their sires, because this country was the expression of liberty and freedom won by their sires, and I say there was no concern either of material land or possession; they went at the call of the spirit within them and the love of the country that had given them birth.
  Mr. CLYNES: I meant all that.
  Mr. SEDDON: I am very glad that my right hon. Friend and myself agree, but I think it did want a little bit elaborating, because the impression he left on my mind, and the impression that I am sure will be taken by some of his colleagues on the platform, will be that because a man has not got so many roods of land he was a fool to fight for the country to which he belonged. I want briefly to deal with the proposals outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals. I hope I am still an optimist, but I still recognise that we are living in a world of realities, and although he has seen signs of a change of heart on the part of Germany, I am sorry to say that I have not, and I happen to be one of those who believe there can be no association until the German people have shown outward and visible signs of inward repentance. So far as the League of Nations is concerned, I think it will be a

  981
  long day before the mass of this people and the mass of other countries who have suffered the same as we have are prepared to take them at face value. The right hon. Gentleman said the League of Nations was going to be a kind of cure-all, and that if federal States, never mind countries, disagree upon the findings of this Labour Convention that is going to meet, I suppose, in various countries year by year—it will not always sit in Washington; I assume it will take country by country in order.
  Mr. BARNES: They will sit at the League of Nations capital unless it is otherwise specially arranged.
  Mr. SEDDON: Not knowing where that is, I assume it to be wandering about, but it will sit for the first meeting in America. There are forty-eight States in the United Stales of America, and the Federal Government has no power to impose upon them the conditions contained in these Labour Clauses. Supposing that forty-six States agree and two disagree, and the two happen to be in the South, what will be the action or the attitude of the League of Nations? It is said that economic pressure will be brought to bear upon them. Suppose forty-six States in America refused to accept the findings of the League of Nations, and economic pressure was brought to bear upon them, and it happened to be the South instead of the North, what injury would you do to those States? You would simply give them a better opportunity for improving trade, because, as a matter of fact, the great fight of the trade union movement in America is to lift the wages in the South to the same rates as they are in the North. But I leave that point. No one wants the consummation of the League of Nations more than I do, but I want it to be put into its right place. My right hon. Friend, speaking of it, said it was the greatest conception that humanity had ever had. I want to know what Christianity has done in this. For 2,000 years we have had if preached, and if you take all the points of the League of Nations you will find that the ideals and ethics of that system stand even higher than the Fourteen Points or the Treaty which they are based upon. Why did that break down? Because the early disciples made the same mistake as a good many people are making about the League of Nations. President Wilson had fourteen points, but
  982
  he should have remembered the fifteenth, and that is human nature, and I have not yet seen that human nature is going to be changed by the adoption of the principles of the League of Nations. I am prepared to give it all the blessings I can—[MR. BARNES: "Hear, hear!"]—but I take the facts as they are presented to my mind. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals says, "Hear, hear !" but does he know that human nature is not yet changed in Yorkshire, that human nature is not yet changed in Glasgow, that human nature is not yet changed in any part of the world? And if he is so noble-minded and altruistic as to think that all the rest of the world is different from this country, then I am afraid the has not learned many lessons in his short career upon this earth. After all, it is human nature you are dealing with.
  I have referred to the United States, and now I will come to the East. No one will deny that Japan has been ranking rapid strides as an international competitor. No one will claim that the standards in Japan are anything to be compared with the standards in this country. I saw, the other day, in one trade, the difference of wages paid in Japan from the wages paid in America, and I have the parallel figures for our own country. The Japanese workmen have to work twelve hours for the same wage as the American workmen, at the same industry, get in one hour. In this country it was something like seven and a half to eight hours for one hour's pay. I want to back up as strongly as I possibly can, not only the right hon. Gentleman's hopes and ideals, but the proposals that are laid down for bringing the different nations together and levelling up the general standard of the people of this and every other country. No one will begrudge the great tribute paid to the Prime Minister on Saturday as he passed through the streets of London. That was a full-throated, a deep-chested, and a warm-hearted appreciation of the people of this great City. No one for a moment, in this House or in any other part of the country, will deny the great part he has played. No one will deny that the Treaty that we are discussing is a great monument of patience and sagacity. But, while we are making these observations, let us never forget that there are all the elements in this country and every other country of a backward movement instead of a forward

  983
  movement unless we bear in mind the realities of the situation. I am sure the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) deserved also all credit for what he has done in this matter. But while I accept not only fully but appreciatively all they have tried to do I am reminded of a great name that made history in this country, who was certainly a valiant champion of our liberties, and who in deciding the fate and destiny of this country, while he had great faith, gave utterance to that memorable sentence that probably will live as long a the language. He said, "Trust in God and keep your powder dry"; and even though we must support this Treaty of Peace, although we may be supporters of the League of Nations, let us never forget that we are the trustees not only of a great estate, but the trustees of the mighty dead, and in our desire for peace do not let us make their sacrifice vain. Let us remember that they died for a cause, and if that cause even means that we shall modify the League of Nations in the interests of justice and righteousness, then we should be prepared to modify it. We in this House are entrusted with the responsibility, and I hope those who speak for the Government and those who have been responsible for the Treaty will at least assure us that, whatever conclusions they have come to, they are not unmindful that behind the good will that may have been expressed in Paris during the Peace Conference there is still throughout the world amongst all the belligerents a desire to keep each in front of the other, and as long as that spirit lasts it will pay us well to be cautious before we take the momentous steps that we may have to take arising out of this Treaty.
  6.0 p.m
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Gentleman who has just concluded his speech made an eloquent appeal at the end to the patriotism of this House and of the country. I feel quite confident that the experience of the last four years is entirely reassuring that, whatever other dangers may threaten us, dangers arising from want of patriotism are not amongst them. The right hon. Gentleman who began this Debate, and several others, spoke in appreciative terms of the labours performed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Paris. I venture very respectfully to associate myself with everything
  984
  that has been said in that respect, and I venture to add this, that I do not think anyone who was not himself in Paris, and who did not see the terrific strain under which the work there was done, can hope to appreciate to its full value the labours and the service for his country which the Prime Minister has performed. As to the Treaty which has resulted, I think the first thing that must strike anyone who has attended this Debate must be that there is no doubt at all in the mind of any of us as to the broad lines of this Treaty. We all know that on the territorial side, an independent Poland, the retrocession of Alsace-Lorraine, the retrocession of the German parts of Schleswig and the taking from Germany of her colonies—all those things are matters on which none of us has any doubt. We are all prepared to say with the utmost confidence that the broad lines of the Treaty are right.
  But I do think there are two quite different ways in which the consideration of this Treaty may be approached. You may look at it as a Treaty of the old kind—that is to say, an attempt finally to settle the future of the European countries, to lay down for all times certain provisions, certain territorial arrangements, and then you may say that, added to them, has been the conception of the League of Nations as a kind of safeguard for the rest of the provisions of the Treaty. If that is the way the Treaty is to be regarded, I must say—and I should not be dealing honestly with the House if I did not say—there are several provisions in it about which I have some misgivings. I trust my light hon. and hon. Friends on the front Bench will believe me when I say I am not making any charge against them. I know the conditions under which this Treaty had to be negotiated, and nothing I can say is intended as any criticism of their actions. But, take the territorial settlement—I am not going into it at length—I admit there is a great deal to be said for what the Leader of the Opposition calls the "Polish Corridor," and perhaps something to be said against it. But I must say I regard the division of East and West Prussia as possibly right—I will not say it is not—but as a kind of arrangement which is likely to lead to trouble in the future. Take another provision—the occupation of the bridgeheads over the Rhine and of the Saar Valley for fifteen years. There, again, I am not for a moment questioning the justice of the arrangements. But to put

  985
  German territory under an International Government of a temporary character is a novel experiment, and one which, I am afraid, may lead to trouble in the future. I recognise that every precaution which skill and ingenuity could invent to make that arrangement work has been taken. At the same time, I do recall also that prolonged occupation of territory after a war has generally not been among the most successful expedients which have been adopted by belligerents.
  A word about the question of reparation. There, again, there is no dispute as to what was wanted. We are all agreed that Germany ought to be made to pay the uttermost farthing of which she is capable of paying. There is no question about that. At the same time, I must say that I have my doubts as to the wisdom of an indeterminate amount. It means hanging over Germany, and, to some extent, over Europe, an economic cloud. No one will quite know where they are. No one when they come to enter into financial transactions, which must take place during the next fifteen years, will quite know what are the liabilities and the powers of the different countries which make up Europe. And, in order to do this, it has been necessary to set up this Reparation Commission, which is to have very extensive power, so far as I understand it—I think the words are a little obscure—of passing legislation in Germany, to sit in secret and to issue its orders as to what has to be done. Though I have no kind of complaint as to the justice of these provisions, I admit I have some doubt as to whether they will prove workable in practice. There is one thing I should like, if it is possible, my right hon. Friend to give us some reassurance about, and that is the provision for the retrocession of 140,000 milch cows. I am not for a moment saying that, as a matter of reparation, that is not amply justified. The Germans took a much larger number of cattle—I do not know, but I can quite believe they did—and there is no question merely from that point of view, and no injustice whatever, but I do wish to submit to my right hon. Friend for his consideration—and possibly he may be able to make some reassuring statment upon it—that there is no doubt whatever that in large parts of Central Europe, including some parts of Germany, the children, the babies, are actually dying from want of food and want of milk. I do not believe that can be questioned. It does appear to me, at
  986
  first sight, unless there is some explanation of which I am not aware that the-right thing to have done under those circumstances was to do the best for the whole of that district with whatever resources you have, and, if that interfered with perfectly just reparation, then make other provision for reparation in some other way. However, these are small matters. As to the trial of the Kaiser, I have always held—and I have frequently said in this House—there is no doubt whatever that the Kaiser ought to be punished. I said so in 1915, I have repeated the observation more than once, and T hold it as strongly as ever I did. Whether the actual machinery devised is the best possible is another question. The Kaiser has been tried by the public opinion of the world and has been condemned. I am not quite certain that you will add to the certainty of the condemnation by bringing him again for trial.
  Those are the relatively small criticisms which I should pass upon the Treaty if I were to regard this Treaty as a treaty of the old kind, but, for my part, I do not think that is the way to regard it in the least. I regard this Treaty, as was said, I think, by General Smuts, as a liquidation of the War situation. The great thing, the essential thing our representatives in Paris had to do was to get peace, to get a cessation of hostilities and to set Europe and the world to work again. That was their great task. This Treaty has done that, and it has fufilled its main purpose, whatever one may think of the kind of relatively detailed matters on which I have ventured to trouble the House, and if it turns out, as I think it may turn out, that this or that provision is hot altogether the best that could have been made, then we must trust to the League of Nations for the final pacification. I do not hesitate to say that I do regard the attempt to establish the League of Nations as the most important international experiment that has been made in our time. And I say that it can only succeed, in spite of my hon. Friend (Mr. Seddon)—if he will allow me to say so—if we make an effort to establish a new conception of international relations. I quite agree with him that if you loot at the nations of the world and their past histories, the attempt may appear a little difficult to accomplish. I know quite well there are many who maintain what I venture to call the jungle theory of inter-

  987
  national relations—that every nation is marching about through an impenetrable jungle, seeking how it may devour every other nation. A very ingenious and convinced supporter of that views goes so far as to say that, in his judgment, war is only intensified peace, by which, so far as I can make out, he means that all nations always, even at times of most profound peace, are really in a condition of potential war, and that war is only making actual what was always potential.
  I say quite frankly, if that view is to be the accepted view of international relations, I see no hope for the world. It really is not a question of whether we think that desirable or undesirable. There is absolutely no chance, so far as I can see, for the existence of European civilisation unless we really do something to put an end to that conception of international relations. Is it rational? Cannot we have some better system? I cannot help feeling that, looked at rationally, and apart from prejudice, all nations are part of a larger whole. I very much welcomed the citation of my right hon. Friend of the celebrated observation of Nurse Cavell, "Patriotism is not enough." It is quite true, it is not enough. It is essential that it is not enough. We must be patriots in the sense that we must desire to do, and do, our utmost to promote the prosperity, the welfare of our own country.
  We must be prepared to die for it. But, in doing so, do not let us forget that it is no part of the duty of a true patriot to desire misfortune in or the downfall of another country. On the contrary, properly considered, and considered in anything like a logical spirit, the prosperity of every country is the prosperity of each. This really is the converse view to the view of the jungle theory in international relationships. It is only right to say that this is the view which Labour has adopted in this country, at any rate, more readily perhaps than other classes of the community. They have seen—what indeed is quite obvious—that there can be no sound, real, and lasting progress in Labour in one country unless there is equivalent progress on the part of Labour in all countries. The great work which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. Barnes) has done was merely an effort to make real and actual
  988
  what was the opinion and idea of his fellow countrymen, and, if one may say so, of his class throughout the whole world.
  I should like to try to explain, if the House will allow me, in as few words as I can what the Covenant of the League has done towards making possible this new spirit in international relations in the first place, I myself attach the most importance of all to the fact that there is an explicit recognition of the necessity of international co-operation. Not only in Labour matters—upon which I shall not dwell, as my right hon. Friend has already done that—but take such a question as the native races; there you will find in the Covenant an explicit recognition that it is part of the duty of the whole of the nations of the world to promote the welfare, safety, and freedom of the native races. They are to co-operate to prevent the reckless distribution of arms, to co-operate in putting down the evils of the liquor traffic. Above all, we have established the system of mandates—at the suggestion, I think, originally of that great statesman, General Smuts—that by which so far as any change of sovereignty takes place in any of the countries inhabited by these nations, that country or those countries for the future shall be held in trust for all the nations of the world. That branch of the instrument is really fraught with the greatest possibilities as laying down now what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister very justly said has always been the principle of the British Colonial policy—namely, that we hold these countries, not in order to exploit them for the benefit of the Mother Country, but in order to do our utmost for the prosperity of the population they contain. That is the principle laid down. Upon it we have endeavoured to secure the establishment of a Commission in the League of Nations which shall supervise the execution of the mandate. The mandatory will be required to report annually, or whatever may be agreed upon, to that Commission, all that is done in the mandatory country. We have further laid down the general principle of freedom and justice which should mark the government of these countries. All this, to me, is fraught with immense advantage. If it succeeds, who can doubt the system will spread over all these backward races and all these countries? Anyone who has studied their history knows that there is no greater blot on the civilisation of Western Europe than the government

  989
  of some of these countries. All that we may hope, sooner or later, will be swept away by common agreement, and the new system, and we shall have one of the great blots removed from the record of humanity. I will not go into other matters on which co-operation is to take place—the white slave traffic, the opium traffic, above all trade and communication—the central idea is that a river, for instance, or a railway, that passes through a number of countries is to be used, not for the advantage of one country, but for the benefit of all the countries through which it passes—all these things are provided for in the Covenant, which largely rests upon the principle that it recognises the necessity of international co-operation.
  To come to more specific operations, the preservation of peace, say, we have an absolute condemnation of the principle of aggression and annexation. "But the very great difficulty of carrying this out," will be urged. Still there it is, in two Articles in the Covenant that annexation and aggression are condemned by the voice of the whole civilised world. There again the attitude of the mandatory Powers is of great importance. The conception, of the carving out of great blocks of territory, whatever may be the will of the inhabitants, and handing them over from one sovereignty to another—I hope that conception is absolutely at an end for evermore.
  How are we going to enforce this? The Prime Minister described this part in the Covenant in his speech the other day. There is no attempt to intervene in a quarrel at the beginning. That we felt was going too far. The world is not yet ready for an absolute decision in a quarrel in which two high-spirited countries might each of them think they were right. What we do say is this: Before you go to war you must submit your dispute to the arbitrament, either of the International Court of Justice or the Council of the League of Nations, and the publication of the matter, so that the world may know exactly what it is in dispute. After the lapse of six months for investigation, and three months for the consideration of the result of the investigation—nine months in all—if you choose, it may be that you will go to war; but we believe the operation of public opinion will be so strong that only in cases of a very, very rare character and of a very, very restricted nature will any war take place if this provision is enforced.
  990
  That really brings me to mention one other great feature of this document, that for the most part there is no attempt to rely on anything like a super-State; no attempt to rely upon force to carry out a decision of the Council or the Assembly of the League. That is almost impracticable as things stand now. What we rely upon is public opinion. I myself think that is right.
  I believe even as between man and man in this country public opinion is a far stronger and far more effective force than the judgment of the police or the Law Courts, and I am quite sure as between one country and another the effect of public opinion is overwhelming. There will be no country who can hope to carry through any policy unless it has behind it, I will not say the whole of public opinion, but a larger part of the public opinion of the world. I believe that has been one of the great lessons of this War. I believe, in the last analysis, what finally brought Germany to complete destruction was that she had offended the public conscience of mankind, and had no support in the public opinion of the nations. That, therefore, to my mind, is a very great thing. The essential part of it is this, that you would have complete publicity in everything that is done before the League. That is of enormous value. Therefore, we have put it that all the proceedings before the Council with reference to disputes should be as soon as possible made public, and we have provided that no Treaty for the future shall have any validity until it has been made public. Those are some of the principles which it seems to me constitute a great advance in the international life of the world. There are two other evils winch I will mention. In the first place, there is the limitation of armaments to which the right hon. Gentleman from Manchester referred. I quite agree that this is the most difficult of all the problems to be faced. It is easy enough to talk about the desirability of limitation of that sort; but let anyone take a piece of paper and write down exactly what he would propose to do, and he will find the difficulties enormous. How are you to measure the reasonable requirements of one country or another in the matter of armaments? How are you to ensure that any limitations laid down will be obeyed—and there are many other practical questions of the kind? Still, I believe something has been done. Really, it depends upon whether the nations of the world are

  991
  in earnest, whether they desire to try to have an end to this state ox things—and very largely whether this nation is in earnest! If they so frame their policy and their proceedings that they show the nations of the world that they really are in earnest, that they desire this limitation of armaments, then I am not hopeless that we shall have accomplished, or shall accomplish, a great work in this direction.
  One other thing. I believe there have been no more fruitful sources of dispute in the past than the theory that all treaties are eternal. It is a fantastic theory. You make a treaty in 1810. He might have been perfectly just and right then, but in 1850 it had almost certainly entirely gone out of date and become obsolete. Yet in theory it goes on. There is no automatic international machinery for its review. Well, I believe there is nothing more desirable than a periodical review of treaties, and their modification to suit the position that has come about after the lapse of time, and the requirements of the time. I hope that that review will be made in the case of this Peace Treaty. I hope it will be done with every other treaty which exists now. A clause has been put in the Covenant making it the duty of the Assembly from time to time to reconsider all treaty obligations and international arrangements which have become either obsolete or un-suited to the conditions of the day. That again, I believe, will be of great value if it is properly carried out.
  I do not want to go at length into the machinery which has been established to carry out these things. The House is well aware of it. There is, first, the International Court. The great merits of that Court, if we can get it set up—I believe we shall get it set up immediately—is, that it is to be a permanent Court. We have had, of course, arbitration in times past, but arbitration is an unsatisfactory thing. No one knows who is to be the arbitrators, upon what principles they are acting, what decision they may arrive at! If you have a permanent Court it will establish a tradition, and will create by its own. amour proper a certain tendency towards partiality. Then, I believe, you might have much more international arbitration or international justice than you have ever been able to get in times past. Therefore I myself attach enormous importance to the establishment of a permanent International Court of Justice. We
  992
  have established for the first time in history a permanent Secretariat. That is of great importance. During the War we found it of enormous value to have international co-operation among the Allies. We found that this value increased prodigiously if you had a permanent Secretariat which kept the thing in being, and we did not merely have conference after conference with no relation to previous conferences. Therefore we have established a permanent Secretariat. I think we have created a permanent body of international opinion which should be of enormous value. Then there is the assembly of the Council upon which I wish to offer a few observations. I have not attempted to deal with criticism because so far in this Debate there has been none. There has been one criticism, however, that has been so frequently put forward that I think I might be allowed to say a word or two about it. It is that all your machinery and ideas are perfectly valueless because they have to be carried out by bodies which have to be perfectly unanimous before their policy can be effective. I think that is a mistake. I do not think it is possible to ask any sovereign State at the present stage to submit, against its will, what it might regard as its vital interests to the decision of the majority. I do not believe this country would have done it, and I do not believe any other country would have done it.
  I do not, however, attach very great importance to it. The great weapon we rely upon is public opinion, and if we are wrong about it then the whole thing is wrong. I believe that we are right. If you do not rely upon public opinion the decision of the assemblies ceases to be of the first importance. If you have a decision in the assembly of overwhelming opinion on one side or the other it matters very little whether it is unanimous or not, because the whole course of public opinion will fasten round the great mass of the overwhelming majority. I believe that is the way it will work, if it works at all. You will find that when these questions come up before the Council they will be discussed and considered in public, and when, as a result of that discussion, it appears clear that one side is right and the other side is wrong, then you will get the whole weight of public opinion behind the one side, and you will find, I think, that the nation that is in the wrong will not persist in the course which has been publicly and overwhelmingly condemned. That is my

  993
  view. I do not attach much importance to the criticism which says that the Council will not be able to do anything because it is too unanimous. I believe it will be able to do everything if it acts honestly and fairly and if its members are animated by a desire to make the thing work, provided the cases which come before it are clear on one side or the other. If they are not clear, then it is evident that international action would be out of place.
  I have tried only too imperfectly to describe the general skeleton of this document. I believe it will work. I believe this scheme is workable, and I believe if it does work it will be of immense value. I do not deny the enormous difficulties with which we are faced, but the whole essence of its success is that it should receive the support of the peoples of the world. I know there are large sections of the people who are openly opposed to this idea. There are the militarists, and I am afraid I came to the conclusion at the Peace Conference, from my own experience, that the Prussians were not exclusively confined to Germany. There is also the whole tendency and tradition of the official classes. I have the highest possible opinion, and I think I have said it before in this House, of our own officials' service, but, at the same time, however high your opinion may be, you cannot avoid the conclusion that there is the tendency among them to think that whatever is is right. It is inevitable under the circumstances. There is the natural conservatism of a great corporation and a great tradition that will be against us.
  Then there are Gentlemen who, like my hon. Friend near me, are convinced supporters of the idea, and who wish it success as urgently as I do myself, but who have a certain amount of faint-heartedness in approaching the matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "Caution!" In these days, when we are facing great crises, caution may be the most reckless of all. We have to take some chances. You are threatened with destruction, and if you do not do something to prevent it there is no hope for the future. You have to take some chances, and the chances which the Government ask you to take are those which lie at the basis of the League of Nations. My right hon. Friends are keen supporters of this proposal, and I am sure they are, but I am not sure whether even they will have the power to see that not only is it necessary for them to support it by speeches in this
  994
  House and in the country, but by really making an attempt to make our policy conform to the spirit of the League of Nations. That is what we have got to do. It is no use talking merely unless you are prepared to do something. It is useless to suppose that anything in the world that is worth having can be had without some sacrifice.
  Personally, I believe the sacrifice in this case is more formal than real, because I believe that Peace is the greatest of British triumphs. It may be occasons will arise when popular opinion will be aroused outside and inside this House, and that prejudice will be aroused by some chance of national gain. It will then be for the Government and the country to stand firm and say, "We will not allow the immediate national advantage of this country to be pursued so as to endanger the international co-operation which we believe is essential to the prosperity of the world." That is what I ask not only the Government but the House of Commons also to do. After all, the House of Commons is only the mouthpiece of the most enlightened democracy in the world. Let them truly express the views of their democracy, and I for one have no fear of the result. I believe the people of this country and the world are solid behind the desire to put an end to war. I believe that they are ready to give a fair trial to this experiment, and I believe if they do give it a fair trial there is every prospect of success, and 1 appeal to my follow countrymen to lead, as they have led before, in the great task that is now before us.
  Mr. DEVLIN:I am sure the House has listened not only with great intellectual pleasure but with profound delight to the speech which the Noble Lord has just delivered. I am glad to find that not only have we had a war for high and noble ideals, but that now that we have triumphed in that War those ideals are not to be forgotten in time of peace. I trust I may be allowed to join in the universal jubiliation with which the whole world, I think, is inspired at this moment in the successful completion of the purposes for which these nations went to war. I should T think be the last to withhold from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister the generous, and I do not think too generous, encomiums which have been passed upon him for his courage, his imagination, his unceasing activity in bringing about the success of this War. But, Sir, I rejoice that now that the War is over

  995
  we are given an opportunity to find out for ourselves whether the noble precepts that we have written on our banners are to materialise. The horrors of war abroad have ended and with them the agonies at home, and it would be, I think, a solid contribution, or at all events a poor manifestation of our gratitude for the splendid dead who died for these principles if we who represent them in the living flesh are not to see those principles put into operation in our day and generation. For my part I have never hesitated to believe and to act up to the spirit of the belief that this was a war for freedom, and in the early stages of this War I joined with my leader and my party in rendering such service as was possible under the circumstances for an Irishman to give in order to strengthen the Allied Forces, and to enable them to meet that Prussian tyranny and that military system that was waging war upon democracy and freedom in Europe.
  I rejoice now that the War is over that we on these benches, the few of us who remain, have been vindicated, and as we thought it was a War for liberty for the world we trusted to find that it would be a War for liberty for Ireland. In the course of the propaganda which has been carried on throughout the Allied nations and in no country more than in England, we have had many declarations as to what the issues were that were involved in this world conflict. I do not know of any man who has more clearly and more completely stated those issues than President Wilson. The Prime Minister of this country I do not think will dissent from any of the written purposes which President Wilson laid down as the inspiring causes that rallied America as well as the Allied countries of Europe in the past. I think at this moment it will not be out of place to bring that to the memory of the Government and of the right hon. Gentleman, in case for a moment it has escaped from his or their minds. What were the issues of this War, and what was the purpose that brought America into the War? In bringing America in upon these issues, President Wilson declared that he acted in union and spirit with all the Allied leaders. This is what he said:
  "We accepted the issues of the War as facts, not as any group of men either here or elsewhere have defined them, and we can accept no outcome which does not squarely meet and settle them."
  996
  The he went on to say:
  "The issues are these: shall the military power of any nation or group of nations be suffered to determine the fortunes of people over whom they have no right to rule except the right of force? Shall strong nations-be free to wrong weak nations, and male them subject to their purposes and interests?
  I rejoice that the Prime Minister has done us the honour of being here in the House this afternoon. During the last four years we have taken advantage of his hurried, and necessarily hurried, visits to this Assembly, in order to put one or two of these questions to him. No doubt, for good reasons, he was not able to remain in the House to answer them. I want to put a question to him now. I want to ask him, now that he has succeeded: Are we to understand that this principle which President Wilson has laid down is to be applied to Ireland—namely:
  "That the military power of no nation or group of nations shall be suffered to determine the fortunes of peoples over whom they have no right to rule except the right of force."
  Ireland is being governed to-day by no rule but the rule of force. The right of the people to determine their own destiny is a thing that no member of the present British Cabinet would laugh at. Therefore, I want a clear and definite statement from the right hon. Gentleman upon that point. President Wilson further goes on to say:
  "Shall peoples be ruled and dominated, even in their own internal affairs, by arbitrary and irresponsible force or by their own will and choice?"
  There is no rule in Ireland to-day except rule by arbitrary acid irresponsible force, and there is no free will and choice in the determination of the destinies of her people.
  "Shall there be a common standard of right and privilege for all peoples and nations, or shall the strong do as they will and the weak suffer without redress? Shall the assertion of right be haphazard and by casual alliance, or shall there be a common concert to oblige the observance of common rights?"
  May I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to another point, if the Whip will allow me, because, after all, the excellent Whip of the party gets many opportunities of talking to the Prime Minister, and we have rarely an opportunity of addressing him from these benches?
  "No man, no group of men, choose these to be the issues of the struggle. They are the issues of it, and they must be settled by no arrangement or compromise or adjustment of interests, but definitely, and once for all, and

  997
  with a full and unequivocal acceptance of the principle that the interest of the weakest is as sacred as the interest of the strongest"
  Then President Wilson concludes:
  "The impartial justice meted out must involve no discrimination between those to whom we wish to be just and those to whom we do not wish to be just. It must be a justice that plays no favourites and knows no standards but the equal rights of the several peoples concerned."
  Whatever some of his enemies may say of President Wilson in this country or elsewhere, no one can question either his lucidity of speech or his clarity of thought or his power of expression, and here, in my judgment, he lays down, not only a noble and ideal concept of human freedom for the world, but, inferentially, he delivers a most powerful impeachment of the present system of government in Ireland. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say—I think it is in his interests, and I do not object to its being in ours—that we will clear him of any responsibility for what is going on in Ireland to-day. You have an Army of Occupation there of from 60,000 to 70,000 soldiers governing the people against their will. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would say to me, "This Army of Occupation would not be there if there were no necessity for them to be there." Is not that a sorry tribute to the ideals for which you went into the War? If you decline to allow these people to be the masters of their own destiny, to conceive the plans and the systems of government best suited to their own genius and to their national power; if you insist that you will impose upon them a. form of government that is against their will; and if, in order to prevent their free will operating, you keep an Army of Occupation in the country, then, I say, that is not an impeachment of Ireland, but it is an impeachment of the system of government that is imposed upon Ireland.
  This question of Ireland has ceased to be a purely domestic problem. There is nothing very new in that statement. I beard the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself make the statement. We endeavoured to deal with it as a domestic problem. The widespread influence of Ireland to-day has assumed such proportions that, if the question is not solved, it will be bad for the world, and if it is solved it will be good for the world. The spirit of this Debate, as I understand it, has been an endeavour upon the part of anyone who
  998
  has contributed anything to the joint wisdom of the Assembly to lift up all these great national ideals touching our land at home and touching all nations abroad, to lift them out of the wretched rut of party controversy into the higher arena of noble conceptions. Cannot this England that has made so wonderful a sacrifice for its own liberty and for the liberty of the world, this England to which I, speaking here as an Irishman, must pay the tribute of saying that during the last five years its superb patience and enduring courage and self-sacrifice has been one of the wonders of the world, this England that has risen so high in the fight for human freedom for the world, rise now to the same noble height in dealing with the little sister island almost at its door? It is not that you are dealing only with a little island almost at your door; you are dealing with something else; you are dealing with a race persecuted, downtrodden, landlord-ridden, robbed, plundered. [Laughter.]
  This hilarity may well come from Gentlemen who know nothing of Ireland, but I will ask the Prime Minister: Will he contradict me in giving this description of the Ireland that was? Follow my argument if you have intelligence enough to do so. I have no doubt that your predecessors sneered at some Members of Parliament who stood, as I stand here in this House to-day, to put the Irish situation before British Members. But when a speaker was sneered at the facts remained. It was a great English newspaper that amid the horrors of the famine period, when the emigrant ships were carrying millions of the race away to foreign lands and when the children of this persecuted race could find no place for them in the homeland to which they were passionately attached, declared, "The Irish are going, and going with a vengeance," and I have no doubt that intelligent Conservatives cheered that sentiment in this House. What was this Irish race that left Ireland amid the hilarious cries of the Tory newspapers and their Tory friends in Parliament? They were the men whose descendants to-day are in America, in England, in Australia, in New Zealand, in Canada, and in South Africa. Wherever there is a great democratic nation—the mighty republic of the West—wherever there is a great and progressive and powerful Colony of the British Empire, there you will find the Irish giving their Celtic genius, their power for government, their civic instinct,

  999
  their passionate devotion to great free institutions, and there they are a great and mighty force.
  7.0 p.m.
  Therefore, when you come to deal with the Irish question, you are not only dealing with four and a half millions of the Irish upon the soil of Ireland, but you are dealing with a great world-wide race, exercising a powerful and, as I claim, a beneficent influence upon the advancement of humane and Christian ideals throughout the world. This question, then, is not a domestic question; it is a world question. There sits the Prime Minister congratulated, and rightly congratulated, upon his services in solving all those problems at the end of a bitter and horrible war. Surely he is not going to admit, after his experiences during the last five years, after he has had upon his shoulders this colossal and almost impossible task of adjusting the countless difficulties that arose in the Peace Conference, that he is not capable of dealing with a question at his door! If he wants the root foundation upon which to build it dealing with that question, he will find it in the declared principles of President Wilson which I have ventured to read to the House. We have not only the declared principles of President Wilson before America went into the War, but we have the declaration of General Smuts after the War was over and when this Peace Treaty was concluded. Will hon. Gentlemen sneer at General Smuts? I would ask them not only to listen respectfully to his words, but also to remember who he was and mentally to examine the analogy that there is between his case and the case of the late Mr. John Redmond. He said in a recent parting declaration which he issued to the people of this country:
  "Most pressing of all constitutional problems is the Irish question. It has become a chronic wound, the septic effects of which are spreading into our whole system, and through its influence upon America it is now beginning to poison our most vital foreign relations. Unless the Irish question is settled on the great principles which form the basis of this Empire, this Empire must cease to exist."
  That is a very strong declaration. It has added weight coming straight from the source from which it comes, because who has played a nobler part in the great trials and vicissitudes of the last four years than General Smuts? He led an Army as violently opposed to you as the Irish are to-day. He fought bravely and valiantly for the principles of liberty. You conceded
  1000
  to the nation for which he fought the widest and noblest form of liberty, and when in the hour of your Imperial danger you sounded the bugle for men to rally to your flag he came and he rallied his forces to your support; he contributed the men of his race and his intellectual power and wisdom, and he became one of the most striking and one of the noblest figures of the fight of the last four or five years. Is this man not to be listened to? Is America not to be listened to? Is the voice of Canada to have no effect? Are Australia and South Africa not to be listened to? Wherever free men live, and free men live everywhere where free men fought for freedom, they stand aghast and wonder how it is that this Empire, which has grown and flourished by the concession of the widest freedom to its citizens, refuses to give to a brave and generous race that system of free government which would fructify in Ireland as it has fructified wherever the seeds of freedom are cast and the flowers of liberty grow in the land. I may be told there are difficulties. I know there are. I have never disguised the fact. But the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit that, as far as I personally am concerned, I have been ever ready to sacrifice something. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, as I understand it, there is only one difficulty, and that is the question of Ulster? I take it that if that difficulty were met ho would be prepared to give Ireland the widest form of freedom given to any other part of the Empire. There would be no reason for giving anything less. He has not altogether been without the Ulster question in other conutries at the Peace Conference. When he had the map of Europe before him, when he was partitioning out the various lands, and saying how they should be settled, wore there no Ulsters? The right hon. Gentleman often must have found in Paris as great difficulties as he has done in Belfast. There were Germans in Poland, there were minorities in Finland, there was a very large German population in Bohemia; all these things had to be settled. I do not know how they were settled; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us how. I hope, at any rate, that they are settled, for we are meeting here to-day to ratify the solution and to cry "Hallelujah! Peace is proclaimed to the World!"

  1001
  At all events, the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there would not be anything very splendid in trying to settle the Irish question if it were a simple mathematical problem. The glory of this problem is that it is a difficult one. Here is a task which the Prime Minister can take upon his shoulders. I believe the reason he has not solved it before now is that he never got quite close enough grips with it. He did not give his splendid Welsh Celtic imagination sufficient free play. He seemed always to treat Ireland as if it were a problem to be settled in a hurry. This is a difficult problem. No one knows it better than I do. And it is because it is a difficult problem that the right hon. Gentleman really must face it with courage and determination. If he finds he cannot settle it, if he finds it even beyond him, I will tell him there is a simple way in which it can be solved—a very simple way, and that is upon the declared declaration of President Wilson and others associated with us in this War. "Let every people determine their own destinies for themselves"—every nation," I should say. [An HON. MEMBER: "Let Ulster!"] Ulster is only a part of a nation. I am an Ulsterman myself, and that is why I am so egotistical. Ulster is only part of the nation, and it must be prepared to make some sacrifices. In the arena of party sacrifices have to be made—political sacrifices, and some of us have made great sacrifices in that arena. The Southern Irishmen made great sacrifices as well as the Northern Irishmen. My late leader died as truly for a noble ideal as if he had died on the field of battle. He took your side in this War; he flung himself and all his genius and energy into the cask of propaganda; he converted Ireland to the cause for which you were fighting; he sacrificed a great deal, and he was sacrificed. Not only did Mr. Redmond sacrifice, himself, but many a man on these benches died for his principles. When he was almost on the brink of the grave Mr. Redmond made an appeal to you. Professor Kettle, with all his brilliance, with all the enthusiasm of youth, with his generous intellect, made his sacrifice, and in a letter addressed to me which was found on him after his death he said, "I fought alone for a great ideal." Dr. Esmond, and sons of members of this party, went out to fight. Many new Members of this House imagine that Southern and Western Ireland did nothing in this War.
  1002
  But when you come to the records, not only of how almost countless men rushed to the Colours at the commencement of hostilities, you find nothing so wonderfully splendid as the endurance and courage of the Catholic Nationalist soldiers from the West of Ireland, as well as many from my own Constituency.
  I ask the House to believe me that I am anxious, as much in the interests of England as of Ireland, to see this question settled. It corrodes the lives of men. It corrodes the relationship between nations. It is the most poisonous thing that can enter into life, and I ask the House of Commons to join us in trying to exterminate this evil thing that is poisoning the. well-springs of common association and of that democratic comradeship that, ought to exist between two peoples who are neighbours. I trust that I have said nothing to embitter the position. But no temporary or trumpery expedient will do. The hearts and imaginations of the people of Ireland and of Irishmen throughout the world must be touched. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn said the other day it was essential, for the welfare of humanity, that America and this country should be friends. I want that sentiment converted into a reality. These two great English-speaking races must, lead the world in everything that leads men to higher things. It is because I believe that the enduring co-operation and strong friendship of America is essential to the solution of this problem in a way that will be satisfactory to America and to the Irish race throughout the world that I address this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 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, whilst gratefully acknowledging the unsparing efforts of the Prime Minister in the cause of a just and honourable Peace, and fully appreciating the difficulties with which ha had to contend, expresses its regret that the Treaty does not impose upon Germany definite and binding obligations to make good to Britain her total financial cost of the War."
  This Debate commenced this afternoon with two exalted orations from the Front Opposition Bench which breathed into this Treaty a sort of sublime inspiration such as we shall have in a few moments from the Prime Minister himself and which probably will lead us off our feet and make us forget the fact, which I desire to bring back to the attention of the House, that

  1003
  we are here to consider not the great principles for which we fought, not exactly the new world which we hope will emerge from the War, but the terms which we have to exact from the enemy as a condition of the cessation of hostilities. I, therefore, must beg the House to come down for a moment from the sublime heights in which it has travelled. We have had from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) a very learned disquisition on the working of the Labour section of the Treaty, and the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), who has come, if I may say so with great respect, straight from the cloisters at Hitchin to tell us about the provisions of the League of Nations and what he hopes and expects will be realised therefrom, although I am afraid he is destined to a rude awakening before very long. However, I now beg to move my Resolution.
  I suppose it presents a sordid aspect of this great question. It is, however, a business aspect, and I am not quite sure there is not behind it just as much imagination, just as much romance, as if we are going to make Britain a land fit for heroes to live in, and if we are going to take off the shoulders of the dependants of those who Have fallen the halter of an almost everlasting taxation. I am not sure if we cannot take almost as exalted a view of the possibilities which will follow the adoption of the principles enunciated in my Amendment as of any other aspects of the case. My Amendment is based on the simple principle enunciated by the Prime Minister himself more than once, that in all these contests the loser must pay. That theory was enunciated by the Prime Minister in very specific language. But there was a qualification introduced into it—it read, "must pay if he says he can." My experience of life is that the loser must either pay or pay what he can and owe the rest. But the Prime Minister says, "No; you must pay only that which you can pay, and we will let you off the rest." That is not business. It is not that which was promised to the men who went to fight for us, and it is not the pledge upon which almost every Member of this House went to the poll. I have looked through address after address issued during the election. The Prime Minister pledged himself—I almost think he must have forgotten it—that we would deliver the bill to Germany, the full bill,
  1004
  before we came to the question of her capacity to pay. Here is what the Prime Minister said:
  "So far as justice is concerned, we have an absolute right to demand the whole cost of the War from Germany. We propose to demand the whole cost of the War."
  That is specific, and no amount of argument can qualify the words. It is true the Prime Minister went on to say:
  "We shall have to collect it in a way that will not do us more harm then Germany, and we shall have to have regard to her capacity to pay."
  The Prime Minister's statement came to this: "We will first present the Bill and obtain an admission of Germany's liability for it, and then we will collect what we can." One hon. Member in a previous speech put the case in a nutshell. He said:
  "It is for us to deliver the bill and to leave it to Germany to find the way to pay it."
  We should leave that to the German Government, and not worry ourselves about it. The Prime Minister said something more. He said:
  "We must make Germany pay to the uttermost farthing. We shall search her pockets for it."
  We have not put our finger into the pocket of Germany; we have not even asked Germany what she can pay, but we have asked other people to tell us what Germany can pay. That is a nice way of dealing with the ordinary obligations of this country. We have asked a certain Commission to tell us what Germany can pay. The Prime Minister, speaking at the time of the General Election, said:
  "The fourth point is that the Committee appointed by the British Cabinet believes that Germany can pay."
  I do not know whether the Committee appointed by the Cabinet has been thrown over. We have the distinct assurance of the Prime Minister that the bill should be delivered, and it has not been; that we would search Germany's pockets for the money, and we have not done it; and that a Committee of the Cabinet have advised that Germany could pay. I am the very last to wish to say a word which sounds ungracious or ungrateful to the Prime Minister. Before these various compliments were paid to him to-day I had put in the terms of my Amendment an expression of gratitude for the splendid and glorious work he has done for us. Nobody denies that. But I want the Prime Minister to be quite candid and toll us this—if he will, thru I am satisfied—"I went to Paris with the intention of insert-

  1005
  ing in the Treaty an obligation on Germany for the full cost of the War, leaving her to pay it as she could, but other influences were too strong for me." If the Prime Minister says that, I accept the explanation, and will congratulate him on having got something on account, but that must be the only explanation. No one, not even the Solicitor-General, with all his great experience, can tell exactly what are the obligations placed upon Germany in the way of reparation or indemnities. I say that there is no obligation at all to pay indemnities, as we understand the phrase. There is a limited liability for reparation spread over a number of years, which is liable to be postponed from time to time and to be increased up to £6,000,000,000 if the Commission, which is to be appointed, thinks that Germany can pay it. That is really a solicitude for the enemy worthy of some of the most noble and altruistic sentiments which have been expressed today, but it is not the sort of thing we want if this country is to face the financial demands that will be made upon it. Does not the Prime Minister see that if we could have obtained an admission of the obligation, an admission that Germany owes us the cost of the War, that would give us a bond which we could enforce from time to time as opportunity arises? We could then go to President Wilson and say, "There are Germany's thousand millions of bonds which Germany will pay." We should probably get a premium for them for the pleasure of showing the sincerity of the high-sounding sentiments that have been expressed. Another point is that Germany does not know what her liability is. I was amazed the other day to be told in the House that there is no German official version of this Treaty. I know the Germans and Germany well enough to know how they understand French. I do not suppose that the Prime Minister was impressed by the knowledge of French shown by the Germans in Paris. The Germans have signed a Treaty the language of which they do not understand. It has been translated into English. I am not posing as a French scholar—I learned French at school—but I would say that the translation is not particularly accurate. We only get in the Treaty the phrase
  "Germany acknowledges her responsibility for the whole cost of the War."
  That means, as it is translated, a moral responsibility. There is nothing in the French Treaty which means or was intended
  1006
  to mean that Germany says, "We are liable for the cost of the War; we admit our responsibility to pay it to you." There is doubt in the phraseology, there is doubt in the provisions of the Treaty itself. The Prime Minister will agree that he has been forced to the conclusion that only something in the way of reparation can be got from Germany. How he has been satisfied I do not know. Somebody has told him so. He is not a great expert in the intricacies of finance. It is true he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, but then he was dealing with high finance and not with German finance. He has accepted somebody's word. I insist on this matter, because one cannot help remembering, as he looks round the world to-day, that Britain has been the catspaw of all the nations in this War. We went into the War with no selfish motives. I really think we won the War. I do not want to offend America. I know that when an American said to an Englishman the other day, "You cannot deny that the Americans won the War," the retort was, "Perhaps not, but who did the blinking fighting?" We have incurred liabilities amounting to £8,000,000,000 or £10,000,000,000. Every one of our Allies is getting some substantial material advantage out of the War. Let us come down from Parnassus to the earth. Belgium is getting—God knows she deserves them !—certain territorial advantages. France is getting enormous territorial advantages; Italy is getting the same. All the Allies will have something to bring to credit in their balance-sheets. When we talk of pounds, shillings, and pence poor Britain becomes the mandatory of the German Colonies. May I compliment the Prime Minister on the great acumen he showed when he secured Britain as the mandatory of the ex-German Colonies, because I believe that before we get on very far with the ex-German Colonies the League of Nations will come to an untimely end, as every experiment of that kind has done. The same thing was tried in ancient Greece and failed, and what happened then will happen now. No Power will enforce their verdict. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) says that public opinion will solve it. He said that public opinion ended the War. I thought it was shortage of ammunition. It is possible that, when we have spent a lot of money and had a few little wars, we shall corns out with the German ex-Colonies to our credit. At present we owe America

  1007
  £1,000,000,000. Let her take over some of the obligations of Russia to ourselves. Let us see some sincerity in those high principles enunciated so freely on the other side of the water. We have lent money to our Allies. We have an enormous debt round our necks. We cannot place any more War Loans successfully, unless we issue premium bonds, which, of course, we shall have to do. We have come almost to the end of our financial tether. Despite all that the Prime Minister says, someone behind him says, "Do not be too hard on poor Germany." You fix the very period when she is going through a transition stage from chaos and bankruptcy to renewed prosperity as the period to collect the debt. If you took bonds from Germany payable in thirty years' time, she would be able to pay them off on her head. She will soon be in front of us again in many markets of the world. I put it to the Prime Minister that Britain is not coming well out of this thing. I do not want him to rise to great heights of eloquence and say that we cannot consider mere pounds, shillings, and pence in a problem of this magnitude.
  From the point of view of restoring the credit of this nation and of relieving taxation, which will crush us as things are going on, and of keeping faith with the men who went out, we must have the indemnity. I say this in all sincerity, feeling very deeply on the subject. It appals me to think that all the men have as the result of their sacrifices is the knowledge that round the necks of their parents, their sons, their fathers and their dependants is this heavy debt, which we shoulder when we cannot afford it, for having taken our part in this War. I urge the Prime Minister to put himself right with the country in this respect. I do so in no spirit of antagonism, but rather of affectionate regard for the Prime Minister and any man who has been much behind the scenes in this War. One wishes in all honesty to see him at the helm to pilot us out of our troubled waters. The public believes that everything the Prime Minister says in this House or at the hustings he will carry out to the letter if he can possibly do it. 1 ask him why in this Treaty there is no indemnity, and why only reparation? Reparation hardly interests this country. It represents only a few broken windows and a few pounds of money. Reparation naturally goes to Northern France and Belgium. This country has really little interest in the Reparation Clause at all. The indemnities
  1008
  have gone. Germany must pay the bill and must pay in full, and we will rifle her pockets! All that has gone. I imagine that every Member of this House will be in some difficulty when he meets his Constituents with this Clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think so. Hon. Members might with advantage read their Election addresses. I have collated them, and I say there are not more than six Members of the House who have not explicitly pledged themselves to make Germany pay the whole cost of the War. [Hon. Members: "No!"] We hear the six who have not I want the Prime Minister to tell us why the bill is not delivered. Whatever he tells us, I shall be mentally telegraphing to him in his higher flights of eloquence and poetry, "Why did not we deliver the bill, as we promised to do?" I am not one of those who think that in war we can afford to be over-sentimental. We heard something to-day about milch cows. I am sorry to hoar there are children starving, but I had rather they starved in Germany than in Belgium and in France. We have to look war in the face as a grim reality, and I believe with Sadi, the Persian philosopher, who said:
  "Showing mercy to the wicked is doing injury to the good; pardoning the oppressor is injuring the oppressed."
  I was very struck with a line from Kipling, the other day, which, I think, sums up this aspect of the case:
  "These were our Children who died for our Lands.
  They were dear in our sight
  We have only the Memory left of their Home,
  Treasured Sayings and Laughter.
  The price of our Loss shall be paid to our Hands,
  Not another's hereafter.
  That is our Right."
  Lieut.-Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I thank the Prime Minister for his courtesy in waiting to hear the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of what, I think, is a most important Amendment. My activities in this matter were never directed in any spirit of hostility nor in any obstructionist spirit either to the Prime Minister or to the Government. But I, at any rate, am pledged up to the neck to my Constituents to do everything in my humble way to get the biggest possible indemnity from the enemy countries. However much I may wish to congratulate the Prime Minister, and however pleased and surprised I was with certain of the Peace terms, the Peace terms, as

  1009
  a whole, are conspicuous by the absence of a clause which would provide for the total repayment of the Allies war debt when and if the enemy countries were in a position to pay. I never for a moment doubted the bona fides of the Prime Minister. Indeed, at the time of my election the walls of my Constituency were placarded, "Vote for Lowther and send the Prime Minister back to the Conference with enhanced powers." I have no reason to doubt his bona fides to-day. I believe, from everything I have heard, that he has been fighting most gallantly against very bitter odds. But I wish I could say I had the same implicit reliance in the bona fides of his counsellors. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take this in the spirit in which it is meant. I mean only one or two of his counsellors, but still men who seem to possess only one gift—the gift of inspiring mistrust; and, surely, in the matter of his counsellors, the Prime Minister stands self-condemned. I am not saying this in order to indulge in an idle gibe at his expense, but to brand a man with the stigma of a diseased imagination—a man to whom he himself had offered high office only a few months before that accusation—cannot show the highest insight into character. May I for a moment take the House into my confidence and throw discretion to the winds, for surely this is the critical moment in the financial history, not only of England, but of the world? I ask hon. Members—whether they have been in the House for four months or for twenty years—whether they are perfectly satisfied, in their own minds, with the absolute honour and integrity of every right hon. Gentleman who sits on that bench or who holds high office? Yet these men have to advise the Prime Minister as to what indemnity should be paid, and whether it should be much or little—men alien by birth, men alien by name, men in no way unprejudiced, men in no way unbiassed, men engaged up to the hilt not in European but in world-wide finance, men who would have had everything to lose if Germany had paid an adequate, just and right indemnity. If the other Chamber can serve no more useful purpose than to provide a theatre for the transpontine melodramas of Mr. Smillie and his tame dukes, the sooner it provides an asylum for obsolete Ministers who are anxious to regild their somewhat tarnished blazons and to obtain a brand-new coat of honour, and incidentally a brand-new patent of nobility, the better.
  1010
  I never thought for a moment that the enemy countries could contribute very much in the first few years after the War. I am glad to see the Peace delegates think differently. It has, I believe, been proposed that £5,000,000,000 has to be paid in a very short time. Anyone who has studied the assets of Germany must know that that country for a decade before the War was a competitor for the commercial supremacy of the whole world. In many instances she outdistanced Great Britain and the United States in the race for the world's commerce. What enabled her to occupy that position? Nothing but her titanic and colossal assets, of course intelligently handled. Surely these assets cannot vanish into thin air. Where is her coal? Where is her potash? What of her aniline dyes, her chemicals, her agriculture, and her waterways and railways, all admirably linked up and connected with these resources? Surely of a country which has doubled its national income in the last twenty years and quadrupled its revenue in forty years owing to the greatness of its assets, only ignorance can believe, only prejudice can pretend, that it would not be in a position very soon to pay interest on the whole of the Allied war debt, and to discharge the sum, according to the magnitude of the sinking fund, in twenty, thirty, forty, or I do not care if it he fifty or sixty years, provided it is finally paid by the enemy who thrust this hideous holocaust upon humanity. Why should not a clause of this sort have been inserted in the Peace Treaty? Why should not this very proper obligation have been imposed on a remorseless enemy? It is argued by some that her losses are irretrievable. Yet what would have been thought of a politician at the conclusion of the War between the North and the South if he had wished to hypothecate the assets of the South to the extent of £1,000,000,000, or £100,000,000, repayable in twenty, thirty, or fifty years? He would have been howled down as a lunatic. Within ten years the South could have paid back at least £100,000,000, and within twenty years £1,000,000,000, and to-day almost any sum we can imagine. Therefore, again I say these Peace terms are conspicuous by the absence of a clause which should have supplied this provision. After ail, you have done everything that the pro-German Press in this country advised us would be morally and physically wrong. You have established an International Commission. You are, very rightly, holding the strategic

  1011
  points of Germany by an Army of Occupation. But you deprive this Commission and this Army of Occupation of its paramount function. This is a matter of unparalleled gravity. We find ourselves today in no enviable position; we find ourselves with the National Debt inflated beyond the wildest imaginings of the most elastic-minded Chancellor. We find ourselves with the sovereign worth ten shillings. We find the House and the country split into schisms, caucuses, factions, and parties, yet there is only one wish that we all have in common, and that is to raise the standard of living of the workers of this country. That can never be done while this burden of taxation is upon us. After all, this War was none of our making. It was thrust upon us by a ruthless and brutal race who have earned for themselves from the gentlest of gentlemen the imperishable epitaph, "Brutes they were, and brutes they remain." There are certain things I know they can never make good. Acts of vandalism, acts against civilisation, acts of atrocity such as the world has never seen—for these they can never atone. But for our delegates at the Peace Conference to hesitate for a moment to impose upon Germany the highest monetary penalty savours to me of that signal act of folly which somehow or other throughout the history of the world has always seemed to precede the downfall of mighty nations.
  Mr. HOGGE:The speeches that have been delivered so far have not dealt with two House of Commons points which I want to put to the Prime Minister. If the House will look at the two Bills which we are discussing, they will notice that in the first Bill, giving effect to the Treaty of Peace, everything has to be done by Order in Council. I do not know of any Treaty of this kind where the House of Commons has been asked to deal with so large a question by the method of Order in Council. It is a habit with which we are familiar in large Bills dealing with social problems. One of the large Bills with which the Prime Minister had something to do—namely, the National Health Insurance—was largely put through by Order in Council. I am strongly of opinion that in carrying out so extraordinary an international weapon as this every step ought to be taken through the process of legislation, and should not be dealt with by Order in Council.
  1012
  In the second Bill, approving the Treaty between His Majesty and the President of the French Republic, the House will notice that the Bill is set out in a Schedule, and because it is set out in that Schedule the House cannot amend it in any way. Therefore, in the two Bills to which we are addressing our attention to-day we are prevented from getting to the pith of them—in the first place by Order in Council, and in the second place by the fact that the Schedule prevents the House from amending the Bill.
  What the Prime Minister is doing in bringing the matter before the House in this way is making the House of Commons merely a registering machine. He has asked that we should get through all stages of this Bill to-day. It is an unreasonable request, but the way it has been dealt with so far makes it clear that he will get it. Five years ago many of us who were in this House went with fear and trembling into this War, which has burdened not only ourselves but the whole world with an enormous debt, and it does seem reasonable to ask for a longer and better and more detailed explanation and investigation of the decision that has been come to. For instance, in the American Senate and in the French Chamber the members of both those democratic Chambers are having infinitely greater opportunity for dealing with these two Treaties than we are. We are practically being asked to shut our eyes and open our mouths and see what the Prime Minister has brought us from Paris, My hon. Friend interjects that the Treaty is on the Table. That is true, but the Prime Minister is asking the House to address itself to the whole question without preliminary investigation at all, and to take every stage of the Bill to-day. That is a House of Commons point which ought to be put and is well worth putting.
  In regard to the Peace Treaty itself, it is obviously not a conclusive peace, and the reason I say that is that the word "provisional" is written in every line of it. General Smuts, one of the signatories, actually wrote an apology in signing it. The pith and essence of his letter is contained in one sentence, in which he pointed out that the only hope for the future lay in an immediate and large revision of the Treaty. I think it bears out the fact that the Treaty is inconclusive, if one of the signatories of the importance

  1013
  of General Smuts finds it necessary to sign with the reservation that it must be revised. What is the machinery for revision? The machinery for revision is contained in the League of Nations. In recollecting that fact we have to bear in mind this consideration, that, although Germany can, sometime or other, be admitted into the League of Nations by a two-thirds majority, every important decision thereafter must be unanimous. In dealing with the League of Nations the only critical speech that was made was by the right hon. Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil), who asked himself some questions about the League of Nations which apparently he did not answer. In my view they are the crux of the whole situation. He came to the point in which he dealt with the limitation of armaments, and, addressing himself to that question, he asked, "How are you going to measure the armaments of other countries, and when you have measured them how are you going to enforce that that is the measure that is going to obtain?" I understand the Noble Lord was the father, to a large extent, of the form of the League of Nations He certainly is one of the believers in the League of Nations, and if it is impossible—and the Noble Lord thinks it is impossible—for the League of Nations to determine the amount of armaments, then surely in much larger questions it will be even more impossible.
  Let me put the matter to the test by asking the Prime Minister to answer a very simple question. Will he tell us what his Government intends to do with regard to our own Navy, Army, and Air Force Estimates? I ask that for more than one reason. When we discussed these Estimates earlier in the Session, when the right hon. Gentleman was in Paris, it was pointed out, quite rightly, that the figures were colossal in the meantime, but that we did not know what was going to happen. My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) asked the Leader of the House whether he would give a promise that later in the Session revised Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Air Forces would be laid before the House for discussion. I do not think a Parliamentary pledge was given, and I am not accusing the Leader of the House of breaking any pledge, but I think it was distinctly understood that that would be done when we knew the requirements of our Navy, Army, and Air Forces. Obviously,
  1014
  if the League of Nations is the reality that the Prime Minister declares it to be, there can be no need for this country to continue carrying the enormous burden of our present Army, Navy, and Air Force Estimates. If my right hon. Friend is really convinced, as I should like to b, of the efficiency of the League of Nations, will he announce on the floor of this House—if he cannot do anything more—I want to leave him with a fair loophole: I do not want to press him unduly—that before these Estimates are closed they will be revised and that we shall not carry in a financial year the enormous burden that is put upon the nation in that way?
  The reason I say that is, that I believe that all the practical provisions, the operative provisions of the League of Nations, reflect no confidence so far as the Prime Minister and those associated with him in the signing of the Treaty are concerned. For instance, if there is confidence in the operation of the League of Nations, can he inform us why the Left Bank of the Rhine has to be in military occupation for fifteen years? Can he tell us why there is any necessity for the Anglo-American Treaty guaranteeing France against the aggression of Germany? I am certain that these do not reflect any confidence in the League of Nations. My right hon. Friend must remember that Clemenceau, in his speech in the French Chamber, in dealing with this question never mentioned the League of Nations, and he did not do so because the foundation of the League of Nations is based on the old diplomacy of the French nation. In the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth century the policy of France was the policy of client States set up in the East to redress the balance of power in Russia. The client States in those days were the States of Sweden, Poland, and Turkey, and that was the balance against Germany. Then Russia became a great State, and instead of that arrangement of client States we had a new arrangement in the Franco-Russian Alliance. We now come to the position in which Russia finds herself weakened. She is out of the picture for some time, and in the meantime France has got back to the policy of client States and the Prime Minister and others have agreed. Something has been said to-day about Poland and the Polish character, and this point is bound to be a running sore between those peoples and Germany for some very considerable time. If my right hon. Friend recollects he will

  1015
  remember that Alexander when he attempted a similar combination never attempted the cutting-off process that has been attempted now. You have set up three new client States, of Poland, Czechoslovakia and the Jugo-Slavs. The Minister for War, speaking only two night ago, incidentally referred to that when he pointed out that there was only the thin partition of those States between France and Germany. These States are weak and cannot preserve the balance in the East, and for that purpose, and that purpose alone, France has buttressed herself with this new Triple Alliance inside the League of Nations.
  8.0 p.m.
  Therefore, you have inside the League of Nations a new Triple Alliance—America, France and Britain. I should like the Prime Minister to tell us if there is any truth in the rumour that this is the -only way they could get out of the permanent occupation of the Saar Valley by the French, that the French were insisting upon the occupation of the Saar Valley, and that to compensate them for that and to get what one could out of the Treaty the Prime Minister and those associated with them agreed to this new-Triple Alliance. The position that is left is very unstable. Europe was formerly the great centre of the world's civilisation. The War has left Europe devastated and impoverished, and this peace in the long run makes it impossible for Europe to recover. What is the position of our own country? After all, we have had a great share in the War. Great Britain must be weak if Europe is impoverished. Great Britain has been great because it has been the gateway of Europe to the West. And if the territories of which we are the gateway are impoverished we are bound to suffer. Second, we used to maintain the balance of Europe. That function is passing, if it has not passed, from us to America, as my right hon. Friend knows, and as some Ministers have acknowledged in their speeches. What people do not seem to realise to-day is that the position to-day is fundamentally different from the position in which Great Britain found herself at the end of the Napoleonic Wars a hundred years ago. Then Britain easily recovered because there were no industrial countries out of Europe. But at the end of this War there are two great industrial countries, one in the East and one in the West, both of which have taken part in
  1016
  the War, neither of which has suffered anything like what we have suffered in the War, and both of which have profited out of the War. And I should have liked to see as a result of the great efforts which this country has made a peace which would have reflected in the League of Nations the possibility of the revision of the terms of peace.
  We have just listened now to two speeches which typify the mind of some people in addressing themselves to this problem and reveal an attitude with which I have no sympathy. I quite understand that the Prime Minister and others could not get by a long way all they wanted, and that they might reasonably anticipate looking forward to a League of Nations doing for them in future what they have been unable for many reasons to accomplish now. But that is going to be no good unless the League of Nations is such that you can get unanimity. And, constructed as it is at this moment, we should have to wait long enough before we could get any unanimity out of it. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin made a great point of what will happen in arbitration about going to war. But the real point is how soon can one get the Peace, and one cannot get the Peace so long as Germany is outside the League, and so long as Germany with the other rations have not come to a unanimous decision about the future of the world. But in the discussion of this Peace Treaty, in which there fro these points and others so large that it seems to me that in only giving one day and so little time to criticism from so many points of view of so great a measure we are not addressing our minds to this problem as we ought to have been given the opportunity of doing. It is the completion of the greatest epoch in the world's history, and we are the greatest Parliament in the world, and we are giving less attention to these great measures than we would give to some trumpery little Bill brought in on a Friday afternoon.
  Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: When I offered, if I might be given an opportunity, to make my first statement in this historic House, I felt like a criminal being brought up to receive sentence, or, perhaps, like a soldier asking permission to be allowed to go over the top for the first time. May I, therefore, ask hon. Members for the usual kind indulgence? The different criticisms that I have heard of the terms of Peace arrived at with the chief of our enemies

  1017
  have strengthened my conviction that those terms, on the whole, are satisfactory, and, therefore, I cannot support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney. It may not be a perfect Peace, but it seems to bring home to the human understanding that we have won the War and that it is no drawn fight. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister deserves the gratitude of the House and of the nation, for the manner in which he has conducted the negotiations. If we may venture to attempt to peep behind the very thick curtains which have hidden so completely from the public view the first great experiment in open diplomacy, I think that we may see our ubiquitous Prime Minister standing between the great leaders of the French nation and the great leaders of the people of the United States and reconciling their views and arriving at what I consider a sound British compromise. Probably our gallant French Allies were a little too near the horrible War, and perhaps our gallant American Allies were a little too far away, but our representatives, at any rate, have taken a middle course. I speak naturally without, any information other than that which every hon. Member has, but I do think this, that we took the best course and that this House has reason to be satisfied with our work at the Paris Conference.
  The outstanding feature of the Peace Treaty is that it puts the British Empire at the highest point that it has ever reached as regards territory and world influence. Largely by force of circumstances, and the leading part which our Navy and Army took in either breaking down or destroying the enemy, we have been left with far greater territory and power than at any other period of our race's history. I think it correct to say that we have not sought this increase of responsibility, but that it has come to us because we are best fitted to undertake it. We may take legitimate pride in it, and resolve to do our best to be worthy of it. I welcome the provision in the Treaty for establishing a League of Nations, with the object of seeking to make this the last great war that shall afflict humanity. I had the privilege of serving upon two fronts during the whole course of the War—in Flanders and in Palestine—and I say deliberately that I regard it as a privilege to have been able to do so. But I do not want ever to contemplate the necessity of taking up arms again.
  1018
  In my election address I put advocacy of the League of Nations in the very forefront. Indeed, long before the War broke out, I was engaged in putting before all who would listen to me a proposal to try to make a great war impossible, by an agreement between the Powers whereby the differences between nations Mere to be settled by the same civilised means as the difference between individuals. But I take it that we shall have another opportunity of discussing this League of Nations proposal. Therefore I shall not now trespass further upon the indulgence of the House except to say that, as a business man, representing what is practically a Labour constituency, I have, so to speak, a foot in both camps, and I find in Labour circles and in business circles alike a strong feeling that the only hope for our civilisation is to try to put an end once for all to this mad business of trying to settle national disputes by means of bombs and poison gas. I cannot conclude without expressing the hope that the right hon. Gentlemen who have the confidence of this House will devote all their ability to laying firm the foundations of another peace. It was unavoidable, I know, that during the last six months they should have given most of their time towards securing a peace among nations. Now the pressing need is to secure a firm and enduring peace among classes.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I am sure that the House will join with me in congratulating the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down on his eloquent maiden effort. I hope that ho will on future occasions deliver to us addresses equal in eloquence to that to which we have just listened. The Prime Minister, as has been observed, during the last six months in Paris has been faced with responsibilities as grave and as arduous as any that ever confronted the First Minister of the British Crown. And although—as I shall proceed to show in a minute—I am not in entire agreement with every item of the Treaty, I may be permitted to join with other hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in congratulating the Prime Minister on the worthy manner in which he has upheld British prestige and British interests at the Conference which has recently concluded. It has been said on more than one occasion that the House must either accept or reject this Treaty. It is not possible to introduce Amendments into it. If it were the discussion would range over a variety of sub-

  1019
  jects, and would last a considerable number of days. I ask myself, therefore, whether anything is to be gained by criticising those parts of the Treaty which in the view of some of us are open to objection. In one sense there is no object to be gained, while in another sense I think there is. It might be useful to the League of Nations when that body is set up and put in operation to have before it the views of Members of this Parliament and of other Parliaments on certain terms contained in the Treaty. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin, speaking this afternoon, said that there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the broad lines of the Treaty are right. With that sentiment I agree entirely. But the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister will be the first to agree that there are Clauses in the Treaty of which no one can hope that they shall be of a permanent character.
  I desire to draw the attention of the House—not in any spirit of criticism of the Prime Minister, because I know full well what his difficulties and those of the British Delegation have been—to what in my mind is one of the parts of the Treaty most open to criticism. I refer to those Articles from 156 to 158 which deal with the question of Shantung. I may call to the recollection of the House some of the history of the Shangtung or Kiaochow question. In the year 1808, as the result of the murder of certain German, missionaries, the Germans secured from China a ninety-nine years' lease of the Port of Tsingtao, and the territory of Kiaochow surrounding it. After the outbreak of war—to be exact, on 7th November, 1914—the Japanese, in company with a few British troops, captured Tsingtao, and the Japanese forces proceeded to occupy the city and to continue in occupation of Chinese territory which had been invaded as part of the military operations. In January, 1915, China protested at the continued occupation of this territory, and there then arose the famous twenty-one demands made by Japan on China, to which, in May, 1915. China was obliged to yield. These demands, with which I will not deal in detail, included the right of Japan to dispose of Kiaochow in any way agreed upon between Japan and Germany, and other very important concessions from the point of view of China were wrung out of that country. All these demands were embodied in a Treaty made in the year
  1020
  1915, and attached to this Treaty was a letter in which Japan promised to restore the German-leased territory to China on condition that China granted to Japan a permanent point of occupation and made payment for public buildings turned over, and gave to Japan joint control of the railways. Those were some of the features of the Treaty of 1915, a Treaty which it is not too much to say virtually involved the complete Japanese domination, military and economic, of Northern China. The Chinese have protested that this Treaty was wrung out of them under duress. When the Conference assembled in Paris, and after the Peace Treaty which is under discussion to-night had beer, framed, China was asked to sign that Treaty. China offered to sign with reservations, and it is as well to draw the attention of the House to that point; but this proposal was declined by the Council of Four. China then offered to sign if certain wording was modified, so that China should not be precluded from asking at some future date for a reconsideration of the Treaty. This offer was also refused, so the Chinese delegates refused to sign at all, and in doing so they protested in words which, with the permission of the House, I will read, in order that they may be placed on record. She said:
  "The Peace Conference having denied to China justice in the settlement of the Shantung question, and having in effect prevented her signing a treaty without the sacrifice of her sense of right, justice and patriotic duty, the Chinese delegates submit their case to the impartial judgment of the world."
  The Chinese delegates, therefore, at the Peace Conference asked for the revision of this Treaty, just as revision had been demanded in the case of the Treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest. The point that China has emphasised in making that request is that Kiaochow is Chinese territory which was leased to Germany, that with the Chinese declaration of war against Germany this agreement lapsed, that the territory reverted therefore to China, and that the Japanese capture in the interim of the land in question does not affect the legal position.
  In laying China's case before the House I hope I have not trespassed upon its indulgence, but it does seem to me to be of first importance. This small piece of territory that we know as Kiaochow may well turn the future of 100 years. Any hon. Member has only to look at a map and he will see why. In the first place Japan—and I speak with all respect of

  1021
  Japan as an Ally of ours—holds Korea and Port Arthur, and the railroads of Manchuria reaching round Pekin on one side. Kiaochow, the territory in dispute, gives access to Pekin from the other side, and the German railroad concession which Japan also claims reaches back to the very rich mining land of Shen-si, and, beyond, across the whole of Asia. In this connection one further point seems to me to be perfectly incomprehensible. All the German rights in the territory of Kiaochow are renounced under the Treaty in favour of Japan, and under Article 157 the movable and immovable property owned by the German interests in the territory of Kiaochow, as well as all the rights which Germany "might claim" in consequence of the works or improvements made or the expenses incurred by her. I am at a loss to understand how it was that that provision was allowed to enter into the Treaty. "All the rights which Germany might claim"—how are we to know what rights Germany "might claim," and what limit is to be placed on the rights that Japan may claim under the provisions of that particular Article?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir E. Pollock): Would you give me the number of the Article?
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Article 157 on page 76. No one can deny that the question of Shangtung is meantime buried, but it will be resurrected at no very distant date, and, if I may say so, the position of Japan is not an unembarrassing one. Her difficulty relates to her own previous actions with reference to Kiaochow. It is this, that before Japan took possession of Kiaochow by force of arms, she made a demand on Germany to deliver it to her not later than 15th September, 1914, without condition or compensation. With what object? "With a view to the eventual restoration of the same to China." I do not wish to labour this point, but I do think it right that it should be placed on record that opinion in this House, and, as I understand it, in this country, is by no means unanimous in respect to the provisions of the Peace Treaty relating to the territory at Kiaochow. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), in the eloquent speech he made to-day, remarked that one of the advantages of this Treaty as distinct from the treaties which had been made in days of old, was that it provided an opportunity
  1022
  for a periodic review of the settlements, territorial and otherwise, which were incorporated within its provisions. I am perfectly sure that the provisions in regard to Shantung ought to be reviewed, and at an early date.
  May I pass on to what seems to me to be the outstanding advantage contained in the Peace Treaty which we are now discussing, and that is the inclusion of the League of Nations to which such eloquent reference has been made by various speakers this afternoon? I listened very closely to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 3rd July. He referred to the League of Nations as being the greatest guarantee of future peace. With that I whole-heartedly agree. If the Treaty were in other respects almost wholly bad the fact that the League of Nations Covenant was included in it would make it acceptable to me. If I may, I desire to add a further word in recognition of the labours of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin? I do so because at one period of the War I was somewhat closely associated with the work the Noble Lord was doing, and I know how great the debt of gratitude that this country, and I may say the world and posterity, owe to the ability, genius, and energy which the Noble Lord has brought to bear on the task entrusted to him. That is true not only of the Noble Lord, but of others who were associated with him, such as Lord Eustace Percy—to mention one name—in the task of framing and creating the Covenant of the League of Nations. I was glad the Prime Minister rectified an omission in the speech of 3rd July by inserting in the Press of the following day a commendation of the work of the Noble Lord. The Prime Minister in that speech, in recommending the League of Nations to the House, appeared to mo to do so with some doubt in his mind as to the popularity of the League. Whatever may be thought of the League of Nations in some quarters of this House, I venture to say that he need have no anxiety at all as to its popularity and its reception by the vast masses of the people throughout the country. The spirit of the Bourbons may still have a resting-place in certain quarters of this House, and in the person, for instance, of the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), who spoke a few minutes ago, but the people of this country generally are, it seems to me, anxious for the victory of ideals for

  1023
  which so much sacrifice has been made, and it is largely through the instrument of the League of Nations that they hope to see that victory achieved. The League of Nations has a task of the greatest magnitude before it. Let us hope that it will toe the antiseptic to some of the wounds which this Treaty has inflicted. It is fortunate, may I say, in its first Secretary-General, a gentleman who has done work through this War, as, indeed, before the War, of a most valuable nature, and a gentleman who brings to bear upon his task wide experience coupled with a kindly and genial character, which will go far to help him in the work he has to do. The appointment of Sir Eric Drummond is not only a compliment to the man, but is a compliment of the Allied and Associated Powers to the British Empire of which he is an ornament. As I read the League of Nations, it seems to me that the Council and the body of delegates are or will be for some time, not very much more than ornaments, and that the real work of the League will devolve upon what I may call the pulse of the machine, that is the secretariat under the Secretary-General. This secretariat will have no executive power, but will be in effect, as I understand it, an international information bureau, or, in other words, a world organ of knowledge and of expert thought. In a few years, let us hope, there will be assembled, as the result of the creation of the secretariat of the League of Nations in one central spot for all the civilised nations of the world, a body of experts examining and co-ordinating all the most important interests and activities of human welfare. That international exchange of thought and of ideas will necessarily, as it seems to me, help to develop peaceful as opposed to warlike ambitions, and that will be a great stride forward.
  I think we ought to recognise here, and the Prime Minister and the British delegation who have been in Paris would be the first to do so, the great part played by the President of the United States in bringing into being the Covenant of the League of Nations. I am aware that there was very close co-operation between the British and the American Delegations during the Peace Conference. If I had any criticism to make it would be that the co-operation was not closer. I could almost wish that the two delegations had put their heads together and had said
  1024
  that they were determined to draft a Peace Treaty which would leave behind it-no such territorial sores as are undoubtedly contained in the Treaty which we are discussing to-day. However that may be, one thing is clear, and that is that the future of the League of Nations and the future peace of the world, League of Nations or no League of Nations, must depend very largely upon the close co-operation between the people of the United States of America and the British Empire, and I hope therefore that His Majesty's Government will leave no stone unturned, to stimulate that co-operation and to do all that lies in their power to promote real friendship between the two nations. But there is one thing further that the League of Nations effects, so far as this country is concerned, and no reference has been made to that in any speech to which I have listened this evening. The League of Nations imposes new obligations upon the British Parliament and the people of this country. It is now incumbent upon this Parliament and upon the people of the British Empire to study, to examine, and to take an interest in foreign and international affairs to an extent and in a manner which they have not previously done. They cannot do so under our existing Governmental system, and I would therefore urge upon the Government that the creation of the League of Nations is an additional reason why they should at once undertake the task of remodelling the Governmental system of the United Kingdom in order to leave this Imperial House free to 6tudy, to examine, and to deal with, as I have suggested, the questions of international moment and cooperation that are bound to arise under this Treaty. There are, as I have indicated, some weak points in the Treaty, but perhaps it was inevitable that that should be so, that in some respects it is what we may call a compromise Treaty, but I am reminded in this connection of the statement which was made by that great American, Benjamin Franklin, towards the close of the Convention of 1787. The words seem to me to be so full of meaning and so apposite to the situation that now confronts us, that if the House will permit me I will quote them before sitting down. Benjamin Franklin said:
  "Mr. President: I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such, because I doubt as to whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a

  1025
  number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with, those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does, if every one of us, in returning to our constituents, were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavour to gain partisans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received. I hope, therefore, that for our own sakes, as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts and endeavours to the means of having it well administered."
  It is with similar sentiments, it seems to me, that we should accept the Treaty under discussion to-night, and, in accepting, do our utmost, individually and collectively, so to fashion the League of Nations, which is the keystone of the Treaty, as to ensure, so far as humanly possible, that it will safeguard for all time the peace of the world and the progress of democratic principles.
  Colonel BURN: It seems very difficult to realise at the end of almost five years of incessant fighting that the War is over, that the Peace has been signed, and that ratification has now only to follow. The task that has been carried out by the Prime Minister is a colossal one. He was returned as the representative of this nation, and for the nation, to conduct the negotiations at the Peace Conference, and I think it is very much a subject of congratulation that he has assisted to bring these peace negotiations to a conclusion, because the pitfalls that had to be got over and the difficulties of international relations were certainly a great task for any man, especially when we know that there were more than twenty nations, each of which wished to have a voice in the matter and was considering its own interests. I think we may congratulate ourselves as a nation, and congratulate also those representatives of Great Britain who took part in that Conference—the Foreign Secretary as well as the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil). There are points which we should like to criticise in the negotiations and in the result of the Peace Conference, but, taken as a whole, I think that there is little to which we can take exception. Of course, one knows that the question of indemnities is the one that interests the British nation most of all, and, personally, I feel that it was not
  1026
  our part to find out how much money Germany could pay. In my view the bill should have been presented to Germany, and it would have been for her to let us know how and when she could pay. I think that Germany is very much better able to meet her obligations than many people think, because, in the first place, she has great mineral wealth and a great deal of coal in that country. Could there be a time more than the present when coal is of the greatest necessity to us? Certainly Germany can make a very considerable contribution of coal to our country. Then, again, the work of the German is well known to be admirable. We have seen a great deal of that during the War regarding great German prisoners, and it is an extraordinary tiling the amount that the Germans can turn out, whether it be piece-work or skilled labour. I much regret to say it, but I think that the German workmen can give the workmen in this country points in the amount they do. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not in fighting!"] That has been proved, and it has been the case with the German prisoners who have been working in this country. They put their backs into it, and certainly they do as much in the time as any man could do. I think they do more than the British workmen at the present time, because they put their backs and their hearts into it.
  Then we know that all the German industries will be started again as once. Their country has been untouched by the hand of war. All their machinery, all their industries, are ready to start again, and I think it will be found that in the near future everything will be going full steam ahead in Germany, and they will be competing in the world's markets, Remember that they have no handicaps such as many of the European nations have—for instance, Belgium, where much of the machinery is ruined, and will take long to re-establish, while Germany is free to enter into competition with the world. Germany, we know, will have to trade with us again. She must trade, otherwise she can never pay her debts. But none of her goods that she sends to our country must be able to compete with the output of our own manufactories and our own industries. I should like to know, when considering the indebtedness of Germany, why German bonds payable in thirty, forty, or fifty years were not given to us in payment, or as security for the payment, of her indemnity to us. I cannot see why

  1027
  Germany should be free of debt after any given number of years. She has got to pay us for her indebtedness, and all the damage she has done in this War, and, however long it may take for that indebtedness to be paid, I think Germany should be under a bond and an agreement to us to pay that indebtedness. Most of us who sit in this House, if not all of us, were elected because we insisted on Germany paying an indemnity, and I think that it is the duty of every one of us to insist that she shall pay until the last penny is made good. That is my view. Then the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) spoke of the question of a number of cows being handed over to the Allied nations in place of those the Germans had taken from France. The Noble Lord said that the babies in many parts of Germany were suffering from lack of milk. I should like to ask what is happening to the babies in those parts of Franco where the cows were taken by the Germans. Surely if it be a case of babies starving from want of milk, I say without a shadow of doubt the German babies have got to starve first, and long before the French or Belgian babies.
  We have heard about the League of Nations, and I hope the League of Nations is more than a pious hope, because if it is workable it is the only means by which armaments can be kept down, by which large standing armies can be kept down, and by which matters can be settled which have been formerly settled by arms. It would mean that the armaments in this and all other countries could be very largely cut down, and I think by that means much could be done, though I am strongly against Germany being accepted in the League of Nations until we have proof—and very good proof—that she is fitted to be accepted in the comity of nations. We heard the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Devlin) quoting the League of Nations and making it applicable to Ireland. We heard him talk about our own Dominions, and the question of Home Rule for them. He quoted President Wilson on more than one occasion, and he quoted his Fourteen Points as being points applicable to Ireland. But I should like to ask, are we able to rule ourselves, and to legislate for ourselves, or do we require President Wilson to do it for us? I think the question of Ireland is a question for ourselves to decide. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Russia?"] Nobody would
  1028
  be more delighted to see the question of Ireland settled, provided it can be settled satisfactorily to the North and to the South. Let us all do what we can to make the League of Nations workable. It is the duty of all of us to assist in every way that is possible, to see that war is stopped for the future, and that this League is made a living thing by which international matters can be settled, so that the world in the future can live in peace.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: During the Debate to-night we have had extremely lucid and interesting speeches on a very high level, and, it I may say so, the last two were completely up to that level. Nevertheless, I have never been more alarmed during the last five years, not at having to address this in this House, but at the way in which these two Treaties have been treated by our representatives in the House of Commons. I think the time has come for plain speaking, and for a protest to be made, and I would like to add a small protest to that made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). The Treaties that we are discussing to-night are of first-rate importance. I suppose they are the most important Bills that any of us here are ever likely to see introduced into this legislative Chamber. They were long debated in secret. We were refused all information about them. They were finally presented to us after the German people had had them some weeks, or at least, I speak now of the Peace Treaty. Now we are given one day in which to discuss them, in spite of the interpolation, from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles, on this subject. The Government in regard to these two Bills has ignored the House of Commons. To-day the House of Commons has swallowed that affront. These are hard things to say, but I think they ought to be said, and said as plainly as possible, and with them other things. I propose to say them to-night. At the time of the Napoleonic wars, and the settlement afterwards, our whole foreign policy was debated and re-debated in this House. The speeches made at that time were historical. They actually swayed Governments. So far as I can gather we have fallen very far from that estate; yet more than one Member speaking to-night has spoken of ourselves as being representatives of the greatest democracy in the world. I repeat it, it shows the decline of the House, and one can only protest against it and pass on.

  1029
  We were given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. Barnes) a very interesting speech, chiefly concerned with international labour legislation. I am sure we all welcome the proposals of the Treaty for raising the level of international labour. But I would very much like an answer, when the Debate is wound up, by the member of the Government who speaks as to the fact—if it be a fact—that Japan and India, have been excluded from the international Labour Clauses. If that is the case, a great mistake has been made. Those two countries, in which admittedly the labour standard is much lower than in Europe, might have been admitted with reservations. It is a blot that that has not been alone. In the future that fact alone, I am afraid, may go far to wreck international labour legislation, which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barnes) has worked so hard to get incorporated in the Treaty. I am speaking now on the Peace Treaty proper, and in no party or carping spirit whatever. I am speaking with very great seriousness, and also with great diffidence. I wish, at the same time, I had more experience and wisdom in these matters, and, above all, more powers of oratory; but 1 do claim a hearing in this House, and for tour reasons. The first is, that with the possible exception of two hon. Members of this honourable House, I have been most recently in actual touch with the electorate, and have been through the ordeal of election. I, therefore, claim in that sense to have as good an idea of what the people of this country are saying and thinking as any other Member. The second leason—a small one, unfortunately—is that I took some slight active part in the War. I wish it had been more. That is not my fault—I did what I could. The third reason is, that I am trying to speak for a very large body of opinion outside this House which certainly disapproves of the whole course of the proceedings in Paris, and of the way these Treaties have been presented to the House, and certainly disapproves of the lack of critical, careful earnest examination by this House. The fourth reason is, that with many other Members of this House, I dare say, I share the blessing of having sons who in twenty years, if we make blunders now, may have to pay for them.
  9.0 p.m.
  In times gone by we were told again and again—I will not say ad nauseam, because some of these words could not be repeated too often—we were told we were
  1030
  fighting to make the world safe for democracy. A flood of memories, come as I utter these words. The War was a war to end war. It was a war that right and justice might prevail in the world over might. It was a war for the sanctity of treaties. Members of the Government on many platforms again and again used very line language in giving utterance to these sentiments, I want to speak respecting some of these statements. Let me quote, to begin with, one or two sentences from our own Prime Minister. On 7th January, speaking to the Trade Union Delegation at the Central Hall, Westminster, the Prime Minister said:
  "We are not fighting a war of aggression against the German nation. Their features have persuaded them that they are fighting a war of self-defence against a League of Allied Nations bent on the destruction of Germany. That is not so."
  Further on the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "We have never aimed to break up the German peoples or at the disintegration of their state or country. Germany has occupied a great position in the world. It is not our wish or intention to question or destroy that position for the future, but rather to turn her aside from the hopes in her scheme of military domination, and see her devote all her strength to the great and beneficent tasks of peace."
  And again:
  "Our point of view is that the adoption of a really democratic constitution by Germany will be the most convincing evidence that the old spirit of military domination has indeed died."
  There are many more such expressions. We must all have read them. They inspired hundreds of thousands of men of our race and hundreds of thousands of men, not of our race, who have fought with us in this struggle. The fine idealism of 1914 and 1915 has got to be recaptured if the national unity that everyone pleads for in the next five years is to be brought, about. I say that these fine ideals have been lost sight of in the documents we are debating to-night. The Treaty is looked at differently by different schools. The first of those who have spoken to-night think that the terms are not severe enough. They are particularly exercised on the question of reparation and money. I have every sympathy and respect for that point of view. They consider that we will be in danger of reviving Germany in the future, and therefore Germany should be utterly crushed, and made as weak as possible, and kept so. That is quite understandable. It is soldierlike. I repeat I have great respect for that view.

  1031
  I can understand it. I rather prefer it to some other classes of thought the exponents of which talk very much in the air; when it comes to facts we find they have not carried out their fine promises. The second of those of whom I speak—a very small number—are those who entirely agree with the Peace Treaty. Not one of the speakers I have heard has said that he agreed with it entirely. There must be some persons who agree with it even as a document. The third are those who disagree with some of the Clauses in it, but who are prepared to accept it, particularly because it embodies the great idea of the League of Nations. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord It. Cecil), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. Clynes), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) are three good representatives of that point of view, and they accept the Treaty because of the League of Nations. Fourthly, there are those who take exception to certain Clauses, but they also object to the way the League of Nations idea has been worked up, and, although they consider the League is a beginning, they think that the Treaty is such that it will never come to fruition, and it is that school of thought I wish to speak for.
  I would make a few criticisms of the League of Nations as we have it embodied in the volume of the Treaty of Peace. The first criticism I have to make is that thirty or forty small nations are to be represented by four members not elected by themselves but nominated by the big Powers. This, in the future, may be an entirely artificial distinction, like the classes which prevailed in England in the Middle Ages, a system which has now broken down. You have four large Powers at the top as a result of this system, and thirty or forty nations representing the lesser Powers at the bottom, including such countries as China, Russia, and Germany. That is an invidious distinction, and it will not lead to wholehearted co-operation on the part of the small nations.
  My third criticism of the League is that we ourselves in this country have no voice in the appointment of the officials of the council. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Lieut.-Colonel Murray) who paid a tribute to the First Secretary-General of the League. As far as I know he is a very admirable choice in every
  1032
  way, but we have no voice in his appointment, and he might have been the most unsuitable person possible. We have no voice in the matter except through our Government, and that is wrong. The nations, through their Parliaments, should have a right to elect by free and open vote their representative on the council and the Assembly of the League. The criticism that there is no real attempt to immitarmaments was very ably met by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin, who pointed out the great difficulty of limiting armaments, and he said, "Who can say what a nation needs for their own security?" I think the Noble Lord missed the whole point. As things are now, it is practically impossible to limit armaments, and we have left aside, the only real way, and that is, complete disarmament all round, with a strong international police force. That is the only way to keep both internal and external order, and if you are to have armies in all these little nations, you will never be free from the danger of war.
  My next criticism is that the beaten Powers are not admitted, and their cooperation is wanted for making up the ruins of Europe. I would like to refer to the criticism made by the United States, because I think that should receive a certain amount, of examination in this House. Article 10 of the Covenant is as follows:
  "The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the council shall advise upon the menus by which this obligation shall be fulfilled."
  I have no tread the whole of the criticisms made in America since, but I think they take the point of view that you are attempting to stereotype continuity in a changing world. In some of the nations of the world, such as the southern parts of Europe, you have a continuity which extends over many generations, and that is one of the causes of war in the past, and it is also one of the things which the League of Nations will have to legislate for. Certain areas become depopulated and others overcrowded, and the League has to find some solution of this difficulty. We are asked to stereotype existing conditions, and this shows that the League requires to be drastically amended before it meets the needs of the world. I consider that if we do not make this League a success general ruin will overtake the world by further wars. These things can be remedied now,

  1033
  and I consider that we are making a mistake in ratifying this Treaty. If this House and the country could assert itself the Government would realise certain defects must be made good, and it would be a tremendous step forward in international and internal peace in this country. It has been said that if we do not remedy these things war will break out again. We are now at peace with Germany, and we know that, although she has been urged to continue the War, she refuses to fight. Every effort has been made to make her fight, but the Germans know they are beaten, and will not fight. We could, therefore, at once quite safely set to work and remodel the objectionable parts both of the Covenant of the League and the Peace Treaty itself. No one criticises the Clause dealing with Alsace-Lorraine or the return of Schleswig-Holstein to Denmark. I think we made a mistake by trying to incorporate the Germans with the Danes in the first attempt at settlement. The Danes in their wisdom refused to accept the first frontier laid down on the grounds that it violated the principal of nationality. They refused purely German territory. I am quite certain that the statesmen in Paris with their representatives and their staff had made a mistake perfectly honestly. Does not that show that other mistakes may equally well have been made?
  When the Prime Minister spoke in this House in March he spent a great deal of his speech criticising very adversely a Noble Lord who is a Member of another place—I refer to Lord Northeliffe—and he mentioned his Peace terms that were issued to all the world at the time of the Armistice. He treated them lightly; in fact, almost with contempt. Those peace terms in a great many respects were infinitely better than these Peace terms which we are asked to ratify. In those Peace terms Lord Northeliffe laid it down that the boundary between Poland and Germany should be settled by a mixed Polish and German Commission. That was a statesmanlike proposal. What a pity it was not done! What a pity it would have been if the Danes had accepted the proposed frontier for Schleswig. The demand for the reparation of France and Belgium, for compensation for our murdered seamen, and for the payment of the damages of the War no one really criticises. These are not the weak points that have been attacked. No one suggests that the Clauses with regard to the indisputably
  1034
  Polish territory are unjust, nor are the Articles of the Treaty regarding punishment for the War attacked at all. The criticisms which have been heard to-night refer to the Saar Valley, which, of course, taken by itself could be justified. The Germans destroyed the French mines, and therefore the French are entitled to the German mines. The prospect before Poland, I agree, is terrible. In twenty years' time Poland may find herself wedged in between two hostile countries, namely, Germany with 60,000,000 inhabitants and Russia with 170,000,000 inhabitants. If Poland is not on good terms with those two nations, her position will be impossible. We have there the seeds of a future war.
  Every one of the economic conditions can be justified taken by itself, but we have well justified complaints by our own manufacturers of our own Government control. What is it going to mean to Germany, which has to work to recover in order to pay its just debts, if it does not have control even by its own Government, but control by an Allied Commission? The proposal regarding German shipping can be justified taken by itself. They sunk our ships in a perfectly illegal way, and the proposal taken by itself is perfectly right. The whole of the German Colonies are alienated, and she loses three-quarters of her iron and one-third of her coal. She is allowed no agents or banks in foreign countries, and no foreign security. She is to pay £5,000,000,000 on account and the remainder as is to be determined, and that in addition to the live stock that she has to give at this time. All these things taken together, with others which I will not mention, are crushing, and condemn generations of Germany to economic slavery. I quite agree that the transferring of Shangtung from Germany to Japan is a great blunder and a great violation of the rights of self-determination.
  Proof of the failure of this Peace Treaty is afforded by our necessity to keep an Army of Occupation on the Rhine for fifteen years—an army bigger than, our original Expeditionary Force. That, added to the maintenance of necessary armies in other parts of the world, will be an intolerable burden in the years to come. We have great difficulties in our own administration, there is discontent in the nation, and this burden will hit us extremely hard. The whole of Europe is tottering on the brink of bankruptcy at the present time. Every available man,

  1035
  every skilled workman, every available machine in Europe is required to produce, and every distributive agency is required to distribute goods. Germany can only produce the goods absolutely necessary to save Europe from chaos and anarchy if she can get her industries going. That is the weakness of the position taken up by hon. Gentlemen when they talk about having crushed a trade rival. Co-operation in the world is required now, and every German skilled workman should be working overtime to produce goods. If the Germans can produce goods cheaply for the devastated areas of Europe, we should be only too glad.
  I criticised just now the alienation of the whole of the German colonies. Taken by itself, that is a perfectly just judgment upon them, but you now find a great country—because she is a great country, as regards size, natural resources, and number of inhabitants—cut off altogether from the outside world. If we had been far-seeing and statesmanlike, she would have been given a mandate over one of her old colonies. It is true that she treated the native inhabitants badly, but I am sorry to say that two of our Allies, Portugal and Belgium, in the past have treated the inhabitants of their colonies badly. We did not deprive them of their colonies, and it is sheer hypocrisy to bring that forward as a reason for depriving Germany of her colonies. That, taken with other Clauses, means that you are going to keep the nation in economic slavery.
  We are faced in this country with a grave industrial crisis. We have all listened with great approval to the words of the right hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Manchester (Mr. Clynes), when he pleaded for a little liberalism in dealing with the claims of different classes. The great need now is for cooperation between different classes in our own country, and if you hold out to them the example of this Peace Treaty being forced upon a beaten foe by the force of arms, you are simply setting them a bad example. How can you expect the miners to modify their demands if you have such a spirit abroad in the world? It is the spirit which is responsible for the twenty-three wars now being waged. It is a spirit which will bring into this country great industrial unrest. You will not stop these twenty-three wars between small
  1036
  nations, you will not prevent general anarchy, chaos, and revolution, and you will not get that co-operation between classes which is absolutely required if this Treaty is to be ratified now without amendment. Why not listen to the Germans in council, as was done at the close of the Napoleonic wars? If you do not meet them in conference now we shall be answerable for the future. If this House takes the responsibility of blindly voting without revision the terms of the Treaty, I am afraid that this country will suffer, and Members of this House who are trying to shout me down will be responsible.
  Sir S. HOARE: I have no intention of standing between the House and the Prime Minister, and when the right hon. Gentleman comes in 1 shall immediately sit down. But I feel that every private Member—and very few have spoken this evening—has a right in this important Debate to announce his views. I do not think the hon. and gallant Member who has just resumed his scat had any reason to excuse himself for explaining his views. He had a perfect right to do so. But do not let him think for a moment that I share his views; indeed, I think I may go so far as to say it is doubtful whether any Member in the House agrees with him. I should like for a minute to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Devlin). I cannot admit the analogy that he drew between the case of Ireland and that of certain other small nationalities that have been brought within the scope of the Peace Treaty, but I can without reserve acknowledge the magnificent part which many of the men whom he leads played in the War.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I do not lead anyone.
  Sir S. HOARE: Then I can acknowledge the magnificent part played by the late Mr. John Redmond, and I can assure the hon. Member that, so far as I am concerned, I am just as anxious as he is for the settlement of the Irish problem. I would ask the President of the Board of Education to inform the Prime Minister when he returns to the Front Bench that there are many Unionist Members who regard the Irish question as urgent as does the hon. Member for Belfast. I would also like him to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the need not only for an expression of pious opinion but for an attempt seriously to grapple with this problem before the end of the Session. Many words have

  1037
  been said in congratulation of the noble part the Prime Minister has played in the conduct of the peace negotiations. May I, as a humble Back Bench Member, share in those congratulations, and may I also express my satisfaction with a fact not yet noted, that every one of the Peace Delegates who acted on the part of the United Kingdom at the Peace Conference was a Member of the House of Commons. It is the first occasion on which that has ever taken place. May it be a significant augury of the increasing interest in and growing control of the House of Commons over the conduct of the foreign affairs of this country.
  During the course of this Debate criticisms have been made against the Treaty and made with full sincerity. They seem to have centred upon three points. In the first place it has been urged that the Treaty places too heavy a burden on Germany. Secondly, it has been urged by the right hon. Member for one of the divisions of Manchester in a very noble speech that the Treaty does not go far enough in the matter of disarmament, and, thirdly, it has been urged that the Treaty fails in applying fully the principle of self-determination. Let me, with all deference, suggest to the hon. Members who have made these criticisms that they are confusing two different phases of the situation through which we are passing. In the first place we are liquidating the old world, and in the second place we are creating a new one. Both of these actions have to be taken separately. You cannot, in my view, create a new world until you have liquidated the old one. You cannot obtain the new dispensation until you have destroyed the old. Organisations and governments which have in the past debased the standard of international relations have to be destroyed, and in the same way the men who made war possible and who brought war to Europe, have got to be punished. Therefore the Treaty has to liquidate the old world, and when it has done that it can then proceed to create the new world. On that account I agree with the provisions of the Treaty under which punishment, reparation and indemnity are exacted. But I do so with this one reservation—that I hope the Prime Minister when he comes to reconsider the question of the trial of the Kaiser will incline to the view that the trial should be one undertaken by the Permanent Court of Justice of the
  1038
  League of Nations, rather than by a body that must be partial sitting in London. I am most anxious that we should not turn a criminal into a martyr.
  Secondly, just as I approve of the punishment of the guilty and the exaction of reparation and indemnities, so I also approve most sincerely of the steps that have been taken under the Peace Treaty to break up the old bad Governments of the past; for instance, the bad Hohenzollern Government, the essence of materialism and imperialism; the old bad Hapsburg Government, the essence of bureaucratic unscrupulousness and anti-national intrigue; and 1 hope also the old bad Ottoman Government, the essence of religious persecution and mediaeval corruption. These old organisations have got to be broken if the new world is to come into being. What, gives me to think is that there are still men—I am afraid many men—of the old Hapsburg and Hohenzollern Empires who are determined to piece together again the old machine and to make it again function. On that account I fully agree with the safeguards that have been taken in the Treaty to make the machinations of those men impossible—safeguards such as the Treaty that we and the United States have made for the mutual guarantee of France. In my view, a guarantee of that kind is absolutely necessary if the new world is to come into being with a chance of success. Moreover, I have this confidence, that the Treaty does not merely concern itself with guarantees and safeguards against the old dispensation, but that in the League of Nations it provides an organisation under which the now world can come into being with success. On that account I was most glad to hear the eloquent words delivered by one who is the most qualified to speak on the League of Nations, my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil). To me the League of Nations is not some visionary assembly of a new Jerusalem, but a practical body, sitting continuously, working upon concrete problems, and in direct touch, not only with the Foreign Offices, but with public opinion in each country which is represented. For the success of that League I look, not only to the British Empire, but to the British Empire assisted by the United States of America. To me, the League of Nations, both in its conception and in its constitution, is an Anglo-Saxon creation and an Anglo-Saxon

  1039
  ideal. Let not, then, the United States entrench itself in the Munroe Doctrine and retire to its own continent; let not, also, the British Empire content itself with the self-development of its own resources, but let both together make the one organisation that is going to make the new world possible, and ensure the League of Nations, not only as a theory of a few politicians, but as a political organisation for making a new and better world.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think the Government, and I think I might also add the Peace Conference, have every reason to be gratified with the discussion that has taken place to-day upon the Treaty of Peace. There has been no fundamental criticism. There has been suggestions made; there have, been one or two sections of the Clauses of this gigantic document which have been subjected to some slight criticisms, but, in the main, it has struck me that the House as a whole—I do not know that I can make any exception—has accepted this Treaty. In that respect I think they reflect public opinion outside. One right hon. Friend of mine suggested that the House of Commons ought to devote itself to a very close scrutiny of the whole of this document. I should have thought that that was the worst use to which the House of Commons could put its own powers. It is not merely that it is absolutely unprecedented. It would ha quite impossible for the Government of this country to enter into negotiations with other lands under conditions of that kind. If the House of Commons wanted a closer scrutiny and wanted move time to examine the various clauses of the Treaty, of course the Government would have been only too delighted to make the necessary arrangements. The course of the discussion has covered not merely the Treaty of Peace with Germany, but also the Treaty which has been entered into between this country and America and France. I am not aware that that has been challenged by any section of this House. I believe that one speaker asked for the Government's action in entering into a treaty of that kind, instead of relying entirely upon the provisions of the League of Nations. I gave my reasons for that when I laid the Treaty on the Table of the House, and I am quite prepared to repeat the statement which I then made. It is no reflection upon the League of Nations. It is no proof of our want of confidence in it. It is no proof of the want of confidence of the
  1040
  French people in it, that they should desire a separate guarantee of this kind, that the power of Great Britain and the power of the United States of America would be behind them if Germany repealed the attacks of 1870 and 1914. We must take into account the natural anxiety and nervousness of France in the face of this terrible menace that has devastated their fair land twice within the course of living memory. The League of Nations is an experiment. My Noble Friend, to whom we owe so much in the negotiation of this great document, would be the last man in the world not to admit that it is in an experimental stage. In fact, he pointed out himself that the success of tire League depended upon the action of the various covenanting parties, whether public opinion supported them, whether the Governments of the various countries sincerely tried to operate them. A treaty or an organisation to which those observations apply must necessarily be treated as a great experiment and France, which has been so cruelly trampled upon, which has suffered such gigantic losses, not merely in property bur. in life, which is sore and bleeding, says, "I believe in the experiment. We shall do our best to carry it out, but until it is an established success, we should like to feel that behind us, if this crime is repeated, is the might, the power, and the majesty of Britain and the United States." That is no reflection upon the League of Nations. It is casting no discredit upon it. It is throwing no suspicion upon it. On the contrary I believe the fact that we have a guarantee of that kind will in itself conduce to the success of the League of Nations because, although in the main I agree that public opinion is what you have to depend upon, nations that trample upon treaties must feel that they have to deal with something besides public opinion. They must know that there is a public opinion in nations which is prepared if necessary to use force in order to ensure respect for solemn covenants and treaties, and it is because you have this document, to which provisionally I subscribed my name on behalf of the British Government, and the British nation, subject to the ratification of this House, that the League, of Nations will have a better chance of establishing itself as a permanent organisation in the world whose decrees will be feared and respected.
  I come now to the more important and the more permanent document, because

  1041
  this guarantee to France is provisional in its character. On the face of it it is a guarantee that lasts until France feels that the League of Nations is sufficiently established that she can depend upon its working. The criticisms so far as they went—and they have been very moderate and very slight—are self-destructive. One set of hon. Members criticised it on the ground that we have gone rather too far. We have exacted impossible indemnities. Other hon. Members think we have not gone far enough. We ought to have been sterner in our demands. I came to the House two or three months ago, at a time when the Treaty was being criticised by people who had never seen it and knew nothing about it, before it had ever been, formulated, and I challenged any of those critics after the Treaty had been published to publish side by side with it the declarations and the pledges which were given at the election. I have not seen it successfully copied. Therefore, I take it that no enterprising journalist thought the contests was sufficiently conspicuous to make it worth his while to print these collateral columns.
  Mr. HOGGE: "John Bull "tried it.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid it must have been rather a failure.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: This week's copy of "John Bull."
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I missed it. Some hon. Members think we have not been severe enough on Germany. The hon. Member (Mr. Bottomley) gave line impression that in the indemnity or reparation Clauses of this document Britain was getting nothing except compensation for broken windows. I am afraid he did not read his own copy of "John Bull." If ho did he would have known that that was not even a remotely accurate account of the Treaty. The compensation that Britain gets out of this Treaty is of a very substantial character. All the ships which have been sunk—compensation is to be paid for those. All the sailors who suffered—compensation is to be paid in respect of Jives lost, and injuries sustained by them. All the damage in respect of air-raids and bombardments, which is very considerable I am sorry to say. But more than that there is a very substantial item which the hon. Member does not seem to have heard of. Compensation is to be paid in respect of all the pensions and allowances, which amount to a very considerable
  1042
  annual charge upon the taxes of this country, and the only limitation there is that the compensation should be based upon the French allowances and not the British. It was quite impossible that you should have one scale of compensation for the loss of a French life, another for a British life, another for a Colonial life, and another for an American life. Therefore, it was decided that you should take an allowance which, on the whole, represented something like the mean between the various charges which were made.
  An HON. MEMBER: The lowest!
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is not the lowest. The Italian is very much lower. It is a very substantial scale of allowances. It is not as high as ours, I agree, but at any rate it is a very considerable figure, and if our hopes are realised and we secure from Germany the payment of all these sums in respect of compensation which are included in the category of the damage, this country will receive very considerable sums of money which will relieve the burden of taxation. When there is criticism of the Clauses of the Treaty, inside or outside the House, I hope very good care will be taken to state the real facts of the case.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Future charges.
  The PRIME MINISTER: They are not future charges. They are charges which are going on at the present moment.
  Mr. KENNEDY JONES: The cost of the War.
  10.0 p.m.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am coming to the cost of the War. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) says that we have not secured payment for the cost of the War. The very first Clause in the indemnity section is a recognition by Germany of her liability in respect: of the whole cost of the War. She admits it. She admits it in the Treaty she has signed. Now I come to whether there was the remotest chance of our exacting that gigantic sum from Germany. The total cost of the, War for all the Allies would come to an aggregate of, at least, £30,000,000,000. That means, with a sinking fund, that Germany would have to find £1,800,000,000 a year. Not £1,800,000,000 a year paid inside her own territory. Everybody knows the difference between making a payment inside your own country and a payment across the border in another land. Can anyone tell me how Germany is to pay that] It is no use

  1043
  talking about her war loans; you cannot cash them at the Bank of England. It is no use talking about the soil of Germany. You can only pay by so much of the produce of Germany as you can get outside and turn into cash. This question was examined by the ablest body of experts that the Allied nations could gather together. It was one of the first questions for which a Commission was set up. Each country chose its own experts. They were all the countries that had an interest in the matter. If we are burdened with debt, so is France and so is Italy burdened with debt. Belgium had her reparation; Serbia, Rumania—they had all their burdens, it was to the interests of all these representatives of the various countries to exact the uttermost farthing out of Germany. Does anybody doubt that they would have done it if they had found the means. They were men of great financial repute. They were men of great financial experience, and they were not going to make representation in a solid body to the Peace Conference which they knew could not be realised. Our action was taken after consultation with all these experts, and the conclusions are embodied in the Peace Treaty. It is a very considerable sum. There has been a criticism by my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir D. Maclean), who made a very fair and well tempered although a searching examination of the Treaty. He complained that the figure was indeterminate. I think my Noble Friend (Lord E. Cecil) also rather supported that view. If it is indeterminate, it is not our fault. Germany complained that the figure was indeterminate, but it is her own fault. How can we determine it? The reason why the figure is indeterminate is that no one can tell you what the damage is. The devastated regions extend over about 400 miles. There are about 400 miles by about 30 miles of the devastated region, and there is no living man who can tell at the present moment what the damage is. If we fixed a definite amount we should simply have been transferring the uncertainty from Germany to France. Would that have been fair to France? No doubt it would have been better for Germany if we had fixed a definite amount. No doubt it would have been better for Europe if we had fixed an amount. But would it have been better for France? We do not at the present moment know the amount of the damage, and you cannot tell
  1044
  at the present moment what it would cost to repair it, because the cost of material and the cost of labour have gone up. No one knows whether it is going up or going down. It is quite impossible to fix the amount. What we have done is this. We have given Germany the opportunity of sending its surveyors through the devastated regions and making their own estimates. They can submit that estimate within the next four months. If it is a fair estimate France will accept it. But at the present moment no one can tell, and that is the reason why the figure is indeterminate. I did not understand the hon. Member for Hackney to say that Germany could pay this £30,000,000,000. She has, lost three-fourths of her iron ore, which has been taken from her. One-third of her coal deposits have been taken away. Six or seven millions of her population have been taken away. She has been deprived of the whole of her colonies. I do not believe that even my hon. Friend would say that Germany could pay that £1,800,000,000 per annum, even if she had the whole of those territories still under her control. What he says is: "You ought to present a bill." He attaches more importance to the presentation of a bill than to its payment. We have presented a bill to Germany. We said that Germany must acknowledge the whole of it. But we have come to the conclusion, upon the advice of the best experts that Europe supplied, not merely to the British Empire but to France, to Italy, to Rumania, to Belgium, and to all the allied countries—that the category of damage which you have to attach to this Treaty is the limit of the capacity of Germany to pay. I think that is about all I need say under that heading.
  I now come to the very able and eloquent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for one of the divisions of Lancashire. He said he was anxious that there should be no Alsace-Lorraines set up in this Treaty. I agree, I said is before I entered the Peace Conference, and during the whole of the Peace Conference I was watchful that nothing of the kind should be done. I knew what Europe had suffered from the setting up of one Alsace-Lorraine, and I knew that if we set up another it would simply repeat the same crime, the same blunder and the same disaster. I know no Alsace-Lorraines that we have set up in this Treaty. My right hon. Friend referred to the district of Birnbaum. I have looked it up. When

  1045
  he spoke I only had a faint recollection. I knew we had discussed the matter. But I will tell him about it. If my right hon. Friend means to say that you must have no Germans inside Poland and no Poles inside Germany, that was impossible physically. But that is largely due to the German policy. Germany had been setting up little colonies here and there, with a view to the Prussianising of Poland. I will tell him about Birnbaum. Birnbaum is a district in the province of Posnania. The town of Birnbaum is German. The whole district is Polish, and if you took a plebisite of the whole of that area the majority would be decisively Polish. Now I ask him what he would have done in those circumstances? Birnbaum is a very good illustration of some of the most difficult problems with which we were confronted. He could not have said: "We will take that little town in the middle of a great wide area. We will declare that to be German; all the surrounding area must be Poland." That would be an impossible limitation.
  An HON. MEMBER: Ireland!
  The PRIME MINISTER:There is nothing in Ireland comparable to that. If you had the town of Tipperary, which happened to be, let us say, a Protestant town, or if you had an Irish colony in this country, take the Scotland Division of Liverpool, where you have got an overwhelming Irish population. My hon. Friend (Mr. O'Connor) is a great Irish Nationalist and a distinguished Irish patriot, but not even in his most intense moments has he ever claimed that the Scotland Division of Liverpool should be added to Ireland? I am not sure that he as so very anxious for a result, which we would deplore very sincerely, as it would deprive us of his genial presence in this House. But that is a comparable case, and you have many cases of that kind. The Germans had the habit of settling in industrial districts in towns where the whole of the surrounding population is Polish, and the country is traditionally Polish. That is one of the cases. I will take another case which is more difficult, and one which I admit always gave me a great deal of anxiety. That is the case of the Polish corridor. The Polish corridor divides East from West Prussia, but not for the first time. East and West Prussia were severed for centuries. They were united by an Act of Conquest, and not by
  1046
  the will of the inhabitants, and if my hon. Friend went to the corridor and asked the population, "Which would you rather be. Polish or Prussian?" by an overwhelming-majority they would vote Polish. No one doubts that. The population is Polish.
  Now I ask, in the name of self-determination and all the principles which he advocates, which of these does he put highest of his category of principles: the right of a people to choose their own government or mere geographical convenience? And even from the point of view of convenience it is not so bad as it looks. The, traffic between East and West Prussia is mostly a sea traffic, and in so far as it is a traffic by railway we have safeguarded the rights of East and West Prussia so as to give them the freest access and exchange between one and the other. But I would ask any of my hon. Friends who criticise our severance of Prussia by the handing over of a population which is purely Pole to the Republic of Poland—and I put this as a challenge—will they now say that we ought to have, forced this Polish population, this population which is overwhelmingly Polish in tongue, spirit, tradition, and aspiration, under the dominion of Prussia against their will, merely in order to unite East and West Prussia? If not, there is no sense in their protest about the Polish corridor. When it came to the handing over of large tracts of German territory, German in speech as well as in sympathy, like Dantzig or Marienbad and adding them to the corridor, I have no hesitation in protesting against that, and I am very glad to be able to say that the Peace Congress took exactly the same view, and have laid down that it was an outrage to force purely German territory into Poland for geographical reasons. That is my answer about the Polish corridor and I cannot help thinking that my right hon. Friend will agree that in the circumstances, although it was a very difficult decision, we took the only possible course in accordance with the principle which had been laid down as the basis of the Armistice.
  Then my two right hon. Friends raised the question of Conscription and of armaments. I agree with everything they said on that subject, but I think we took the right course to put an end to Conscription. You cannot put an end to armament until you strike at the root. Why did you need great armaments in Great Britain? Why was it necessary for this country, that never had a conscript army, for the first

  1047
  time in its history for centuries to start Conscription? It was purely because of the menace of Prussian militarism. That is what created the great Armies of France, Italy, Russia, and America, as well as of Great Britain. As long as you had that menace existing Conscription would be inevitable, and the instinct of self-preservation and self-defence would have driven every country in Europe, including Great Britain, to Conscription, and there is no section or party that would have resisted that inevitable tendency. What course did we take? We said the first way to get rid of these gigantic armaments, which are a burden upon industry, which are a menace to the peace of Europe, is to get rid of the Prussian military system, and we decided to impose upon Germany as a condition of peace that her Army must be a voluntary one upon the basis of long service, so that she would not repeat the device which followed the battle of Jena, by a short-service system, and gradually work up a gigantic army which in the course of ten years would run into millions. That is why we insisted on the long-service system. That is the guarantee which you get to end Conscription. But my right hon. Friends say, "Why do you not get rid of it?" In the first place, the War has not been concluded until you make peace; more that that, when you got such an upset as has been wrought by this great World-War, you are not going to clear it up in a few days. It would have been folly on our part if in a moment of impatience, if through excessive hurry, we had thrown away the fruits of a victory which had cost us such great sacrifices. You had first of all to secure peace; you had to secure a good peace. What secured that? The knowledge that the Allies had a great Army which could impose their terms upon Germany. If you abolish Conscription immediately, demobilise your Armies, send your troops away from the Rhine, do you think you would have the Treaty of Versailles or any other treaty? Therefore, it was necessary, until first of all you had secured the peace, until you had established the peace, not merely here but in all the belligerent lands, to maintain a bigger force than the normal which we hope to attain. I am very glad to be able to say that our efforts to raise an army by voluntary means have hitherto been very successful, and I hope that by the end of the year,
  1048
  certainly by the beginning of next year, we may be in a position to state that we have secured all the forces necessary in order to police the Empire and guard our interests in all the various quarters of the Globe where it is absolutely necessary that the British name, British honour, British prestige, and British power should be respected. But I ask any of my hon. and right hon. Friends, who are as interested as I am in putting an end to Conscription in this country, whether there is any other course they could have taken except the course which the Peace Conference has taken? Other countries are in exactly the same plight as we are in. The United States of America hate Conscription just as much as my hon. and right hon. Friends. They are as determined as we are to put an end to Conscription at the earliest possible moment, but they know they cannot do it until the whole situation has been cleared up, and we may definitely say that this horrible chapter in the history of the world has been closed and a new chapter has begun.
  The same thing applies to armaments. If after we have had this lesson of the danger of great armies and great navies and great armaments we still go on in that mad competition, it shows that human nature is unteachable. My Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) said in the course of his powerful speech on the League of Nations that the success of the League of Nations depends upon the sincerity of this country. It depends on more than that. It depends on the sincerity of all the signatories. If one country, whilst being a party to the League of Nations, still goes on in distrust, not in the League, not in its covenants, not in its public opinions, but increasing its armaments, how can this nation demonstrate its sincerity except at a risk which no statesman can possibly take? It depends upon the sincerity not merely of this land but, of every country. This country, I am sure, is only too eager to get rid of this terrible burden which is weighing upon its resources. It would be idle to wage a great war of this kind if the only conclusion of it was that not merely did we renew the competition in armaments which precipitated the conflict very largely, but did it with renewed and redoubled vigour and energy, because armaments will increase in costliness, in their murderousness, and in their terror, and if nations are going to begin that again then this War will be the greatest tragedy this

  1049
  worm has ever seen. I sincerely re-echo all the sentiments uttered by my Noble Friend and by my hon. and right hon. Friends that the nations who subscribed to this Covenant of the League will not merely use it as a boast to be able to say, "See the exalted ideals to which we have attached our signatures; see the high line we have taken," but that they will demonstrate that they mean it by making all the necessary sacrifices, by facing obloquy, in order to make that Covenant a reality and demonstrate that they are in earnest when they say that they mean this Covenant to put an end to the horrors of war for ever. That is my answer to my hon. Friends upon these two points. I do not think there is very much else bearing directly on the Treaty, at any rate that I have heard in the course of the discussion, that it will be necessary for me to answer. My right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) wants to know whether I stand by the declaration which I made on behalf of my colleagues and myself two or three months ago about Russia. Certainly. That is our view. We have not departed in the least from it. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Churchill?"] We have not departed in the least from it, nor has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. He has not departed in the least from the declarations which were made in this House at that time. That is the policy of the Government, and we stand by it.
  There is only one word which I should like to say in answer to what my right hon. Friend said about the Kaiser. It is not for me to presume guilt or innocence, if there is to be a trial; but I do not think anyone will say that the person, whoever he is, who is responsible for this wholesale slaughter should escape, and I am very glad to hear the courageous declaration of my right hon. Friend in that respect. But what he also said was, "Why do not you try him in some neutral country?" What right have we to presume that the neutral country would choose to be the scene of a prosecution of that kind? We have no control over them. They were not in the Peace Conference; they were not in the War. The Kaiser would never have been subject to trial if it had been left to the neutral countries, and I have sufficient confidence in this country, and the Allies have sufficient confidence in this country—and I regard the fact that they have chosen this country as the scene as a proof of their confidence—that whoever comes hero for trial will receive a trial
  1050
  which will be equal to the highest traditions of British justice, and there are no higher in the world—will receive every fair play. No one doubts that if you are going to put an end to wav you must treat it in a different spirit from what you have treated war in the past. You must treat wars not as if they were purely an honourable game, with a prospect of great personal glory, and of no personal risk for those who precipitate them. They must be treated, not as an honourable game, but as a crime. A man whoever he is, who may kill his neighbour for gain, is a murderer. A man may kill millions of his neighbours for gain, and he is either a great warrior or a great ruler, or a great statesman. You will never put an end to war till you alter the whole attitude towards it, and the point of the trial is that for the first time you treat the man who had organised, deliberately and wantonly, war for personal aggrandisement, or for vainglory, you treat him for the first time—you stamp his action as felony. No threat of punishment will deter men from defending their native land or its honour, whatever the punishment is. I think statesmen or rulers who are even tempted to engage in the business of war merely for personal aggrandisement will think twice, when once you have established it as a crime in the category of the laws of nations. That is why we considered, after a good deal of reflection, that a person whom we regard as the author of this crime should be tried for it.
  Mr. S. WALSH: There are others, I suppose?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would not like to take up the answer of my hon. and learned Friend. I think my hon. Friend had better not ask me too much about that. I do not think I ought to give all the names. I do not think it would be helpful at the present moment. They will know it in time. My Noble Friend and others have said, "Is not the crime well known? Why should you have a trial?" The mere fact that the crime is well known, and that the facts are well known, is no justification for a condemnation without trial, and the conclusion we deliberately came to was that it would be fairer, it would be more impressive, if there were a crime, for you would elevate at once action of that kind to the realm of international law. The arbitrary act of a conqueror punishing, without trial, might not do it, whereas a trial would. We con-

  1051
  sidered all these matters; we discussed these various suggestions, and that is the conclusion we deliberately came to. Although it may be a great shock to have a trial of this kind, I have no hesitation in saying that, in the end, it will be found to achieve a more permanent purpose and effect than a mere arbitrary decision without hearing what is to be said.
  Now I come to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast (Mr. Devlin), who delivered such a moving appeal on behalf of his country. I am sure he made a very great impression upon the whole House. My hon. Friend appealed to the Government to apply the principles of President Wilson to the case of Ireland, and he asked me a question, whether I was prepared to do so? I will answer that question if he will answer me another, and I am not asking him that question, let him believe me, merely to get out of answering his question, but because it will help me to answer it. Will he apply those principles to the whole of Ireland? Because as he himself realises—no one knows better—that is the supreme obstacle in the way of settlement lie talked about forcing authority upon a free people by arms. In principle it is the same thing whether you force 1,500,000 of people or 3,000,000 of people. It is the same principle, and he must know that that is the difficulty. The real difficulty is that you cannot, if he will allow me to say so, get his countrymen to face the facts. They are not satisfied with getting self-determination for themselves without depriving others of the right of self-determination. I tried to apply the principles of President Wilson to Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ah."] Oh, I did. I tried the principle of self-determination. It was suggested to me that a Convention of Irishmen should be summoned. I thought it was a very good idea. I said, "We have all failed. Every party has failed. Every Government has failed. We have tried one expedient after another, and for some reason or other they have always come to nought." I said, "Clearly we do not understand them. Let them settle it themselves." So a Convention was summoned upon lines suggested before it was summoned. 1 consulted the Nationalist Leader as to who should be summoned. He was perfectly satisfied with the composition of the Convention. Here was an opportunity for Ireland to determine its own fate. What happened? Two parties
  1052
  refused absolutely to come near the place. One of them, the party represented by the late Member for Cork, had a very considerable following in Ireland. The other party was that one which not merely claimed a majority, but at the last election demonstrated it by an overwhelming majority. They would not come near the place. What happened to the rest? The Nationalists—this is my recollection—were divided into three different sections. The Unionists were divided into three or four. That was my attempt to apply the principles of President Wilson to Ireland.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Of course the right hon. Gentleman recognises that. I cannot follow him in his intellectual strategy; but will lie permit me to say—since he has put a question to me and did not wait for my answer—that the principles of President Wilson can be applied by taking a referendum of the country. I imagine that if you want to test the will of the people you do so by a declaration of the people by their votes. That is my idea of self-determination.
  The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend knows very well that a referendum is a question of area. If, for instance, the area were the United Kingdom would my hon. Friend accept it? Of course he would not.
  Mr. DEVLIN: No; but my right hon. Friend has put a question to me. That is the right of nations to determine their own destiny. Ireland is a nation.
  HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
  Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman has put a question to me, and. I say that Ireland is one country. I think the right hon. Gentleman has stated that himself more than once. The way to determine the opinion of that country, that nation, is to take a plebescite or a referendum.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I really have not time to go into this matter of dialectics. It is much too serious for that. To come to the real practical difficulty; it is that Ireland is not a nation. My hon. Friend believes it in his heart, but when ever you come to try to settle it you discover that Ireland is net a nation. The mere fact that it is one island is no proof that it is one nation. Great Britain is one island—
  Mr. DEVLIN: Yes, with twenty parties.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I agree. But let me deal with the point of ray hon. Friend. The mere fact that Ireland is one island is no proof that it is one nation, or that Great Britain, an island, is one nation. There are the Scottish, and the little nation to which I belong. That is the difficulty—the difficulty I have stated. It is a difference in temperament, religion, tradition, and in everything that constitutes the fundamental essentials of nations. If they can bridge over that difficulty I do not believe there is any other difficulty, but until you do that it is no rise talking about the principle of self- determination. My hon. Friend insists upon laying down conditions, and he says there must be a referendum, but it must be for the area which he determines. We Lave had exactly the same difficulties in the case of Dantzig. You could have carved out an area there which would have handed Dantzig and Marienbad to Poland. You could have handed over whole territories which were purely Ger man to Poland, if you had only made the area according to the wishes of certain sections of the Poles, but it would have only created difficulties which might have ended in grave trouble for Poland itself. That is what I am afraid of for Ireland, and until Irishmen have made up their minds definitely to face that difficulty, I should despair of any settlement which would commend itself—
  Mr. HARBISON: Were there not two nations in 1782?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly there were, and a permanently Protestant Parliament, and I am just giving my hon. Friend the reasons why it is no use quoting the principles of President Wilson, and saying, "Will you apply them to Ireland?" I shall be perfectly prepared to apply them to Ireland if they are applied to the whole of Ireland. I deeply regret that this feud between these two nations, who are such close neighbours, between the Irish people and Great Britain, should continue. There is no feud between the nations of Great Britain—I am talking of the feud between the Celtic race in Ireland, the Celtic Catholic population of Ireland, and Great Britain. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the same in South Africa!"] Yes, but South Africa is a thousand miles away, and my hon. Friend must know that there is a very great difference between the settlement of a problem a thousand miles away and a
  1054
  settlement between a country which is at our own door, and which is part of the organisation of these Islands. That is my answer to my hon. Friend. [An HON. MEMBER: "The further away you get the more justice you give!"] I regret that it is impossible to give my hon. Friend a more satisfactory answer.
  Captain REDMOND Captain REDMOND rose. [HON MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
  Mr. SPEAKER:The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. If he wishes to raise a point of order he can do so, but to put mere questions of this kind is quite improper.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I deeply regret that there should be any difference of opinion upon this matter. I realise that everything said by my hon. Friend is of importance, not only to these islands and the British Empire, but to the world. Hay I say, in conclusion, about the Treaty, that it was a gigantic task; it was certainly one which was complicated. I do not claim that the Treaty is perfect in all respects. Where it is not perfect, I look forward to the organisation of the League of Nations to remedy, to repair, and to redress. I have no doubt that in the course of time you will find things that possibly might have been better settled in other ways. Experience will demonstrate that, and the League of Nations will be there as a Court of Appeal to readjust crudities, irregularities, injustices. All the same, I venture to say that we have redressed many old wrongs, and I cannot think of any new ones that we have created.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Shantung!
  The PRIME MINISTER: We have restored where restoration was just, we have organised reparations where damage and injury have been inflicted, and we have established guarantees and securities in so far as human foresight could do so, against the repetition of these crimes and horrors from which the world is just emerging. We have disarmed; we have punished. We have demonstrated, I think, to the world for ages that you cannot trample on national rights and liberties, that you cannot break solemn covenants with impunity.
  Captain REDMOND: The Home Rule Act!
  The PRIME MINISTER: This is the task which we set ourselves, and I claim that this Treaty will be like a lighthouse in the deep warning nations and the rulers of nations against the perils against which the German Empire shattered itself.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I had no intention of joining in this Debate, but the speech of the right hon. Gentleman compels me to say a few words. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that his reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast (Mr. Devlin) has created a feeling of profound disappointment, not only on this side of the House but among some sections at least on the opposite side of the House. Still move, the speech will be a disappointment of the hopes, the yearnings, the passionate longing of the people of this country as well as of Ireland that the long struggle between the two nations should be brought to an end. There was not in the right hon. Gentleman's speech a single indication of the remotest intention on his part to try to live up to the responsibilities of his great position by dealing with the Irish problem. I want to be friendly in my criticism, but I am bound to say the right hon. Gentleman seems to me to be talking the language of Pharisaism when he claims that the Treaty is a triumph for the recognition of the rights of nationalities and at the same time denies the rights of nationality to an island near the doors of this country inhabited by people of the same race. What do I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do? He gave as his defence the case of the settlement of Poland, and in the main his defence amounted to this, that while there were certain German colonies in certain parts of Polish territory, the majority of the people at any rate were Polish. Is not that the case with Ireland? Are not the colonies in Polish territory like the plantation of Ulster in Ireland, and would it not have been just as right to refuse liberty to the Polish inhabitants of these territories because of this small minority of German colonists as to refuse liberty to Ireland because of the small minority of Ulstermen. It has been proved, said the right hon. Gentleman, in his most eloquent language, in his most oratorical articulation, that the rights of nationalities cannot be trampled upon, and yet a few sentences later he declares that the rights of nationality in Ireland shall be trampled
  1056
  on. Where is his consistency? Where is his sincerity? He said, also, it had been proved by the result of this War that solemn covenants cannot be broken. Is there not a solemn covenant, to which the right hon. Gentleman himself was a party, in the putting on the Statute Book of the Home Rule Act of 1014, which has been the law of the country since 1914, and, until cowed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn, who can preach the gospel of disorder in this country—
  Mr. J. JONES: A Bolshevist Bolshevik!
  Mr. O'CONNOR: And preach it with impunity—
  Mr. HOHLER: Has the speech of the right hon. Gentleman anything to do with the Debate?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the reference to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division was dragged in. rather unnecessarily.
  Mr. JONES: Drag him in by the neck next time!
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member for Silvertown not to keep up a running commentary.
  Mr. O'CONNOR:I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I, perhaps, put it in too personal a form. Hut the effect of say argument was that the effect of the example set by the right hon. Member for Duncairn in speaking for a minority was to prevent the grant of liberty to the majority. The Prime Minister said it had been proved by the result of this War that you could not trample on contracts. I ask him, Was there not a contract between England and Ireland in the Act of 1914? Why has that Act remained on the Statute Book for nearly five years? Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to withdraw from that contract? If he does, what is the use of talking of the perfidy of Germany in breaking a treaty with Belgium when we have the example of England breaking the treaty with Ireland? I want the right hon. Gentleman to be true to his own covenant. I wonder, has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten his letter of the 25th February, 1918. Before I read that letter, let me deal with the extraordinary argument that this thing cannot be settled unless every man in Ireland is of the same opinion. How would that operate if applied to Alsace-Lorraine or to Bohemia? I believe I am right in saying that there is

  1057
  a minority of 35 per cent, of Germans in Bohemia. Yet nobody, the right hon. Gentleman least of all, made the contention that Bohemia should not have its rights as an independent Republic because there is a minority against the recognition of those rights. Take Alsace-Lorraine. I know it is partly by German, immigration, but certainly there was as a large a proportion of the existing population of Alsace-Lorraine against its liberation as there is a minority in Ireland against the liberation of Ireland. There is nothing in this War which has given greater joy to every friend of liberty in this world than the fact that Alsace and Lorraine have been restored to the bleeding side of France in spite of the German minority. Everybody in Ireland must agree! What insincerity and unveracity there is in that argument. I am an indulgent critic, so far as I may be, of the right hon. Gentleman, but I must say that when he says—I gather he expected us to believe it—that he would not give Home Rule to Ireland because all Ireland was not of the same opinion, he was stretching my credulity and indulgence beyond the breaking point. I want to put the right hon. Gentleman face to face with his own colleague. This was on the 25th February, 1918, a little more than a year ago. I admit there ought to be a Statute of Limitations for the pledges of politicians, but a year and a half is rather too short a period for a Statute of Limitations. What did the right hon. Gentleman write to
  "Dear Sir Horace Plunkett."
  This is what he wrote:
  "Questions on which there is an acute difference of opinion in Ireland or in Great Britain must be held over for determination after the War."
  11.0 p.m.
  I do not think that was an unreasonable statement to make at the time. But now I come to the next passage, which deals with questions which ought not to be held up till after the end of the War. Here is what the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "At the same time it is clear to the Government, in view of previous attempts at settlement of the deliberations of the Convention it-self, that the only hope of agreement lies in a solution which on the one side provides for the unity of Ireland under a single Legislature with adequate safeguards for the interests of Ulster and the Southern Unionists, and on the other preserves the well-being of the Empire and the fundamental unity of the United Kingdom."
  That settles it. Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to or withdraw from
  1058
  the declaration of his letter of 25th February, 1918? I get no answer. I will pause five minutes if Mr. Speaker will allow me, but I shall get no answer because there is no answer. Does the right hon. Gentleman still think, or docs he not, that the only hope of agreement lies in a solution which on the one side provides for the unity of Ireland under a single Legislature, or does he not? The right hon. Gentleman will not laugh me off any answer to the question. It is not a laughing matter. There were two men who created Sinn Fein in Ireland. One is the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson), and the other is the Prime Minister. Here are we, seven men instead of seventy-four, and everyone of us perished, not because of our hatred of England, but because we stood by her in her hour of agony. When you talk of the unreason of Ireland—I admit a great deal of the unreason of Ireland—I put in defence of Ireland the plea that never was a country so betrayed as she has been in the past five years. The right hon. Gentleman's answer gives us no hope.
  What about America? The right hon. Gentleman has had the advantage during the last six months of daily intercourse and close intimacy with the President of the United States. No one has spoken more sympathetically than the right hon. Gentleman himself did when he was proposing the Conscription of Ireland, one of the maddest projects that ever came from a rational statesman. He was never tired of drawing the attention of the House to the vital importance to this country of its relations with America. I do not want to impose upon the intimacies of the right hon. Gentleman's private conversation with Mr. Wilson, but if Mr. Wilson said what he thought—and he is a man who never says anything he does not think—he must have warned him that good relations between America and England were impossible until the Irish race was reconciled, and the Irish race would never be reconciled in America until the Irish people were liberated. I am sorry to find how this Debate has ended. I was looking forward with hope to the declaration of the Prime Minister, especially after the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Devlin). I had not an opportunity of hearing that speech, as I was busy elsewhere on business connected with my Constituency, but I am told he made an appeal to generous instincts. The right hon. Gentleman has now a great

  1059
  opportunity. This is the parting of the ways for him. Either he is going once more to join the democratic forces of this country or he is going to sink into the mire of those who have abandoned the path of democracy for the path of reaction. I had hoped against hope that the right hon. Gentleman would have made a new choice, but from his speech to-night I am afraid we must regard him as having handed himself over, body and soul, to the party of reaction.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Which party is that?
  Mr. J. JONES: Look in the glass.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: Was it the hon. Member who controlled the elections who interrupted me?
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Yes.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I do not know whether the hon. Member is conscious of the fact that he has made two admissions?
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I thought the hon. Member asked me whether I interrupted him. I said Yes. I asked him which party was the party of reaction?
  Mr. O'CONNOR: He asks me where is the party of reaction?
  Mr. JONES: The Centre party.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I do not believe that outside a small section of Gentlemen from Ulster, and some like them, there is any section that is not anxious and does not yearn for a settlement of the Irish question. Therefore the Prime Minister has given himself away to what I believe is a minority of the right-thinking people of this country, inside Parliament and outside. If the right hon. Gentleman had the courage—and I know how high his courage is—if he had the vision, if he could forget for a moment the intrigues and machinations of party and of personal attachments in this House, and would rise to the occasion and settle the Irish question, the settlement of the Irish question would be as great an achievement for him as the settlement of Peace. If America and England are to remain apart; if they are to be divided; if the Dominions are to be torn by this struggle of ours—it is ridiculous to call it a domestic question: it is the most Imperial and the most world-wide question
  1060
  of to-day, and if we do not bring the two great English-speaking democracies of the world together to safeguard the peace of the world and to be the common guarantors of the League of Nations, then, I say, with sorrow, that I believe all the precious blood of our heroic children shed in this War has been shed in vain. If we are not going to wrest peace and better relations between men out of this welter of blood, all the blood has been shed in vain. The only thing that can guarantee peace, better relations and a better world, out of all this bloodshed is by keeping the great democracies together. If the right hon. Gentleman fails to rise to this great opportunity of reconciling England and America by reconciling Ireland, then all his achievements, great as they are, are but Dead Sea fruit, and merely show that the same man who may be able to win the War has not the vision, courage and self-abnegation to win the Peace.
  Mr. S. WALSH: If I might be permitted, with the most complete sincerity, to add the congratulations of my party to those which the right hon. Gentleman must have received in great measure, I would be very pleased to do so. We have really on this occasion, by our country and through the influence of the right hon. Gentleman, very largely achieved what is perhaps the most remarkable Peace the world has ever known. One or two hon. Members have said that there is great need for restoring the credit of the nation. In my opinion the credit of this nation never stood higher than it stands to-day. There are some things much greater than finance. People attach value to the sovereign and regret very much that its value has gone down to 10s.; but if this nation had not stood to its bond, entered into many years ago, its moral credit, would have been so low that the name of Englishmen would have stunk in the nostrils of the world. To-day there is no name higher. And however low our financial credit may be at the moment our credit throughout the whole world will be constantly upon the increase, and to-day we have nothing to regret in the way of credit. The name of England is higher and nobler to-day than it has ever been before. Something was said about coming well out of this deal. We fall very easily into these slipshod phrases. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman meant when he said that. With what had we been dealing? We had the most terrible

  1061
  military organisation arrayed against the freedom of the world, and that military organisation has been broken to bits.
  I think we ought to recognise that we are standing on the threshold of a new epoch. This House to-day is considering not so much the horrors of the past as how to prevent their awful repetition in the future. A solemn duty rests upon everyone of us in this House, and out of it, to prevent a recurrence of those horrors from which we have just been delivered. I was more than delighted to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hitchin, when he devoted so much of his remarks to the necessity for the establishment of the League of Nations. Of course, ever so much can be found fault with in the idea of the League. "It may fail here," and "It may fail there," say people; "If you do this or attempt that, you will find yourself up against an impossible proposition" Therefore, I suppose the idea is that we had bettor not try at all. That kind of argument and plea has been submitted from time immemorial. Is there anything more horrible than the previous conditions—conditions which deluged the world in blood for hundreds of years? Have those conditions to go on for ever? Has this civilisation, of which we are always talking in such high terms, nothing better to offer?
  In science, in everything else to which the mind of man can devote itself, tremendous progress has been made. Only on this particular point, in respect of the relations between nations, is the counsel of despair urged. "Old jealousies are perennial; therefore you will always have war"—that is the argument of despair. Not only that. It commits all the generations of the future to the same horrible thing from which we have only just emerged. The right hon. Gentleman was told that in a very little time, when ho came out of the unreal world in which he was living, and into the world of fact, he would find himself up against some very serious proposition, and It would prove to him that his idea of the League of Nations had no existence in fact. I wonder if it has or not?
  I think it is about 104 years since we were at war with the United States of America; certainly it is well over 100 years. For some years there has been, and I think at this moment there is, a Treaty between the United States and ourselves
  1062
  which prevents any war between us until the whole matter in dispute has been referred to arbitration. I remember very well when there seemed to be tremendous indignation on the part of the British people against the United States, and, indeed, on their part indignation against us. Most of us have some knowledge of the Alabama claims. We know how a privateer went out from a British port and did tremendous damage to northern shipping, and we know also that the slightest mistake on the part of the statesmen of that time would have hurled these two nations into a terrible war. What happened? A great statesman, greatly against the predominant feeling of the time, said, "This matter must go to arbitration." We paid a few millions for the losses inflicted on the shipping of the Northern States of America, and from that day, more than fifty years ago, instead of antagonism, violent and constant, a kindly feeling grew up between the Northern States and ourselves, and to-day, amongst all the great acclamations that are given to famous Generals of recent history, no greater acclamation is accorded to any than that which is given to the American General. And here to-day, between these two great nations, Great Britain and the United States, there is established a friendship largely dating from the time when Great Britain was sufficiently magnanimous to recognise that she was wrong and proceeded to arbitration. That, after all, lies at the very basis of the League of Nations—that you shall settle your difficulties, not by blood or violence, not by the drawn sword, but by an appeal to reason. The appeal to reason is the very basis of the League of Nations. In Canada there are, I suppose, between three and four thousand miles of territory from east to west, and between Canada and the United States so many thousands of miles of frontier. One is territory governed under the British flag and the other belongs to the United States, and I suppose a few frontier police not more than the membership of this House guards the whole frontier and preserve order and civilisation in the very highest degree. If that is not the League of Nations I do not know what it is. Surely if that can be done for such vast territory when there are constantly conflicting interests, it goes to show that the League of Nations is not that chimera that many people imagine, and that it has a working basis in fact. Not very long

  1063
  ago the remark of one of our greatest Admirals was that when you went into battle you must always get your ship to the side of your enemy, and hate the Frenchman as you hate the devil. Do we hate Frenchmen to-day. It is 104 years since we fought against France. We always fought chivalrously and so did they. I believe most people now recognise that we made a great mistake in the early seventies, and in 1869, in not placing our resources chivalrously on the side of France at that time, but that mistake, great as it was, has been rectified, and today there are no truer comrades, and I hope that comradeship may be perpetual between ourselves and that great nation against whom Nelson said we should cherish hatred as we hated the devil. There again is the idea on which the League of Nations is to be founded and to come into force. We must all congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and his friends. If I may be permitted one word of reminiscence, let me mention that I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman many months ago, that I wished him in the gigantic task he was undertaking the most complete success.
  Everybody who had ever thought of the gigantic difficulties he had to encounter must have felt almost appalled at the difficulties he was undertaking to remove or at least to ameliorate. He has come back here with a magnificient record of success. The evil-running sore in the side of Europe—Alsace-Lorraine—has at last been healed. It would have been a perpetual source of discord and strife for scores and indeed hundreds of years, and it has been removed from the arena of conflict. I think the whole world must have breathed all the more freely when they saw that that source of discord was ended. We must, I think, congratulate him and his friends in the matter of Poland. Who that has read history at all but must have seen the horrible injustice that had been perpetrated upon that great nation in the backend of the eighteenth century? It is perfectly well known that one of our great poets described the partitioning of Poland as "the bloodiest picture in the book of time." She is once again regenerated. She is established as a new nation once again in the comity of nations, and we sincerely hope, with him and his friends, that Poland will exercise in the future
  1064
  history of Europe that proper sphere of influence which she is perfectly enabled to accomplish.
  There is one thing I think, however, that we really must ask whether it is possible for more attention to be paid to. My right hon. Friend will admit, I think, that I move a very great deal amongst the industrial classes and that I speak quite freely upon this point, because my attitude has not varied one inch from that which I took up many months ago. I refer to Russia. Whatever we may think about her failure—in respect of the assistance that we had a right to look forward to—we must admit that that great people is going through an awful time. Their sufferings have been terrible, and indeed their condition must evoke the heartfelt sympathy of the whole world. If there is one thing upon which our people feel keenly, it is that no British soldier be utilised to lengthen or prolong the agony of Russia. We never had any right there to begin with, except to redeem those troops who perhaps were there because of us all working together in the early stages of the War, but merely because of a change in government, because of the fact that there is no government at all, we have no right to prolong the agony of the Russian people, and I do say this, that the Labour movement would hail with the greatest possible joy an announcement from the Government that at the very earliest moment and by the most expeditious means possible, British soldiers will be removed. I think it was said by Bismarck ever so many years ago that a certain territory was not worth the bones of one Pomeranian soldier, and we do say this, that there is nothing in the political and there is nothing in the economic condition of Russia that justifies a sacrifice of another British soldier, and we do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. We know the difficulties are great, we know that winter prevented expedition in matters such as this, but we are a little doubtful as to the bona fides of many of the folks who have been in charge of these expeditions, and the Labour movement would hail with very great joy an announcement by the Government that you do not intend to utilise one soldier more in an expedition against the Russian people. After all, the Government of Russia, their policy, their administration, all that belongs to them. We have no right there, and we ought to get out as quickly as possible.

  1065
  There is one other point I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman. Some few days ago questions were asked in this House about the mandates that were given in respect of the various Colonies, the German colonies in particular. It was stated that those charters were being prepared. Of course, I understand the charters are in preparation. We know that in the Treaty of Peace the annual conference will examine from time to time—every year, or at such intervals as are proper—the conduct of the various mandatories to see that they comply with the charters laid down. What those charters contain we do not know. It is desirable that we should know. After all, we really are at this moment starting on a new condition of things for the world's future, and it is a solemn obligation upon everyone of us not lightly to enter upon obligations which may involve the world once again, and at no distant time, in a repetition of the horrors from which we have just emerged. Therefore we have a right to know what the charters do contain. Of course, the general terms in the Treaty of Peace we do know. The Prime Minister himself has put that quite explicitly.
  These are the points, and we have a right, before we go from this House to-night, in so far as inquiry can elicit the facts to know whether we are now settling the peace of the world for future generations, or whether we are really lightly discharging our task, and going away with a possibility of horrors quite as great as those on which we have turned our back. These, after all, are great questions. There is the question of Ireland. When I sat upon the bench opposite with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, we often thought of the position of Ireland, and we often thought what an unenviable attitude Great Britain would perforce be compelled to take with the wrongs of Ireland not merely unredressed but not attempted to be redressed, and I say the claims of Ireland to-day are more clamant than ever. I know nothing upon which the industrial opinion of Great Britain has so completely veered round as upon the question of Ireland. In the old days there used to be a very great deal of Orange, a very great deal of Catholic, and a very great deal of indifferent opinion, but today in the vast mass of the organised labour opinion of Great Britain, without exception, there is absolutebly no difference
  1066
  at all as to the immense urgency of a settlement of this question. I was a little sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman talk as though Ireland were two nations. If she is two nations, then I despair, as everyone must despair, of any settlement that can give the slightest satisfaction to any democrat, including the right hon. Gentleman himself. After all, in the back end of the eighteenth century, Ireland had a Parliament of its own. It is perfectly true to say that it was a Protestant Parliament, but it was an Irish Parliament, and it made laws for the whole nation, and we surely cannot say that, merely because it was Protestant at that time, therefore you can deny the unity of its people. Since then all claims based upon merely religious ascendancy or difference have been banished altogether, and we do say that the only way this terrible problem, which is constant, burning, urgent and clamant, can be settled, is by recognising Ireland as a whole, and by giving such safeguards within a single Parliament as the various differences or sympathies of the people may require. I was in hopes that was the line on which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would proceed to the settlement of this terribly burning question which has lowered our prestige for a hundred years. Wherever an Englishman goes, he is an honourable, high-minded, straightforward man—there is no better in the history of the world but there is always some slight feeling that he is a hypocrite after all when he is talking about the freedom of others and of broadening the basis of freedom for everyone else, because here, right against his own door, are people who are deprived of their rights, and who were deprived of them under conditions which everybody admits to be of the greatest perfidy. We deny to thorn the same rights for which we plead so eloquently and fight so strenuously on behalf of other people. After all, Ireland must be recognised as a nation. That can be the only way in which the burning question can be solved. Let such safeguards be given within the Parliament as are proper, but let the Parliament be a self-governing unit. On those lines we shall not only achieve peace for the world, as I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have done, but we shall achieve peace, for the sister island which has such a great claim upon us.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: This is a somewhat important occasion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide! divide!"]
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: On a point of Order. Is it in order for hon. Members below the Gangway to shout, "Divide, divide"?
  Mr. SPEAKER: "Divide, divide," has always been a Parliamentary cry.
  Brigadier-General CROFT:I suppose that this is the most important day in the history of this House. Personally, I am very glad that there is a certain amount of interruption, because it proves conclusively, as some of us have been maintaining for months past, that whenever a question arises in the House which is vital to the whole future of our people you will find men who are so tied to the Parliamentary system and to their pledges that they cannot even listen and observe the ordinary courtesies of debate. What are the actual facts with regard to this Debate? We have been debating for seven and a half hours the greatest question in the history of this country. Of those seven and a half hours, one and three-quarters have been spent entirely on the question of Ireland, and of the rest of the time three and a quarter hours have been occupied by the Front Benches. One hour and fifty-five minutes only have been occupied by the back bench independent Members. I know hon. Gentlemen can force this House to a Division if they make sufficient noise, but I am sure they will regret it as long as they live. This is a subject which requires at least a two days' debate. The Prime Minister has stated that judging from the speeches he had heard in the Debate the House as a whole had accepted the Treaty, but under the circumstances they could do nothing less, [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide! divide!"] Is it not a fact that after the signatures of our Delegation in Paris had been placed to the Treaty it was impossible for this House to alter it? That was the main reason why so many people were really anxious at the Election and received pledges because they knew they had no further word on this subject once the right hon. Gentleman had received this mandate. I think it is very little use to go to a Division owing to the fact that our credit has been pledged already. It seems to me that there are certain considerations we have to take into account. First of all, the greatest consideration at the Peace Conference was
  1068
  the question of disarmament, and whatever we may think about the Treaty as a whole, on this particular subject nothing but pleasure can be given to the people of this country if complete disarmament is brought about. When we come to particularise about the Treaty we must remind ourselves that after all our delegates went to Paris first and foremost in the interests of the British Empire and to work for readjustments which would fit in with our own interests. I think our delegation in Paris rather reversed that process, and they were more concerned for a cosmopolitan settlement than for British interests. Had that example been followed with equal enthusiasm by all the nations of the Allies, then we could have pardoned that tendency, but evidence to that effect was not forthcoming, and I say here and now that President Wilson and the other Prime Ministers all through these discussions were more concerned for the honour and safety of their country than the aspiring ideals of the League of Nations such as our own Prime Minister has struggled for with such success.
  What are the supreme British needs after the question of disarmament?
  First of all, the restoration of our financial and economic condition. Secondly, the restoration of British shipbuilding. Thirdly, complete security for Empire frontiers. When we entered the Conference what was the position? First, British sea power alone had made victory possible for the Allies. Nobody will doubt that but for the British Navy the world today would have been under the heel of the Kaiser. The second fact is that on the day of the Armistice the British Empire had more men in arms than any of the Allied Powers. The third point is that our finance not only carried our own burdens, but made it possible for our Allies to continue the War, especially our smaller Allies. The fourth point is that single-handed the British Empire had defeated the great military power of Turkey, and so prevented great reinforcements going to our enemies in the Balkans and on the Italian frontier. I need not embellish that argument. The historian will never attempt to alter the facts. They are over-whelming and absolutely complete. With these facts before us we must carry our minds back to the Fourteen Points of President Wilson. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes. When he laid down these points the United States had not been through the

  1069
  War. They had become enriched as had no country in the history of the world. The wealth of the United States had become increased to a colossal extent. Their man-power was unscratched. She had not made herself felt in any way up to that time in the War. She had not bled nor suffered. This country had suffered and had been bled white. She had suffered financially to such an extent that it was doubtful amongst many great financial magnates whether we could possibly survive. At that time the President laid down the Fourteen Points, and I venture to suggest that the Prime Minister was too ready to accept them, and thereby tie his hands and the hands of his country to a certain extent, so that when he went to Paris he was not a free man. [HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh!"] He had, broadly speaking, signed the Fourteen points. [HON. MEMBER: "Divide!"] Be it remembered that it was only when halfway through the election that the Prime Minister suddenly became enthusiastic that the enemy should pay the whole cost of the War. I do not know what that may be. But if it is £8,000,000,000, I ask the Prime Minister, under the existing arrangements—that he endeavoured in his usual cheery style to persuade the House was so successful an affair—whether one-eighth of that is likely in the near future to come to the British Empire? The matter is one regarded as of very great importance by everyone here. Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the question? The right hon. Gentleman asked, "Can anyone say how this money could have been collected: is there the remotest change of Germany ever paying this sum?" It is rather late for the right hon. Gentleman to discover that now. He ought to have discovered it at the election, when he held very different views. It was not then a question whether there was the remotest chance of the money being collected. At that time the right hon. Gentle-man quite properly said that
  "Germany must pay the whole cost of the War."
  He appointed a Committee. That Committee reported, and, as the Prime Minister said, the opinion of the great financial experts was that the whole cost of the War could have been collected. I would ask, Was that Committee scrapped and a new Committee put in its place, and, if so, why? I would ask who were the financial advisers who so suddenly changed the whole aspect of the case? Is it not a
  1070
  fact that many of his advisers in Paris were gentlemen very largely concerned with international finance, so that it was only natural that they should want to sustain the system as a whole and were, perhaps, considering very largely international financial arrangements?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That, I can state, is absolutely untrue. I would not have risen to contradict it but for the fact that it has been stated outside and that nobody has had the audacity to make it where it could be contradicted. My advisers in Paris were Lord Sumner, Lord Cunliffe, and one or two officials of the Treasury. They were my sole advisers. They had nothing whatever to do with international finance, except to the extent that Lord Cunliffe was engaged in a very important City business which naturally gave him a good deal of insight into the finance of the world. If the hon. Member is referring to Lord Cunliffe, it is a very scandalous reference.
  Brigadier-General CROFT:I think hon. Members will bear me out in saying that I asked a question. I never made a, statement. I asked the right hon. Gentleman why he changed that Committee. From what the right hon. Gentleman now says I gather that these gentlemen were not responsible for the original decision.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to get away in that way. He suggested that I was advised by some gentlemen who had something to do with international finance. Everybody knows what that means. Those are the men who advised me and they are honourable men.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: The right hon. Gentleman has stated—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]—the names of the Commissioners. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me that someone in Paris—[Interruption]—will he tell me that in Paris no international financiers, as the term is generally known, were called in to advise at all—gentlemen like the various great financial figures, let us say, the Rothschilds? After all the Bank of England has been very much concerned in international finance. No one suggests for a moment—certainly I never heard it suggested—that Lord Cunliffe was in any way anti-British. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I made no charge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, you did!"] What was

  1071
  the charge I made? I made no charge that any gentleman who was anti-British had any part in that Commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, you did!"] No, I did not. What I did say was that the Government were advised by men who are interested in international finance. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not true!"] If that is not true, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me that all these bankers are not interested in international finance, and then, of course, I will withdraw.
  The PRIME MINISTER: What bankers?
  Brigadier-General CROFT: All bankers. The right hon. Gentleman's advisers have all been connected with the great system of international finance.
  The PRIME MINISTER: This sort of thing is said outside. I want to know what the hon. Gentleman means. My advisers were Mr. Hughes, Lord Stunner, and Lord Cunliffe. There were also one or two Treasury officials, who certainly had nothing to do with international finance. They were all who advised me the whole time I was there.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: I am very glad to hear that. But I was always under the impression that our banking system generally was one very much connected with international finance. The right hon. Gentleman has now told us that Mr. Hughes, Lord Cunliffe, and Lord Sumner were alone responsible for upsetting the decision of the previous Committee. Then I say that while one can of course accept that, it appears these gentlemen changed their opinions in a very few months. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] Certainly I withdraw any suggestion that even for one moment the right hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues were concerned with Germany in this matter. All I was suggesting was that it was a commonplace statement that financiers were engaged in the great world finance system before the War. They were naturally interested in world finance rather than simply British finance. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech stated that we had great difficulties to face. I venture to suggest this is not the hour to try to stop any one stating his views. [An HON. MEMBER: "You should not insult the Prime Minister without reason!"] It will not look well to-morrow that after seven hours debate on this question—
  Mr. SPEAKER: What is the good of lecturing hon. Members? It would be better for the hon. Gentleman to apply himself to the matter before the House.
  12.0 M.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: Perhaps I may have the protection of the Chair from the interruptions of hon. Members. There are two other points with which I particularly wish to deal, and I will do so as briefly as I can. One on the question of shipping which has not been touched upon at all. I will only ask the Prime Minister this question: Is it the fact—we are, I must say, at present very much in the dark—that the German shipping which was sent into the ports of the United States by the action of the British Fleet alone is to be handed over to the United States of America? I can hardly believe that that is so, in view of the fact that President Wilson himself is a great exponent of the faith of no annexation. I can hardly believe he will annex German shipping to which he has no moral right whatever. Is that shipping to be handed over to the United States or is it to be divided among the Allies? I think we are entitled to an answer to that question. Is it the fact that it is not going to be divided pro rata among the nations in the Alliance according to the amount of their shipping sunk by enemy action? Can the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer on that point? It is one on which, as a leading shipowner told me only the other day, the whole of our Atlantic trade depends for the future. I was going to deal with the question of mandatory powers, but I will drop my intended references to that.
  I must, however, say one word about Russia. The greatest blot upon the Peace Treaty is its omission with regard to Russia. I think it is our duty—we feel very strongly on this point—to tell the Prime Minister that this is not a question to be lightly regarded by a very large number of people in this country. You have this state of affairs. Your League of Nations—that great conception, that wonderful idea which is being put before us—is being founded at the very time when civilisation is blinding its eyes to the fact of the appalling suffering that is going on in Russia. One hears sneers and excuses from hon. Members for what is going on at this moment in Petrograd—where women and children are starving. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have created an

  1073
  impression during the Paris Conference that they are prepared to consider the Bolsheviks as people who can be treated as civilised people. I ask the Prime Minister to realise this—that if the League of Nations cannot deal with what is going on in Russia—the bloodshed, the slavery, the misery, the starvation—it cannot be a success. Yet it is turning away from these facts. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to any longer treat these facts in the way they have been treated up to the present. Every time we give the Bolsheviks any idea we are ready to talk with them we only encourage and stimulate them throughout the length and breadth of the world. If you are supplying arms and equipment and ammunition to the forces of law and order in Russia, why do you not boldly concern yourselves with affairs there and proclaim that Bolsheviks shall not be allowed to enter the comity of nations, and why do you not support the men who are supporting law and order? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will approach this question from this standpoint. This is too serious a question for laughter; it is the most tragic story in the history of the world, and I hope the Prime Minister will come down with a policy for the future. Those who have been in Petrograd and Moscow, and know the men who stood by us in our time and trial, believe that if we act boldly we can put an end to this poisonous thing and restore order. We have never suggested the sending of an army into Russia to fight Bolshevism, but we do ask the right hon. Gentleman to declare, without any equivocation whatever, that the Allied forces are prepared to stand behind the forces of law and order in Russia. We believe that the League of Nations ought to give the lead to this House if it is a real thing: if it is not a sham and is not built upon foundations of sham. I thank the majority of hon. Members for the great courtesy with which they have listened to me. I endeavoured very strenuously to get a word in the Debate earlier, but the chances have been very limited.
  Captain REDMOND:When towards the end of the Prime Minister's speech I endeavoured to put a question to him. I bowed to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that it was not a proper occasion then to ask a simple question. I desire to do it now, late as it may be, because it is a very simple question. The Prime Minister has
  1074
  come back from the great Congress of Allied Nations of the world with a message of hope and peace for the foreign relations between this country and the rest of the world. He has come back with the message of encouragement and hope, but he has declared a policy of negation and despair in regard to the question which affects not only our domestic but our international relations throughout the civilised globe. He actually used the word "despair" in regard to Ireland. Having used that expression I want to put this simple question to him: Are we to understand that the Government, having gone out to tight and to back up the policy of upholding the rights of covenants and treaties in Europe comes back to this country now and says that the very opposite is to be their policy in regard to Ireland? We Irishmen were asked, and we went out to France, Flanders, Gallipoli and other parts of the world to fight against the scrapping of a piece of paper. Are we to be told now, when we come back, the few survivors of us that there are, that you are going to scrap a piece of paper in our own midst at home? Are men like myself and those who went with me—I am not boasting when I say that I secured the support and the enlistment of many hundreds of my fellow countrymen in Ireland—who did our part just as much as men of similar age in a similar capacity from this country, to be thrown over now and be told that we went out on the good faith of England, but when we happen to have survived the Germans—not because we were not at the Front—we are to be thrown over and to be told that it was on false faith, false pledges, and on the basis of lies, that we offered up our lives in France and the other battlefields of Europe? Is the Home Rule Act an Act of Parliament or not? Is it a scrap of paper? The Home Rule Act was the reason why I went to France. It was the reason why tens of thousands of my countrymen did likewise. I ask the Prime Minister what is the Government going to do in regard to the Home Rule Act? It is there: there is no gainsaying that fact. The Prime Minister may like to swallow his own words, but he cannot swallow an Act of Parliament. He has swallowed his own words as was proved or endeavoured to be proved by the hon. Member for the Scotland division (Mr. O'Connor), when he challenged him with his own written statement that there should be a single legis-

  1075
  lature for the whole of Ireland, and he was not able to reply to it. He cannot swallow an Act of Parliament. This is an Act of the King, Lords, and Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
  It is true that there is a suspensory Act, but by the very terms of the suspensory Act the Home Rule Act comes into operation not later than the end of the present War. The exact moment when the Act will become operative depends therefore on the legal interpretation given to those words. But of this we are certain, that the Act must become operative unless it is repealed or amended. There are only the three alternatives. Is the Act to be put into operation automatically? Is it to be amended and put into operation? Or is it to be repealed? We do not expect the Prime Minister to answer these questions to-night. But he will have to reply to them in a very short time, because, as the Americans say, he is up against it. It is his own Act of Parliament. What is he going to do? Is he going to stain the honour and the glory of this country with the blood of thousands of Irishmen by denying them the rights for which they fought and died? We are told that there are two nations in Ireland. I wonder what the Prime Minister would say if I were to remark that there were two churches in Wales, and because one church was in a minority, therefore that church should still be allowed to have that ascendancy which he fought so strongly, so energetically, so ably and so successfully to remove? The Welsh Act is also on the Statute Book. Is that also to be treated as a scrap of paper? Is there to be one law for gallant little Wales, and another law for Ireland that, as we are told, never did anything on the battlefield in this war?
  The Prime Minister was speaking to-night with his tongue in his cheek. He knows as well as I do that Ireland is one and indivisible as a nation, that the Irish nation is as great and as historic a nation as Wales ever was and ever will be, and that we had our Parliament in Ireland, Protestant Parliament as it was. We have said many times, and he cannot deny it, and I have heard my father say in this House, that he would take a Protestant Parliament to-morrow provided it was an Irish parliament for the whole of Ireland. We do not think of creed in Ireland. It is nationality for which we always have
  1076
  regard. No one can deny that there are difficulties in the way of the settlement of the Irish question. I am the last one on these benches to deny that fact. Is the Prime Minister to make the abject confession that he has come back from settling the affairs of the world, that he has solved the question of Poland which has baffled European statesmen for centuries, that he has created nations like Czecho-Slovakia and the Ukraine and so forth, that he has solved the feuds and struggles of ancient nations, and yet that he and his Government view the question of Ireland with despair? I tell him to-night that his word "despair" will be read with dismay throughout the English-speaking world to-morrow; I tell him that the word "despair" will not stop within the four shores of these islands, but will have travelled across the cables to America, to Australia, to New Zealand—wherever the Irish are to be found, and that is in most parts of the English-speaking world. Not only will that word "despair" spell ruin to the hopes of those who are endeavouring to bring about a closer and happier relationship between these two countries, but I prophesy—it is a bad thing to prophesy, but I prophesy—that the policy of despair, which has ruined British statesman after British statesman, will ruin the right hon. Gentleman and the colleagues who sit around him. From what I can see, and know, the latter consideration should have, if anything, more effect on the right hon. Gentleman than the former. At any rate, I tell him this much, that if he thinks that by coming here and blandly telling us that British Acts of Parliament count for nothing in regard to Ireland, that the King's signature means nothing in Ireland, that an Act which has passed three times through the Imperial Parliament and has received the mandate of the British people is to count for nothing when applied to Ireland, but that the same procedure is to count for something when applied to Wales, I tell him that he is making the same mistake as when he and his Government allow a certain set of people in this country to make threats against the law and the order of the land, while they prosecute and execute others who are doing likewise. If anyone has a right to be heard I have a right to be heard on this question. I cannot tell the House how intensely I feel upon it, because I know that owing to my own personal action I have been the cause of the death of hundreds of

  1077
  my own fellow-countrymen on the belief that the word of England and of the Prime Minister of England was its bond, but that now I know otherwise.
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill read a second time.
  Resolved,
  "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Pratt.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  TREATY OF PEACE BILL

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power of His Majesty to give Effect to Peace Treaty.)
    (1) His Majesty may 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.
    (2) Any Order in Council made under this Act may provide for the imposition by summary process or otherwise of penalties in respect of breaches of the provisions thereof, and shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, but may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council and shall not be deemed to be a statutory Rule within the meaning of Section 1 of the Roles Publication Act, 1893.
    (3) Any expenses incurred in carrying out the said Treaty shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words,
    "make such Orders in Council."
    I move this Amendment because my right hon. Friend did not make the point which I think, personally, is a sound one, tamely, that in a matter of international importance which seeks to carry out the object of this Treaty of Peace between His Majesty and certain other Powers we ought not to proceed by Orders in Council, and that whatever is proposed between the Powers and our own country ought to be laid before the House as a matter of distinct legislation. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a very old Parliamentary hand and knows how Orders in Council have to lie on the Table for a certain number of days and how the Government require to find time for their discussion and how they cannot be discussed unless the Prime Minister of the day agrees to give time for their discussion. It seems to me that the matters which will arise in connection with the Treaty of
    1078
    Peace are in an entirely different category from any other Orders in Council. You treat as ordinary Orders in Council such as an Order I am familiar with, the Order dealing with Scottish education, and of course in a sense it is all right that you should lay such an Order on the Table for so many days, and that time should be asked for its discussion, after, I believe according to the Orders of the House, eleven o'clock at night, and then you must have a quorum of Members. I am dealing with this matter not with a view to obstructing, but in view of the great importance of the questions which will arise it does seem to me that the laying of Orders in Council is rather a slipshod way of dealing with such important questions. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether those questions, which must be many and must be important, could not be brought before the House of Commons in some other way than the routine way, which so few Members notice. If this must be brought to the notice of the House by some ordinary Member getting up and putting a question asking for time for a discussion in a certain period. After all, if we are attempting to settle peace let us try to get peace; let us put war behind us. I am willing to forgive, the Prime Minister all the quarrels I have ever had with him, and I hope he is willing to forgive me, so long as we can get a really good settlement out of it, and I am rather afraid that if all the questions that are raised are raised by the method of Orders in Council it is not a dignified method of dealing with them.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: It will save the time of the Committee perhaps, if you, Sir, will kindly exercise a little indulgence in regard to the remarks I have to make. The Order in Council, as described in Sub-section (2) is, I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will agree, drafted in very wide terms, and in such terms, I think, as would give to the Executive far more power than the House would really desire to give them. It will be observed that an Order in Council may provide for the imposition by summary process or other-wise, and penalties in respect of breaches of the provisions thereof. That means the whole of this vast Treaty which is now laid on the Table of the House. What I am suggesting to the Government is this, that if they cannot meet my hon. Friend as suggested they might meet us to this

    1079
    extent, that they should so alter Sub-section (2) as to make it follow the precedent which from time to time has been observed in this House in regard to these Orders in Council. Words might be introduced to the effect that these Orders in Council should be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament, and that if an Address is presented by either House of Parliament to His Majesty with regard thereto, as to the Order as a whole, or as to any part of it then there upon the Order should cease to have effect, without prejudice of course, to any acts which may have been done previously there under. That, I think, would give to both Houses of Parliament a proper Parliamentary opportunity of seeing that powers which the Executive take here in the name of the King are subject to proper Parliamentary control and criticism. I think the suggestion I am now making, in which my Friend agrees, is a very reasonable one.
    Might I also ask this question in regard to the trial of the Kaiser? That, of course, is a matter of the very greatest importance. For that to be pushed through by an Order in Council is, I am sure, a procedure which, on reflection, Parliament and the Executive might not agree to undertake. That, I should think, might much more properly be done by a short Bill. It would certainly be much more dignified than doing it by an Order in Council. These are the suggestions which I venture to make to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will meet us in the directions I have suggested.
    The PRIME MINISTER: We have considered this question of Orders in Council very carefully, and have had the very best advice we can get, not only from the Law Officers of the Crown, but from the Foreign Office advisers, and they inform me that it would be quite impossible at the present moment to fore-see every possible contingency that might arise in a colossal matter of this kind. Therefore, you could not have an Act of Parliament that would now equip you with all the necessary powers, and it is necessary that you should have some elastic procedure that would meet a sudden emergency. I could not, even at the present moment, forecast what kind of questions might arise. There are questions such, for instance, as pre-war debts and
    1080
    matters of that kind, where you undoubtedly would require certain Orders in Council. That is the answer I give to my right hon. Friend with regard to these things.
    It is not proposed to have a great system of penalties like the Defence of the Realm Act. There are only two cases which I can think of at the present moment where penalties are required, and it is to meet these two cases that we have inserted the words to which he has referred to. One is the case of pre-war debts. It is very necessary that these pre-war debts should be collected through a clearing house in order to secure proper cancellation, hoping we shall be able to secure control of that under Order in Council at the earliest possible moment. The other case is that of the mixed tribunals. It is very necessary that we should have the power to secure the attendance of witnesses. As my right hon. Friend knows, from his legal knowledge, you cannot have that unless there is a penalty for non-attendance. These are the only two cases in which my learned Friend the Solicitor-General indicates to me as possible cases where penalties might have to be inflicted in order to enable us efficiently to carry out the Treaty. But if the Government were to bind themselves absolutely at this stage, either by inserting it in this Act of Parliament or otherwise, that these were only cases in which Orders of this kind were to be issued, that might hamper and embarrass us in the execution of the Treaty, perhaps very seriously, at a moment when Parliament was not sitting. The Committee will see that it is very important, not merely that you should get the Treaty through, but that it should be enforced. That is my objection to any stipulation which would make it necessary, before an Order in Council could come into operation, that there should be a Debate in this House. If the House were sitting, the Government could give an undertaking that an opportunity should be afforded—if any hon. Members were seriously disposed to challenge it, then the usual opportunity would be given for discussion. If my right hon. Friend is satisfied with that, I should be prepared to give that undertaking on behalf of the Government.
    Mr. HOGGE:What I mean is that reasonable opportunity should be given for discussion before eleven o'clock.
    The PRIME MINISTER: If there is a real desire on the part of the House to discuss any Order in Council under the Treaty, it is right that the House should be afforded that opportunity, and the Government will give the undertaking.
    Mr. HOGGE: A reasonable opportunity !
    The PRIME MINISTER:Yes, a reasonable opportunity for discussion, and if my right hon. Friend would be satisfied with that it would meet the exigencies of the case. But it would be a very serious thing if the House insisted on our trying, at the present moment, to forecast every possible contingency which an Order in Council would have to meet. Sudden emergencies might arise, and might require, I will not say sudden changes in the Treaty, but in the method of enforcing it. Complications such as those involved in this matter can only be met by a fairly broad method of procedure.
    Lord R. CECIL:I do not think my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has really quite dealt with the difficulty that has been raised. In the Sub-section as drafted there is no opportunity at all given for the House to express its opinion on an Order in Council. There is this difference from the ordinary drafting in dealing with Orders in Council generally. In modern times the ordinary drafting has provided that the Order in Council is perfectly good, and lies on the Table, and an opportunity is given to the House to move an Address asking for its rejection or alteration in some particular. That does give a measure of Parliamentary control over Orders in Council, and it is the course which, I think, has been followed in every case in my reollection in recent years. If something of that kind could he done, it would be right, because, after all, these are very important matters, and it is right that the House should retain some control.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Suppose the House were not sitting?
    Lord R. CECIL:Then the Order in Council would be perfectly good, but when the House did meet they could move an Address if the Order in Council had not expired or had not been executed. That is the ordinary rule.
    Mr. J. W. WILSON: Without prejudice to anything thereunder?
    Lord R. CECIL: Yes. The other point—with which the Prime Minister did not deal—was the question of the trial of the Kaiser. I do not know if he thinks that is a matter of such importance that, perhaps, the details of the trial ought to be submitted to the House first. Perhaps it is possible that some hon. Members would suggest, when the question of the trial came up, that it would be better that it should take place in some other place than London. If that is the case, I think that could easily be met, not by dealing with it in the Bill at all, but by a statement of the Prime Minister that before the trial took place he would give the House some opportunity of expressing its opinion on the arrangements proposed for the trial. These are the two points. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman can say anything to meet them.
    The PRIME MINISTER:I want to be quite clear what it is that my Noble Friend is asking for. Is it clear that he would not object to an Order in Council being issued without discussion?
    Lord R. CECIL: Certainly!
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I agree.
    The PRIME MINISTER:Then I would have no hesitation in giving that pledge. I had a form of words here, but I am not sure, it does not pledge us—
    "Not in an Order in Council unless the House is sitting."
    That might be a serious embarrassment. I do not propose the words, but I will promise to consider, by the time the Bill reaches another place, if it is necessary to insert any words of this kind, making it clear that we shall not be prevented from issuing an Order in Council during a "Vacation," through the fact that there is an undertaking given that there should be an opportunity given for a discussion within twenty-one days.
    Mr. J. W. WILSON:If I might interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. In several Bills recently these conditions have been introduced, with the distinct understanding that if the House of Commons is not sitting it does not prejudice the execution of the Order, nor does a reversal of it, if it is done, afterwards, have retrospective effect on any action taken under it.
    The PRIME MINISTER:Still, if definite words were introduced in an Act of Parliament, an undertaking would not be sufficient.
    Mr. WILSON: No.
    The PRIME MINISTER:Therefore, I would rather have more time to consider the point. I will promise to see that words are introduced in another place, if it is necessary to do so, to meet the point. With regard to the question of the arrangements for the trial of the Kaiser, if the House of Commons really desires to discuss those arrangements, I have no doubt at all that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) will see that every facility is given for that purpose, should it be thought desirable for a discussion in the House of Parliament upon a very delicate subject.
    Lord R. CECIL: It might or it might not.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Let us see that we have the position quite clear in regard to this not unimportant matter. It is that my right hon. Friend will consider, if we let this stage go to-night—because we know how inconvenient it is to put it off till to-morrow, though, of course, in ordinary circumstances it would stand over, but we all know that hon. Members desire to clear this matter off to-night—the understanding is that if the Bill goes up, un-amended, to-night, the Prime Minister, with his advisers, will consider whether in another place an alteration shall be made if it is clear that during a Vacation the Executive would have the power to make an Order in Council and to take action there under. Then it would be subject, when the House sits again, to the Order being laid in the usual way, and then, by the Address of either House, it could be revoked without prejudice to what might have happened there under. That is the undertaking?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is so. I accept that.
    Mr. HOGGE: I want to be quite clear. If the Order in Council were to be laid during the Recess it would have become operative before we came back?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
    Mr. HOGGE: Therefore we could not discuss it. There would be no use in discussing it when we came back—
    Sir D. MACLEAN: No, no—
    Mr. HOGGE: —because it would be operative, and would have been put into operation. I want to be quite frank, and I hope we are clearing up misunderstandings
    1084
    about these matters. An Order in Council is laid on the Table for thirty days. If, before the end of the thirty days, it is not challenged and there is no discussion it becomes operative. I, personally, would be willing to give the Prime Minister the advantage of a fairly long vacation. But supposing we rose some time in August and there were no Autumn Session—it is perhaps very optimistic to assume that—and we did not meet until February, there would be an opportunity for a large number of Orders in Council which the House of Commons could never discuss, and which would be entirely in the hands of the Government. In many senses I am quite prepared to trust the Government, but they ought not to ask us to agree to Orders in Council for so long a period of time. If, for instance, as some people seem to indicate, we should meet, after rising in the middle of August, at the end of October, I would be willing to take any risk of Orders in Council being issued during that period of two months. But the Prime Minister ought not to ask us, on a matter of such importance, on which the fate of so many of the peoples of the world depends, to extend the period to, say, six months.
    Mr. WILSON: It cannot be that.
    Mr. HOGGE:I would like to be correct on that, and perhaps the Chairman would help us in this matter. It is quite important. Orders in Council are so important, as compared with legislation, that I do not want to give the Government the liberty of such a long period, in case the House adjourns till February, in which to make Orders in Council.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: My hon. Friend cannot mean to hold up the Treaty for six months if the House of Commons is not sitting. That is an unreasonable demand, and I should dissociate myself from any such request. What is reasonable is that the Order in Council shall be made and acted upon as soon as it is made, whenever it is made, but that none the less it shall be laid upon the Table of the House as soon as it sits—as soon as possible after it is made. If the House is not sitting you cannot lay it on the Table. My hon. Friend is wrong in thinking you can lay the Order unless the House is sitting. But let it be laid as soon as the House sits and within twenty-one days or whatever period the House likes to fix it shall be possible for the House to present an Address asking for the revocation of the Order. Mean—

    1085
    while the Order is to be operative. That seems to be essential if the Treaty is to be carried out. That means, I agree, a considerable concession of the power of this House, but the House still retains the power to censure the Government in effect if, on an unwarrantable Order, the House desires to enforce its opinion hostile to it! That is the best we can do in the circumstances, and I take it that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minster agrees to that procedure.
    Mr. HOGGE: In that case I am perfectly willing to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment on the ground that we have the power to test the question in the House if the Government proceed in a way the House of Commons does not approve.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would like to exercise my right, when the House is in Committee, to interpolate the Government on Sub-section (3) of Clause 1. I raised this question on a minor Motion which came before the House on Friday regarding the expenses of carrying out the Pence Treaty. I made some inquiries then which were not in order, and I want to know if they are in order now. What are the expenses which are to be incurred in carrying out the Peace Treaty and to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament? It seems to me that a Clause should be put in the Bill. I thought it was part of the Constitution that such moneys should be approved by Parliament, but be that as it may, I think we have the right to ask the Government what the expenses are going to be? Are the expenses for the secretariat of the League of Nations all that are required? Or is this credit for new territories in connection with carrying out the terms of the Treaty? It seems to me very vague and, perhaps, it is necessarily so. There may be a simple explanation, but I am at least entitled to ask for that explanation, and perhaps a few words from the Prime Minister will clear the matter up.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can give the hon. and gallant Member the explanation. If he will go through the Clauses of the Treaty he will see that the execution of every one of them will incur expense. Take the indemnity.
    There will be expenses in connection with that; there will be expenses in connection
    1086
    with the Commission and our representation upon it. Take the other Clauses which I referred to in connection with the debts, the setting-up of the clearing house—there will be expenses in connection with that. Then there is the prosecution for offences against the laws of war, there will be expenses in connection with that. I could go through the whole list, and the hon. and gallant Member will find that there will be some expenditure which will be essential in each. It will be subject, of course, to discussion in the ordinary way. The amounts will be in the Estimates, and hon. Members will have full opportunity of discussing them when they come before Committee of Supply.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: By a regular Vote?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, yes!
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down let me put this to him. It is an important constitutional point for the future and a matter affecting the League of Nations and its secretariat. It is one of the most important points we can consider at the moment, though hon. Members outside the Bar may treat it lightly. Does this mean that the salary of the permanent secretary of the League of Nations Council can be discussed in this House, the amount of it, and does that mean that the whole policy pursued by the Council of the League of Nations can also be discussed on that Vote?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a matter upon which, I think, Mr. Whitley will be able to give a ruling. It is a matter of Parliamentary procedure. But undoubtedly our contribution to the secretariat of the League of Nations will be on the Estimates; we shall need a Vote of that amount, and whether you can only discuss the amount or whether you will be able to discuss the policy of the League of Nations Council is a question which it is not for a Minister to answer. It is entirely a matter of procedure for the House of Commons, and I do not think I dare express an opinion on that.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. DEVLIN:I beg to move, to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the question to add the words
    "upon this day three months."
    I move the rejection of this Treaty in view of the remarkable speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister here to-night. In a House charged with an atmosphere of friendship towards Ireland the right hon. Gentleman rose and delivered a speech which in my judgment, wherever it is read to-morrow in any country where the English language is spoken, will not only cause deep and poignant sorrow but startle every nation that reads it. We are met to-day for the purpose of giving official sanction to a Peace Treaty. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech was moved by not one solitary sentiment of sympathy for a struggling nationality. Nor had he a single contribution to offer to a settlement of the Irish question. He made a declaration which, I think was made by the most bitter and violent of Irish enemies in the past, that Ireland was not a nation. He declared that distinctly. I would be unworthy of my nationality, and I would be an object of contempt everywhere if I did not rise at this stage and resent that declaration coming from him or any other British Minister. Ireland is a nation, a nation as old, a nation that has fine ideals, a nation that has as glorious a record and as proud traditions as any nation in Europe, and for a Prime Minister whose whole life has been gauged in the apostolate of preaching the glory of his own nationality, to rise in this House and use the position he has gained and the prestige he has won in this War to level insult at the nation to which I belong—I fling that insult back in his face. He comes here and tells us that the solution of the Irish problem is that there are two nations in Ireland, and that you can never have the Irish question solved until one of these nations goes under to the other. Is that the right hon. Gentleman's solution? It was not always his opinion. I heard him in this House repeatedly during the Home Rule controversies, and no man was ever more eloquent or more powerful in dissenting from the principle that Ulster was to dominate Ireland.
    1.0 A.M.
    What did he say on 13th June, 1912, in a Debate in this House?
    "What, therefore is the demand of Ulster? Not that she should be protected herself, not that she should have autonomy herself, but the right to veto autonomy to the rest of Ireland.
    1088
    That is an intolerable demand. There are two or three constituencies in "Wales, where you have got opposition to the Welsh Church Bill. Is it suggested they should be left out or because of their veto that the rest, of Wales should not count? Take the case of Johannesburg, or rather the case of the Transvaal. Suppose there were a demand from Johannesburg, and suppose the said they would be in a minority—because you must assume that—of one-third of the population, said, We are the wealthiest part of the Transvaal, and because we are British in blood—if they were—and because we have got business connections with the British Empire, because we are loyalists, because we have always stood by the Empire we do not demand separate autonomy for Johannesburg, but we demand the right to refuse autonomy to the rest of the Transvaal.' Now that is the situation here. It has never been put forward in any other way. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham said so last night that this is a thing you cannot get. If it is impracticable, that means if you vote for it, and if it is carried, the wrecking of the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin and every other speaker on the other side of the House admitted it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 13th June, 1912, cols. 1126–27, Vol. 39.]
    The right hon. Gentleman, in repeated declarations, which I can quote from his speeches, has said an entirely different thing to what he has stated in this House to-night. Yet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn delivered a speech on the 20th July in Belfast, and made a declaration in which he challenged the might and power of the British Empire. He told the right hon. Gentleman that he dare not do justice to Ireland because he would not allow him to do it, and would bring all his forces, organise his volunteers, and bring out all the scientific machinery of war against this Empire if the right hon. Gentleman and his Government dared to do that which the right hon. Gentleman has preached in this House as a just and proper thing for Ireland, for the Empire, and for the world. The right hon. Gentleman, denounced by the British Press, assailed by every responsible public man, charged with being the fomenter of anarchy and Bolshevism in the declarations he has made, comes and witnesses his triumph. For his triumph was found in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to-night. That is the sole result of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. It means that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn has intimidated the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of England, who fought the Kaiser, who fought German power, has bowed down before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn. And this is the

    1089
    hypocrisy of it all—to come here and talk about human liberty and the rights of small nationalities; to come here and to speak of the rights of every small nation and every large nation to determine its own destiny; to wait until the Peace Conference had concluded and then come down and clash and bang the door in the face of Ireland. That is a fine spectacle to present to the world. For my part, I will decline to vote for this Peace Treaty. We may be very few in numbers; probably there will be only three or four going into the Division Lobby against it. If there are only three or four, you are responsible for it. You killed the constitutional movement first, and you now want to kill Irish liberty. You want to let loose in Ireland every element which is opposed to you, and to crush every element that wanted to be your friends. That is the only moral I can draw from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. But the world will learn tomorrow, for it will be wafted everywhere, that, while you were engaged with your smug self-complacency in satisfying your-selves what splendid creatures you are, you were the defenders of human liberty everywhere where human liberty was assailed outside your own shores, except Ireland, which constitutes something more powerful than is to be counted by votes in this House or power even in the country. But Ireland's voice will be heard yet.
    I am sorry for this situation. To-night, in my speech, I spoke the genuine sentiment of my heart. I was profoundly anxious, deeply desirous—nothing could be more passionate than my desire—to bring about friendly relations between these two islands. Does the Prime Minister think this thing can end here? His gallant Ally America came into the War for reasons which I stated in the quotations which I read from the speech of President Wilson. President Wilson will have to go before the people of America. He will not have a very friendly audience as he passes on his itinerary. It was a tremendous sacrifice when he came into the War. It was with a terrific sacrifice that he remained in the War. He brought forces which if not responsible for your triumph brought it sooner than it would otherwise have come. Yet you place this man and all the force that stand behind him in this impossible position—you leave him to face the Irish race in America. He will have to face hostile elements that are not Irish. He will have to face political hostility to his policy. What have you
    1090
    done? You have consolidated his opponents. You have gathered into one great arena all the forces against him. Yet not by one gesture, not by one solitary sympathetic phrase, did the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to ease that position here to-night. It is cruel, it is callous, this tragic position which the right hon. Gentleman has placed everyone in, and while he may treat it with contempt I tell him this. I do not know if he heard the speech I read to-night or not. I do not know whether he knows the sentiments of General Smuts or not. What was the declaration he made? He said, "If you do not solve this Irish question it is the end of the British Empire." General Smuts is no street-corner rhetorician. General Smuts is not a second Jack Jones. In order to salve the offence, if my hon. Friend accepts it, General Smuts is not a second edition of myself. General Smuts is a great and responsibe statesman, a high idealist. He has thought this problem out. He came from a far-off land. He was one of your greatest and most powerful friends. He came here and he has contributed his share not only to your victory but to your peace, and he tells you that if you do not settle the Irish question it means the end of the British Empire. Yet, the right hon. Gentleman, on the first opportunity he has, comes to this House and says that when two nations settle their conflict he will endeavour to settle the Irish problem. I am inclined to agree with General Smuts. General Smuts does not count, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn does. That is really what it amounts to. The nation that fought the Kaiser must fall down and grovel before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn. I admit the Ulster question is a difficult question. We should bring our joint wisdom to endeavour to solve it. I admit all that. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is no matter that five-sixths of an ancient race for more than half a thousand years has fought for its freedom, and has never been conquered. We are told that that race is still to go on with its unconquered traditions and its influence throughout the world, but that the controversy can only be solved when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn and two or three counties in the North of Ireland decide how and when it ought to be settled.
    There is to my mind something more vital than peace abroad, and that is peace

    1091
    at home. How are you going to create and preserve peace at home? The only triumphant declaration at the present moment is the declaration of the Member for Duncairn. I saw in a newspaper last Saturday that a man was brought before a resident magistrate in England for threatening to murder his wife. What was his defence? He said, "No, I only said that if certain things happened and under certain conditions I would murder her," and the magistrate on the bench said, "Is not that what Sir Edward Carson said?" The counsel for the defence replied, "Yes, that is what he said." The magistrate then said it was only to be murder in certain circumstances, and he only bound the man over. I happened to be in Trafalgar Square on Sunday. I understand the Prime Minister passed at the same time, though he did not wait to hear the speeches. One of the speakers told the people how to commit acts of disorder. He said, "If certain things occur then I advise you to take a certain course. That word "if" will be known in history as the mightiest weapon in the hands of everyone who wants to break the law. Yet that "if" was the weapon that cowed the Prime Minister and forced him to turn his back upon all his declarations of the last twenty-five years in favour of Home Rule. It is a pity that on a day like this, when the spirit of peace prevails, and the whole world is watching what the British Legislature will do, that atmosphere of peace should be disturbed. I cannot fathom the speech of the right hon. Gentleman here to-night. He has told us distinctly that there is to be no settlement now or in the near future of this Irish question.
    The PRIME MINISTERindicated dissent.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman dissents from that. I unfortunately have as much reason to complain as any hon. Member in this House of the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman, but I have always recognised, and have always felt that deep down in his heart there was a love of liberty and an attachment to democracy. I always hated to attack him, although the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may think that I am never appearing without attacking him. I hate this job, but I must do it, because I must speak the truth, though the heavens should fall. Here to-night, when you are giving
    1092
    national sanction to your Peace Treaty, I tell you it is not a Peace Treaty. There never will be peace in the world until the Irish question is settled. It is not easy of solution, but there is no attempt to solve it. There is only an attempt to insult us, to tell us we are not a nation. The right hon. Gentleman told us to engage in internecine battle and in civil war in which British blood will flow, and out of that there will be a settlement. That to me is the most extraordinary thing I have ever heard. I understood that liberty would spring from peace and not war, that good would be the direct result of a common spirit of sacrifice. Now the remnant of us here are to go back to our people and tell them there is no hope for them except in revolution—not revolution against you, because they are in a minority, but revolution of mind, revolution of heart, revolution of spirit, the perpetuation of hatred and distrust between two peoples.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I rise to second the Amendment, because I feel that one Englishman, at any rate, supports my hon. Friend behind me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"] Irishmen have been killed by my side in this War. If hon. Members choose this occasion to cry "Divide," I would remind them that Parliament is on its trial. I am not connected with the South of Ireland, but there is another reason. I represent a constituency in which there are many Irish voters. When I was elected I gave those electors certain pledges that I would speak up for Ireland in this House. On this opportunity I mean to keep that pledge, and if that example were followed by more hon. Members in this House we should have straighter dealing, and England's word would be more respected in the, world. There is a third reason. I would remind you that I stand in the place of a man who is much missed in the House, and I wish he were here in my place now. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] I quite agree with the hon. Member. He would be listened to more than I should be. I did not come here in any sense as a careerist, but to speak for truth and justice, and I wish I had the authority that Sir Mark Sykes had in the House. I would remind hon. Members who speak of this matter lightly that there may be bloodshed in the next few days in Ireland, and perhaps there will be less laughter when we get the news of such tragic happenings. There has been bloodshed

    1093
    there for some months. The idea that a small privileged minority can keep down a nation was defeated at the Battle of the Maine, in 1914. Prussianism was defeated then, and the final victory over Prussianism then was only a matter of time. The final victory over Prussianism in Ireland now is only a matter of time, and it is a question whether we have peace in Ireland with honour or dishonour. It is a matter of entering into negotiations to sec what we can do. It is no time to speak of strategic dangers as the Prime Minister hinted in his most disappointing speech to-night. That kind of talk I hope has not been able to sway too much this Peace Treaty on which we are going to vote. Let us make one final appeal. The Irish race has given much to this Empire in blood. Irishmen's bones lie everywhere where this War has been fought. Anyone and any hon. Member who has fought in this War will testify to their bravery in Gallipoli and elsewhere. You say that not many Irishmen fought in this War. There are two places where you can find many Irishmen's names on the roll of honour, and where they were decorated for valour. And not only the Irishmen from Ireland—the native-born Irishmen—but they came from the Dominions oversea.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Thirty-six and a half per cent. of the American soldiers are of Irish descent.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: They came here and fought for the small nations, and they are refused the liberty of small nations. I hope my hon. Friend will divide on this. If there are only two or three men who support him it will not matter. There are going to be some men who speak out in this House against the wicked, foul injustice which has been done in that name of liberty and right. I have this right to say this. I speak for my Irish Constituents. I will keep my pledge and will speak on every possible occasion until right and justice are done. I will not forget the men whom I have seen fall by my side, Irishmen from the South of Ireland, who would have spurned this. I have much pleasure in seconding the rejection of the Bill.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know to what extent I am in order in a discussion on the Peace Treaty in entering into a discussion of the Irish problem. But I would like to say a few words in reply to what fell from the hon. Members who
    1094
    moved and seconded the rejection of this Bill. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just eat down talked a good deal about truth and justice, but he has not faced what are the facts in applying his principles to the case of Ireland.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am quite prepared to do so.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not changed in the least in my attitude to-wards the Irish question. The declaration I made about Ulster is a declaration which was not made by me in the first instance; it was made by my predecessor, Mr. Asquith, in this House, in the presence of the hon. Members from Ireland, without any protest from them, and made it perfectly clear that he would be no party to establishing any Parliament in Ireland which would involve the placing of Ulster, by coercive measures, under the dominion of that Parliament. I repeated that statement. I became Prime Minister a year or two afterwards. The speech quoted by the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Devlin) was that in which I deprecated the right of Ulster to veto self-government for the rest of Ireland. That is a very different proposition. I stand by that.
    Mr. DEVLIN:Did the right hon. Gentleman vote against the Motion to exclude the Ulster provinces?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I forget, at the moment, what was the Motion.
    Mr. DEVLIN: It was a Motion by the late Mr. Agar-Robartes.
    The PRIME MINISTER:The view I presented to my colleagues when that Home Rule Bill was first framed was that I never thought it possible to establish a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland and compel Ulster to come in.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Did the right hon. Gentleman hear his own letter read by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am going to deal with that. I am not going to shirk it. I have always thought so. The idea, that this is something which I said as the result of a speech delivered in Belfast by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Belfast is perfectly absurd. I made a declaration on that subject in a manifesto which

    1095
    I issued to the electors before this last election, in which I made it perfectly clear that I thought we should make an attempt to settle the Irish question, in the interests not merely of Ireland but of the British Empire. But there was one condition for a settlement, and that was that Ulster should not be compelled to come under an Irish Parliament. I made that perfectly clear in the declaration which I made to the electors. There is nothing new in the statement which I made to-night.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with his own letter?
    The PRIME MINISTER:I am coming to that letter, but the hon. Gentleman must allow me to deal with the matter. I cannot tell him how pained I am to have any difference with him, to begin with. I am following the policy which I, as a colleague of Mr. Asquith, agreed to.
    Mr. HOGGE: A bad policy.
    The PRIME MINISTER: It may be a good or a bad policy, but it wag a policy which was unanimously agreed to by the whole of his colleagues.
    Mr. HOGGE: No, no!
    The PRIME MINISTER: He spoke in the name of the whole of his colleagues in that Administration. In that Administration there were Liberals, there were Labour Members—Mr. Arthur Henderson was a member—there were other Labour Members.
    There were also, it is true, Unionist Members, but Mr. Asquith made that declaration in this House. I accepted it; I thought it was right. I made a similar declaration afterwards. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that I have always thought that to be the one obstacle in the way of a settlement in Ireland. My hon. Friend refers to a letter I wrote in February, 1918. I have not refreshed my memory about that letter, but I will accept the extract read by my hon. Friend. What I said was that unity was impossible in that Conference in my judgment except on the basis of the acceptance of one Legislature.
    Mr. DEVLIN: That is not true.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think my hon. Friend will find that that was what
    1096
    I said. I was advised by the chairman of that Conference that it was hopeless to secure agreement except on the basis of the acceptance of one Legislature. I did my best to secure the acceptance of that Amendment. If an arrangement had been arrived at by which the Ulster Members and the Members of the South of Ireland had agreed, nothing would have pleased me better, and nothing would have pleased hon. Members on both sides of the House than that. But we had to deal with objections. It is really no use expressing words of barren sympathy. We all feel that. It is no use wishing the Irish question to be settled, and saying, "It must be settled; it is essential that it shall be settled," without recognising the fundamental facts which make it difficult to settle it.
    Mr. DEVLIN: We all know the facts.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Believe me it is not the people who ignore the facts who will help to a settlement in the end. A mere denunciation of men who state unpalatable truths because they are truths does not help on a settlement. Here you have got, whether you call it a separate nation or whether it is a separate section of a nation, this fundamental difference between two parts of Ireland. British leaders of every party have assented to a declaration that they would take no part in setting up a Legislature in Ireland which would by force drive one section under the control of another.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Then there never will be any settlement.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to finish. If the section of Ireland which is emphatic in its demand for self-government is pre-pared to accept a measure of self-government for its own people—a liberal measure of self-government for the people who want it—that will be an easy matter to determine. That could be got. That has been repeatedly stated by men standing here who would be prepared to undertake the whole responsibility for submitting to Parliament any measure which would be necessary in order to carry it out; but if it is a condition that you should introduce and enforce a measure which includes the whole of Ireland, although you may have a solid protest from a very considerable section, then every pledge that has been given by every Member sitting on this

    1097
    bench, and by the leaders of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who sit on the benches opposite, stands in the way. The hon. Member opposite cheered when those quotations were made.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Do you refer to me?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. The hon. Member supported Mr. Asquith in this declaration; he accepted it, and ho was just as much bound by it. Does he go back upon it now?
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY:No. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will explain that my criticism of the Government is that it is not exploring all practical paths leading to a settlement. That is my criticism, that he is making no attempt to settle the question.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Then I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend still stands by the declaration he assented to at that period.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I do not know what particular declaration the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. I cannot say that I have assented to any declaration unless I have seen the exact terms.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Here is that declaration. Mr. Asquith says here—that is in September, 1914—speaking on behalf of the Government, that in their view and under the conditions that then existed, they must recognise that in the atmosphere which the great patriotic spirit had created in the country, the employment of force, any kind of force, for what they called the coercion of Ulster was an absolutely unthinkable thing.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: In September, 1914, I was not in the House. I was taking my part in the War, and was not able to subscribe to that declaration.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Does he accept that declaration?
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I do not accept that declaration.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Very well, I know exactly now where the hon. and gallant Member is. He would coerce Ulster to come into a Home Rule scheme.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: With adequate safeguards.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I made a declaration in identical terms to that made by Mr. Asquith. I consider myself bound by it still just as much as he did. The declaration he made on his own behalf and on behalf of those who were colleagues of his at the time was that Irishmen must really face that difficulty, and I am not going into the question why what appeared to be a promising attempt to effect a settlement failed. I think it is far more important that we should get the facts. I again repeat that if the Irishmen who stand for self-government, if the Irishmen who stand for Home Rule, if the Irishmen who wish it, will take it they can get it. But if they say they will not take it unless we force into its acceptance other Irishmen who do not want it, then they are themselves placing obstacles in the way of Home Rule for Ireland.
    Mr. DEVLIN:Will not the right hon. Gentleman elaborate that? What does he mean by Ulster and the coercion of Ulster?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know what my hon. Friend means. In the declaration I made before the election I referred to the six Ulster Counties.
    Mr. DEVLIN: What of the two counties?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is the declaration I made. It is the same declaration as I made in 1917. It is the declaration Mr. Asquith made. I am sure my hon. Friend really wants to get a settlement.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I do.
    The PRIME MINISTER:Mere recrimination will not help a settlement. I again appeal to Irishmen as they appeal to us. Their appeal to us is to carry through a particular settlement. In the very eloquent speech which the hon. Member for Waterford made to us to-night he referred to the Home Rule Act which stands on the Statute Book. He said, "Put that in operation." Will he tell me what part of Ireland wants that Act at the present moment?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Bring it in and I will tell the right hon. Gentleman.
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is not Ulster that repudiates that Act. The large majority of the representatives of Ireland are just as emphatically opposed to that Act as Ulster is. That is the difficulty.

    1099
    It is not a repudiation by British Ministers or by a British Parliament; it is repudiation by Irishmen themselves.
    Captain REDMOND:The right hon. Gentleman has asked me what part of Ireland wants that Act. My reply is that the right hon. Gentleman knows just as well as, if not better than, I do that that Act would have to be amended before it could come into operation at the present time. May I answer further that the Irish people have never had an opportunity of saying whether they would have that Act or not, because it has never been offered to them? Offer it, and then see.
    The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. friend knows that the Members elected at the last election in Ireland, I think to a man, are opposed to that Act—bitterly opposed to it. If you offered it to them now, with the exception of the few Members present in this House, not one of them would vote for it. What is the good of talking about Englishmen, Welshmen and Scotsmen refusing to carry out what Ireland herself repudiates?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Has the Government got an Irish policy?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Let us hear it.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Our Irish policy was stated clearly in the declaration I made. I stand by that. I consider that I got a mandate from the electors to carry that out. I have no mandate to carry out any other policy. If I were to endeavour to carry out a policy which was in opposition to the statement which I made to the electors, it would be my business to go back to them. It would be a breach of faith to the electorate of this country if I took any other line. I cannot take any other line because of the pledge I have given, and because in my heart I believe it is the only method to solve the Irish question. It is the only method to secure Irish unity. My hon. Friend knows that the way to secure Irish unity is not to begin by bringing these six counties in.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Not six counties.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Really the hon. Member for Falls must allow others to speak. The hon. Member is constantly interrupting.
    1100
    He spoke for twenty-five minutes without interruption, and he must allow the Prime Minister to proceed.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I was not interrupted because I said nothing that I could be interrupted for.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member did not interrupt we should get on better.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is beginning again.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I think it will help the Debate if I can get a clear answer on this point. The right hon. Gentleman talks about six counties, and about forcing people in and forcing people out. Does he mean to force outside the Irish Parliament two Ulster counties which are in favour of coming inside?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Gentleman asked me what is the policy of the Government. I told him what our policy is, and I am prepared to discuss and defend it. I made it clear to the electorate. Let me say one other word. When that Bill was placed on the Statute Book it has been assumed in the discussion to-night that the British Government intended to enforce it. My hon. Friends from Ireland must remember the circumstances when it was placed on the Statute Book. It was with an undertaking by the then Liberal Government that there should be a separate Bill dealing with the question of Ulster. That was the condition—not subsequently, but at the time. There was an undertaking given by the then Prime Minister that if the Bill became law he would introduce a Bill to deal with the Ulster situation. At any rate, there was a definite undertaking. There has been no departure from that position. The position taken by the then Prime Minister is the position I have taken right through. I have not departed from it, and I do not believe you will get a satisfactory Irish settlement except upon these lines. It is my firm conviction that these are the only lines upon which you can proceed to a settlement of the Irish question. There is no other that I can see, and I beg hon. Members from Ireland—I know their difficulties—to face these difficulties and to appeal to British statesmanship to attempt a solution upon these lines, looking to the possibility that that may lead to the unity of Ireland in the future.
    Mr. HOGGE: One of the difficulties of dealing with this question is the very important speech which my right hon. Friend has just made, at a quarter to two on Tuesday morning. You will remember that some of us who were interested in the discussion of these two Bills asked that more time should be given. My right hon. Friend says this has nothing to do with the Bill, but that really is not so, because, if it had nothing to do with the Bill, Mr. Speaker would have called both my hon. Friend and right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to order long ago.
    Mr. SPEAKER: When the subject was first introduced, it had some reference, I will admit, to the Versailles Treaty, but as it has been gradually developed we are getting further and further away from it, and it would now pass the wit of any man to see what connection the discussion now has with the ratification of the Versailles Treaty as contained in the Bill.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Small nationalities.
    Mr. SPEAKER:There is nothing about that in the Bill. We are now discussing the Third Reading of the Bill.
    Mr. HOGGE: With all due respect, I do not understand this opinion, because, if it passes the wit of man to understand what reference it has now, I have not yet made any reference to it beyond the comment on my two hon. Friends' speeches and that of the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, if there has been any question of its being out of order, it has been out of order before now. What I want to emphasise is this, that at a quarter to two we have had an important speech on the Irish question. However, I want to obey your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I will not pursue the subject, as you have given that opinion. I think you have not made it a ruling. I only want to say this, I think it may be helpful. Five years ago this House went unanimously into that War. Even our Irish Friends were then agreed. Surely my hon. Friends can do something, and let us go unanimously out of the War to-night. Do not let us have on the pages of the records of this House a small Division in which a few Irishmen took part. After all, they have done extraordinarily well in this War, and have faced extraordinary difficulties. Everyone remembers, for instance, the enormously patriotic speeches made by the late Mr. John Redmond. Everybody remembers
    1102
    that Willie Redmond, whom we all knew, died in the War. Everybody remembers the quarrel with the War Office which the late John Redmond had because his son was not given a commission and could not get a commission. Never mind! Do not let us quarrel about these things to-night. We are going out of the War to-night if we pass every stage of the Bill. Some of my Friends below the Gangway know where some of us stand in regard to Home Rule. I, personally, go all the way with my hon. Friends. I, personally, would coerce Ulster rather than Ulster should hold up the Empire, but I will not discuss that now. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend—I think he can do it, but if he cannot the Lord Privy Seal can do it with him—that as we had no Division in going into the War do not let us have a Division going out of it.
    Mr. HARBISON: I have not said a word in this Debate, and I would not have said a word now but I have got from the Prime Minister information that I have been looking for since I entered this Parliament and before. I have got a declaration from him as to what he means by Ulster. I happen to represent what we call at home the premier county of Ulster, the county of Tyrone, which is to be one of the excluded counties according to the Prime Minister's statement. In that county we have 16,000 of a majority in favour of Home Rule for all Ireland, and if it is the policy of this Government or any future Government to exclude that county, I venture to say to this House, and to the nation which, I think, this House does not represent, that the coercion of Tyrone into what is called the one Province of Ulster, will be one of the most difficult propositions that any Government has yet set before it. From the county which I represent has sprung the origin of all national movements in Ireland. We have a tradition that is as dear to us as are the traditions of the country which the Prime Minister represents, his native country of Wales. I belong to the land of the O'Niel, who defied the power of this Empire and fought a straight fight, and was defeated by the might of this Empire. I say that if the Government of this country—I do not use it as a threat, but I wish to say it as a man who came to this House to try to find some amicable means of getting our Friends from North-East Ulster, and principally from Belfast, to join with us in building up our nation—I tell them that if they try to

    1103
    coerce us into going in with these men, they will be up against a stiff proposition. We have fought in our county since 1885, and I say to hon. Members of this House who represent a democratic nation, and who believe in the principles of democracy, that since 1885 we have carried out their principles. You gave us a franchise; we have exercised that franchise in a constitutional manner. In all the elections that have come since 1885—that is during thirty-four years—we have consistently returned sometimes a unanimous vote from the county of Tyrone, and we have never lost more than one seat out of the four. To-day our declaration from Tyrone is as strong as it was in 1885.
    I was one of the Members who was induced to enter the Irish Convention. It was upon the faith of the Prime Minister's letter that I entered that Convention. I did so in good faith and in the belief that the age-long struggle between these two nations was about to be composed, and I believe that had there been a genuine spirit in the Government of this country to compose that difference that it could have been composed. I am not much of a statesman, neither am I much of a lawyer, but within the four corners of the Report of that Convention any man with ordinary human intelligence could have taken from the three Reports contained therein a settlement of the Irish question. There was only one dissentient voice in that Convention. It is true there were two Nationalist Reports, but the difference between them was practically a bagatelle. It was only a question of the customs, which all Ireland would have agreed at the moment to leave to a Commission to inquire into. The only other microbes, if I may call it such, of dissension in that Convention were the hon. Gentlemen representing the minority of the Province of Ulster. If there had been a bonâ fide intention on the part of the Government to draw up a scheme of settlement out of the findings of that Convention, I believe that it could have been done without any difficulty. But unfortunately for this country, and more unfortunately than for Ireland, there was a lawless conspiracy against both the freedom of Ireland and the freedom of England as well. In the year 1914, and in the month of April, when I lived in my old native home, my life was hardly worth an hour's purchase. Armed men were allowed to prance up and down and surround my house. The
    1104
    authorities of the law came to my house and asked me, "Have you got any arms in your house?" I said, "No," and I was told to get them, because the authority of the British Crown could not defend me. These were the men who burst up the Convention. I remember the first day of the Convention walking through the grounds of Trinity College with our late beloved leader, Mr. John Redmond. He asked me what was to be done about the settlement of the question of Ireland and what would be the result of the Convention. I told him that I did not profess to be a prophet, but that as sure as to-morrow's sun would rise, no matter what we did, these Gentlemen here would not consent to join with all other Irishmen to build up their country. Yet these are the very Gentlemen to whom the Prime Minister of England has surrendered—the men who have been preaching that if a certain law is passed, though it be signed by the King, and put into force they will rebel. Unfortunately, they have not now a German tyrant to come to their aid. I have heard it said from their platforms that if the law came into force there was a foreign potentate more powerful than the King of England.
    Mr. DEVLIN: They are going to try the Kaiser now!
    Mr. HARBISON: I speak as a Tyrone man and as the representative of my Constituents I shall go back to tell them that the men for whom I have fought, and for whom I will fight again, have been denied their liberty on the very night on which we hoped there was going to be universal peace in the world. There is no man more for peace the world over than I am, and more particularly for peace between my own country, my native land, and England. But the Prime Minister has declared war on Ireland on the Second Reading of the Peace Treaty Bill. He has stated that Ireland is not a nation. I would tolerate that coming from an Englishman, but not from a Welshman who belongs to my own race. I am a Celt and so is he, and I would like him to get up and say that there are two kings in Wales, because there is a Conservative opposition in Wales as there is in Ireland.
    Mr. DEVLIN: It is worse. There are two Churches.
    2.0 A.M.
    Mr. HARBISON: I am astonished to hear such a statement coming from a repre-

    1105
    sentative of the little Principality of Wales. I declare emphatically that Irishmen will never admit that there are two nations in Ireland. I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman during his speech to-night which he did not answer. It is on the records of this House that in 1782, when Irishmen rose in arms and demanded their liberty, that Ireland was a nation and the men who demanded it were not only Catholic Irishmen, but Protestant Irish-men. I am a Catholic, but I am proud of my Protestant fellow countrymen who demanded the right to govern their own affairs and to wrench from this unwilling Parliament that right to manage their own country. In 1914 another Charter was put on the Statute Book which acknowledges the principle that Ireland is a nation, although it is quite true that, owing to the changed times, certain of the provisions of that Act will require amendment. I, for one, speaking as an Irishman, am quite content to take the Act of 1914 as it stands on the Statute Book because the root and main provision of it is the financial provision. Of the provisions of that Act, however, a certain revision must be made, because on the changed finances of the country and when a certain eventuality occurs, and Ireland becomes a paying concern, we are to have a revision. I am prepared to take that Act as a settlement of the Irish question but I will never, as long as I have breath of life, admit that there are two nations in Ireland. I will go back to my county of Tyrone, which is to be included, and tell my people that we will never be separated from Ireland. So is Belfast Ireland. I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister's word is not the final one on this subject. To-morrow morning every newspaper throughout the world in America and in Russia will have the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. It will be read by the peoples of democratic nations, to whom will have gone forth the declaration that in the one country which has fought longest for freedom the minority is to rule the majority. If that is the ipse dixit of the Prime Minister and of the nation which believes itself to be the most democratic nation in the world, then I say that the Treaty which this House is being asked to ratify to-night is not a Treaty of Peace—it is the beginning of war, because it is going to separate the democracies of the two great English-speaking nations of the world, the democracies of England and
    1106
    America. If the Prime Minister thinks his troubles are ended, he makes a mistake. There is a new spirit abroad in this country. I was speaking at a meeting yesterday, and there were thousands of Englishmen present. If the Prime Minister heard the speeches delivered he would not be so sure that the principles he has enunciated are acceptable. But there is another spirit abroad. There is the spirit of the Irish nation, which is not confined to Ireland. There are ten, fifteen, or twenty millions of people in America who will voice the sentiments I am expressing here to-night, and if it is to be the last word of the British Government that Ireland is to be divided into two nations, this is not a Treaty of Peace—it is a treaty of war between two great democracies of the world.
    Sir W. WHITLA:I will not keep the House for more than two minutes. I want to make two statements, and I think they are very important. We have heard from the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool that the Government will not put the Bill that is on the Statute Book into action. I am the only Unionist Member of the House who was a member of the Irish Convention. We sat for eight months, and there was only one thing on which that Convention was unanimous—that was, that that Bill would in no circumstances be received by anybody, and that it was absolutely impossible to put it into action. The second statement which has been referred to here was the obstacle Ulster put in the way. I speak in all solemnity, as if I were in the presence of my Maker, when I say that we Ulstermen went into that Convention every one considering that his life would have been well spent if we could have arrived at any settlement whatever of this question. There never was such an effort by any Convention to arrive at a settlement if a settlement was possible. It was absolutely impossible. We only discussed one question, and only one Clause of it. We discussed practically only one sentence, and that was the question of fiscal autonomy. Before that Convention met, for the last ten or twelve years, Ireland had a deficit of about £1,000,000—sometimes more than £500,000, sometimes less. Her expenditure exceeded her income. England always paid the bill. When we went into the Convention we were faced with this: Ireland has now a surplus of something like £15,000,000.
    An HON. MEMBER: £30,000,000.
    Sir W. WHITLA: I am speaking of the time of the Convention. We were faced with this, that a Dublin Parliament was to be established, and that the Dublin Parliament must have the supreme command of every shilling of those £15,000,000. "We owed nothing," they said, "not one shilling, to England for this War. It is not Ireland's war." That was absolutely impossible. That faced us, and it is right the House of Commons should know it. We never got over that sentence, and we never shall.
    Mr. J. JONES: I do not happen to be an Irishman straight from Ireland, but I happen to be an Irishman representing an English constituency, and this matter, which is before the House, the ratification of the Peace Treaty, is not a matter affecting Irishmen merely. It raises issues of far greater importance. Past Home Rule Acts do not count, and I am sorry the hon. Member who spoke last took so long to bring his ideas to fruition. Nine months is rather an inappropriate time. There seems to be an idea abroad that in every country in the world the majority will rule. In the Saar Valley and in Alsace-Lorraine, and other districts various Commissions have been sent out to investigate, and the majority of the peoples by the free expression of their vote shall decide under what particular form of government they are to live. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite why the principles of democracy should be right in other countries of Europe, but wrong so far as Ireland is concerned? All the problems that you have in Ireland you have in other parts of Europe. Yet Ireland must not be allowed to settle her affairs on the same principles as the people of England. Hon. Members are giving the direct actionists the strongest arguments they want. Some of us have spent our time inside the working-class movement trying to preach the doctrine of democracy. Whether we liked it or not we have been prepared to say to members of our trade unions that the government of the country is conducted on democratic lines, and as long as the people elect certain Members to Parliament it is their duty to obey the law. What is the position now? If I had delivered a similar speech outside this House to that which was delivered last Saturday week in Belfast I would probably have found myself in prison.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This discussion is outside the Versailles Treaty. We discussed the matter to which the hon. Member is referring last Tuesday.
    Mr. JONES:I am very sorry that I forgot Versailles was so very far from Belfast, and I apologise for mentioning it. But I would only point out that you cannot preach democracy, the right of self-determination, and of nationalities to govern themselves, and yet deny to the people right at your own doors an opportunity of enjoying that self-determination. Therefore, I associate myself with the Motion which has been moved by the hon. Member for Belfast, and I hope the House will not allow this to be laid aside, and that the declaration that has been made by the Prime Minister to-night will not be accepted as the last word of British policy as regards Ireland.
    Captain REDMOND: I desire to congratulate the hon. Member upon the outspoken and able speech which he has just made in support of the principles for which we went to war, but which do not seem to have been embodied in the Peace Treaty which the Prime Minister is endeavouring to have ratified by this House. The right hon. Gentleman asks us, and me in particular, whether the Home Rule Act that is now upon the Statute Book would be accepted in Ireland. As has already been stated, the Act, as it exists at the present time, must necessarily, according to its own terms with regard to the financial provisions, be amended and brought up to date, owing to the lapse of years and change of circumstances. After all, before anyone accepts a thing he must be offered it, and Irishmen are not quite such fools as all that, that they would be willing to say they would accept a proposal which is not made. Let the proposal be made, let the present Home Rule Act with its proper Amendments be brought up to date—mind you, I am not saying that the Amendments should not be Amendments safeguarding certain interests in Ireland—let that Act amended be offered to the Irish people by the Government, and then it will be up to the Irish people to say whether they shall accept it or not. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Sinn Feiners!"] It will be up to the Irish people, Sinn Feiners, and all included, to say whether they will accept it or not, but the offer must be made before they can say if it can be accepted. I do not intend to traverse much of the ground covered in the speech of the hon. and

    1109
    learned Member for Queen's University. At the same time, though not a member of the Convention myself, because I was otherwise engaged at the moment, yet knowing many members of that Convention and having the Report of that Convention in my hand, I would like to controvert his two main statements. The first was that the one thing they were all unanimous about was that the Bill on the Statute Book was not wanted. That is entirely erroneous.
    Sir W. WHITLA: I rise to a point of Order. I never made such a statement. I said no one would have had this thing, and I challenge that statement.
    Captain REDMOND:I am quite satisfied. I had no intention whatever of misrepresenting the hon. Member. He said that no one would have had it. Well, in the first place it was not offered to them to have, and in the second place the Act formed the basis, so far as I understand, of the whole discussion that took place at the Convention, and the whole object of the Convention was to endeavour so to improve and amend that Act that it could possibly be accepted by all parties in Ireland. There was a gentleman very prominent in Irish politics, who died only the other day in Ireland, the late Mr. William Murphy, who, as I understand it, did produce a scheme which took the Home Rule Act as its basis, though he had for years previously been condemning that very Act both publicly on the platform and in the Press.
    The second statement made by the hon. Member was that the Ulster representatives had gone some way, at any rate—I do not want to misrepresent him—towards meeting their brother Irishmen in regard to a settlement.
    Sir W. WHITLA:Again I must contradict the hon. and gallant Member. I made no such statement. I never said a word about that. We went in, I said, determined to settle it even at the cost of our lives, and we could not settle it. They never budged one-sixteenth of an inch, and therefore we could not meet them.
    Captain REDMOND: The hon. Member has again corrected me, and I stand corrected. He says that he and his Friends went into the Irish Convention with the object of bringing about a settlement. I am very glad indeed to hear that expression coming from him, and, I hope, representing the views of his colleagues. But
    1110
    what were the facts of the Convention, and what are the facts to-day? He says that Nationalists in the Convention—call them the non-Ulster Unionists in the Convention, to bring in all those opposed to his party—never budged one-sixteenth of an inch. Well, the proud boast and arrogant claim of the hon. and learned Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) and all his friends on the last 12th July, and right up to that date ever since the Convention, has been that they never budged an inch, and they are still standing shrieking "No surrender !" from the walls of Derry. As a matter of fact, the sad truth about the matter is that the Irish Nationalists and the Southern Unionists, and I give the Southern Unionists greatest credit for it, both went a great way in their endeavour to meet the wishes or the fears of the—I hope I shall not be too harsh in saying—idiosyncrasies of their Ulster fellow countrymen. A Non-possumus came forth from the Ulster phalanx; they never budged an inch—they never budged the hundredth part of an inch. I challenge the hon. Member and the Prime Minister to say that what he calls Ulster and its representatives have ever budged an inch in the attitude they have taken up since the beginning of the Home Rule controversy. Certainly they never did so at the Convention, and, unfortunately, they have not done so since.
    If Irishmen could have come together at that Convention things would have been different. It is only right that it should be understood by the new Members of this House who were not Members at the time of the Convention, and, therefore, had not the opportunity or interest to study the Report of that body, that there was a Majority Report in the Convention. I have the Report in my hand at present, and there was a distinct Majority Report. It may not have been a large majority.
    Sir W. WHITLA: As far as that majority was concerned, it was made up of Southern Unionists.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would point out that this is not a discussion of what happened in the Convention. I would suggest to the hon. Member that he should keep closer to the question.
    Captain REDMOND:With the greatest pleasure. I will come down to the question and have no desire for a moment to wander away, except that I wanted to reply to the very few and very brief, but

    1111
    I think rather misleading, remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast University as to what took place at the Convention. All I have to say about the Convention is this—
    Sir W. WHITLA: That you were not there.
    Captain REDMOND: No, I was not there; I was in France. Perhaps I ought not to have been there, but I was.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Fighting for small nationalities.
    Captain REDMOND: At any rate, if I was not at the Convention I know what took place there, and one thing I remember about it is that it was the creation of the Government, that it was brought into existence by the Government without being asked for by any party. The Government said they would legislate on the Report of the Convention. Unfortunately, the Report was not unanimous, but even so the Government did not act. Why is it necessary for a satisfactory solution of this question that we have to be united in Ireland? Why is it that you can have your differences in this country without any such question arising? Why is it that in Czecho-Slovakia and Alsace-Lorraine, where they have differences of creed and of opinion, the rule is that the great majority shall prevail, whereas in Ireland a different principle entirely is to be applied? There is but one reply to that question, and it is that the principles of democracy for which the Prime Minister and his Government have stood and have conducted a war for—very courageously and ably and successfully, I admit—shall apply to every part of the world, to every nation in the world, until you come to Ireland, and when the Irish question is raised they hold up their hands and cry, "Kamerad!" And "kamerad" to whom? To a privileged minority of the Irish people who, it appears, are to have the right to ride roughshod over the will, the wishes, arid the aspirations of the majority of their fellow countrymen. I am not going to-night into any details of the Irish question. The only point I want to make in connection with this Debate is that in all other parts of the world we have endeavoured to find a solution of these great questions. The Prime Minister comes down to this House to propose the ratification of this Peace Treaty, and he tells us that he and his colleagues along with the Allies in conference assembled have solved
    1112
    these great questions affecting the future government of Poland and a number of other thorny subjects in various parts of the world, but he confesses that it is impossible for him to do anything in Ireland. I ask him, Is that straightforward? Is it not a confession not only of weakness, but of fear and intimidation? If his policy has been so satisfactory elsewhere, why should he not have the courage to attempt to carry it out in Ireland? Why, after having proposed one solution after another, after having called a Convention on the ground that it was an urgent war measure and that it was of the utmost importance that the Irish question should be settled, should he now come down to the House of Commons and throw up the sponge, declaring that the whole matter is one of despair. I am glad that he thought fit to make a second speech in this Debate, because if the matter had been left where it was left after his first speech, it would have had disastrous effects upon the country. I believe still, unfortunately, that the way in which the Prime Minister has spoken of the question cannot have a good effect upon the country, but I would urge upon him and upon the Government the necessity of doing something. You cannot leave things as they are; otherwise you will only drift still further to chaos and disaster. One of three things, I suggest, has got to be done. You have (1) to govern Ireland by the wishes of the people and in accordance with the principles of democracy so well exemplified and worked out in other parts of the Empire, or (2) you have to govern Ireland by the principle of brute force and martial law, which is nothing but Prussianism, and which the Noble Lord the hon. and learned Member for Hitchin said yesterday is not entirely confined to Prussia, or (3) you have to let things drift. I ask the Government which of these three courses are you going to adopt? If the Prime Minister adopts the straight, bold, and courageous course of attempting to find a solution of this problem, I believe he will rally to his support not only the sane and patriotic elements in Ireland itself, but in Great Britain as well. Ulster is still a part of Ireland, in spite of the Prime Minister's desire to form Ireland into two nations. The Almighty has thought otherwise, but the Prime Minister may be able to improve on that later on. At the present time Ulster is part of Ireland, and it will be in the interests of Ulster, of Ireland, of the United Kingdom, of the

    1113
    Empire, and of the world if the Prime Minister will only take his coat off and go into this question as he went into the War. If he does so he will do something which will go down to history as successful as the greatest deed ever performed by any British statesman. But if not, if he chooses to let things drift, I warn him that he is leading to certain ruin and disaster, not only in Ireland but in this country itself. Therefore, I second this Amendment, I will not say with pleasure, but with reluctance, because, having supported the entrance of this country into the War, having gone through the whole of the War in support of this country as well as I could, I hoped to be able to come out of it supporting the Treaty which we fought for and brought about. Unfortunately, owing to the policy of negation with regard to Ireland on the part of the Prime Minister, I am driven to go into the Lobby against this so wrongly named Peace Treaty.
    Mr. T. SHAW: At the beginning of last year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—President Wilson laid down Fourteen Points—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—subsequently modified by a later speech. In the early spring our own Prime Minister made a speech to the troops in France in which he said that Germany could have peace to-morrow on those terms, and the. Armistice was definitely arranged on the understanding that the Allies should deal with the representatives of the German people and that Peace should not be discussed on the Fourteen Points but should be arranged on them. Is there a right hon. or hon. Gentleman here who will claim that the annexation for fifteen years of the Saar Valley is not a distinct violation of the terms upon which the Armistice was signed? If that be the fact, in what respect are we better than the Germans were when they tore up the scrap of paper? [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide !"] Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen may protest. I put the question: Were those the terms on which the Armistice was signed or were they not? I say they were, and those terms have been broken by the Saar Valley provisions.
    On the question of Ireland I have only a few words to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I am enjoying the courtesy of the House. It is what I expected, and it is what I am getting. I believe that no international peace is possible—[HON MEMBERS: "Divide!"]
    Mr. J. JONES: We are not to be insulted by members from Jerusalem.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member not to interrupt or use insulting language.
    Mr. JONES: Are we to stand insults from a Jew?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is himself insulting. If the hon. Member keeps on interrupting I shall hare to take stronger measures.
    Mr. SHAW: I am sorry my rising has caused this ill-feeling. Everyone who loves his country—and I am as good an Englishman as anyone in this place—loves to see his country great in the best sense, giving in the best sense, giving fair play and equal treatment to all men. All I have to say about Ireland is that a country which employs the Army to govern and imprisons men for selling extracts from speeches of Cabinet Ministers is not a country that can claim fair play. To vote against the Treaty is a very serious thing, a thing that no thinking man can contemplate without some degree of hesitation. One desires to recognise the difficulties that have stood in the way of our statesmen, and whilst I personally and my party object very strongly to certain things in the Treaty I doubt very much whether after all we shall vote against it, not because we believe in it intact, but because the greater danger is to refuse it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now." and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—[Mr. Derlin.]
    Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 4

    Division No. 76.]

    AYES.

    [2.44 a.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Agg-Gardner Sir James Tynte

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Breese, Major C. E.

    Ainsworth, Captain C.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Allen, Col. William James

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Brittain, Sir Harry E.

    Archdale, Edward M.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Atkey, A. R.

    Betterton, H. B.

    Bruton, Sir J.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

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

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Buckley, Lieutenant-Colonel A.

    Burdon, Colonel Rowland

    Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Jameson, Major J. G.

    Remer, J. B.

    Casey, T. W.

    Jesson, C.

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Chaowick, R. Burton

    Jodrell, N. P.

    Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

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

    Johnstone, J.

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Child, Brig-General Sir Hill

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

    Seddon, J. A.

    Clough, R.

    King, Commander Douglas

    Scely, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. John

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Smith, Haroid (Warrington)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

    Smithers, Alfred W.

    Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.

    Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)

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

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

    Starkey, Captain John Ralph

    Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Courthope, Major George Loyd

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Dockrell, Sir M.

    Lyon, L.

    Sturrock, J. Leng-

    Du Pre, Colonel W. B

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

    Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.

    Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

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

    Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

    Falcon, Captain M.

    Mason, Robert

    Townley, Maximilan G.

    FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Vickers, D.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Waddington, R.

    Gange, E. S.

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

    Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Mosley, Oswald

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Murchison, C. K.

    Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.

    Greame, Major P. Lloyd

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

    Whitla, Sir William

    Gregory, Holman

    Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)

    Wigan, Brigadier-General John Tyson

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

    Murray, William (Dumfries)

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

    Hacking, Captain D. H.

    Nall, Major Joseph

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

    Hailwood, A.

    Neal, Arthur

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

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

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

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

    Henderson, Major V. L.

    Newton, Major Harry Kottingham

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)

    Hickman, Brig-General Thomas E.

    Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

    Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)

    Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)

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

    Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)

    Hinds, John

    Parker, James

    Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

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

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Hood, Joseph

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pickering, Col. Emil W.

    Younger, Sir George

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

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

    Pratt, John William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Capt.

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Purchase, H. G.

    F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.

    Hudson, R. M.

    NOES.

    Donnelly, P.

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Jones, J. (Silvertown)

    Redmond, Captain William A.

    Mr. Devlin and Mr. Harbison.

    Question put, and agreed to.

  ANGLO-FRENCH TREATY (DEFENCE OF FRANCE) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and question proposed,
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. HOGGE: I would ask if we really must go on now? I do not mind going on; I have lost all the trains I can get, so I am quite as happy here as elsewhere. But surely to take the Second Reading, the Committee stage and the Report stage of a Bill which apparently is going to form a Treaty with America and France, at ten minutes to three in the morning, is
  1116
  not the way things ought to be done. If my Friends want it, of course I have no objection.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would make an appeal to my hon. Friend and to the House to let us have this Treaty with France. This is the undertaking of Great Britain to come to the aid of France if she is attacked. We discussed this, and I understood that the discussion would cover this Treaty as well as the other. As a matter of fact my hon. Friend knows very well it did cover it. I am afraid it will create a very bad impression in France if the first Treaty is carried through and this Treaty is postponed and put off. These things are very difficult to explain abroad, and there will be a feeling that the British Parliament is hesitating. I do not believe that a man would hesitate

  1117
  to go to the aid of France if she were attacked. I was talking to a very prominent, and I think most hon. Members, if I named him, would say he was rather an extreme Socialist. I said to him, "We are going to give an undertaking that if France is attacked Great Britain will come to her assistance." He said, "I do not believe there is a man in the British Islands who would object to that." That is what I feel, and I should be sorry if there were a note of hesitation. It might be due to one reason or to another, but these things are so difficult to explain. The French nation is very sensitive on the subject, and I do earnestly appeal to all hon. Members of the House that they will say that at any rate if France is attacked the whole opinion of this country will be behind her.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 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, while uniting in a respectful admiration of the French people, declines to give a Second Heading to a Bill which is inconsistent with the spirit of the League of Nations, which is calculated to perpetuate the system of alliances that produced the late War, and which imposes upon this country unprecedented military burdens which will impede its financial recovery."
  HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"
  3.0 A.M.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have every intention, with your permission, Sir, of moving the Motion which stands in my name, and I will very briefly explain my reasons for it No one has a greater admiration for the French nation than I have. I have probably seen as much of the French as any Member of this House. I have seen them inaction, on land, and I have been in action with them on sea. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] I will take up that challenge at once. I have been in action on the Somme and at sea in the Mediterranean. I quite agree with the Prime Minister and his extreme Socialist Friend that every man in this country, if France were wantonly attacked again, would go to her rescue. Certainly French people and the French Socialists know that, yet I am right in saying that the French Socialist party, which is much stronger than the Socialists here, is opposed to this agreement in the same way as I am opposed to it.
  We have just passed a Bill of which the League of Nations part was accepted with
  1118
  feelings of great gratitude by the great majority of the people of this country. May I quote to this House Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations? It says:
  "Should any member of the League resort to war in disregard of its covenants it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other members of the League which hereby undertake immediately to subject it to the severance of all trade and financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their nationals and the nationals of the covenant-breaking State …."
  I emphasise the words "all members of the League." There is also Article 11, which I will also read:
  "Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the members of the League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League …"
  Having passed that very solemnly, we now say that this Alliance is required with France. I do not believe it. I do not want to use strong language, but the Prime Minister may have been coerced into this by certain old-fashioned officials, diplomatists, and politicians of France. It takes all sorts of men to make a nation. Unfortunately, there are men in France in high stations who follow the rules of the Bourbon rulers, and one of the things they have not forgotten is that this system of alliances does not prevent war, but leads to war. If what has happened in Europe is not sufficient to convince people of that, nothing will convince them of anything. There is another great objection. Why should France especially have this reinsurance when Germany is down and out, to use the language of the boxing ring? There is not likely to be any fighting for some years. Why should France have this protection against Germany, when you consider also the Poles? What will they say in Poland now with a possible Russian enemy to the eastward, a German menace in the west-ward, and a hostile Ukraine to the southward? They say that "If the French require this protection, so do we," and I quite agree with them. I think that if France is to have it they ought to have it, and the same applies to Italy, to the new State of Czecho-Slovakia, and every one of the new States and the old. I would like to have seen a general reinsurance for all nations. That was proposed at the Peace Conference, and it would have been better if it had been carried out. Here we have the three aristocratic nations of the

  1119
  world—the English, French, and Americans—perpetrating a blunder which kills the League of Nations at its birth. These words will not, I know, be received here with the weight with which they ought to be received. Already we see the first fruits of this Treaty; already there are some official conversations going on between Italy and Germany. There is already a strong party in Italy which is preaching the doctrine of a close union with Germany, and there is a strong party in Germany that is looking to Italy in the same way, and to all the other nations which are outside the close ring of the Three. There is a danger there. Italy is faced with a hostile YugoSlav State, and it is natural for her to look to Germany. Are Members so stupid that they do not understand what it means? It means the perpetuation of the system of alliances that have half-ruined Europe. The French working classes do not want this. The French poilus, as the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin said, is the strongest for the League of all the soldiers of Europe, and the reason is clear. He has seen the sufferings. He does not look to another alliance, and the French Socialists do not want it. The rank and file in France do not want it, and, therefore, I move the Motion in my name. I hope it will be received with solemnity. In France at any rate, it will not be misunderstood, for the mass of the French people have not asked for it. I hope it will receive the Motion in the spirit in which I move it, for it is meant to save the League of Nations and civilisation in the future.
  Mr. DEVLIN rose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member second the Amendment?
  Mr. DEVLIN: No.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Then he cannot speak to it yet.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Then I will formally second it, for the purpose of being able to ask the Prime Minister for some explanation. I think he mentioned America in connection with this Treaty?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, not this Treaty.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Will we have the opportunity of discussing the Treaty with America?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is a separate Treaty which she will submit to her own Parliament. We have nothing to do with that.
  Mr. DEVLIN: That is only operative if the American Congress approves? Well, I will be glad to know what the opinion of America will be to-morrow when America reads the discussions which have taken place in the House to-night. I have not spoken to the hon. and gallant Member who has addressed the House to-night (Commander Kenworthy). I do not know him. All I have to say is that it is a fine commentary on democracy that the one hon. Member who has come into this House by a majority so tremendous as to be remarkable in the history of elections in this country, should be howled down and laughed down by a number of Gentlemen in this House. He went out to help win the War. He did not kill the Kaiser with his mouth, like so many of the patriots in this House.
  I do not know why, but he seems to me to stand alone here, and, therefore, being an Irishman, I am here to stand beside him. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was returned here at a by-election recently, in which he changed the Coalition majority of 10,000 into a minority, and to my mind that is a sufficient guarantee that he ought to be listened to with respect. I am quite sure that a successful sailor is not a triumphant profiteer. Therefore, when those attacks are made on him, I resent them. I cannot agree with him, and I challenge the Amendment which he has proposed; I merely second it in order to secure that right of free speech in the House of Commons which even I can secure from a number of Gentlemen who are hovering on the brink of political destruction at ten minutes past three o'clock in the morning.
  What I want to say is that, as far as America is concerned, the less we say about her the better. The purposes for which America entered the War have not been the purposes declared in the House of Commons to-night. Your Treaties are mere scraps of paper. Your great Imperial arrangements can have no impressive effect upon the public mind here or elsewhere unless the people can trust your word. You promised to give Ireland self-government.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow further discussion on Ireland. This Bill deals with

  1121
  a Treaty between. His Majesty and the President of the French Republic. The Treaty has only five Articles, and there is not a word about Ireland in it.
  Mr. DEVLIN:I am sorry to hear that, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will tell us when we are to have a Treaty between Ireland and England?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to what is in this Bill. I will send him a copy if he has not got one.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I am very much obliged to you, but my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has given me a copy and I will not trouble you. The Treaty says:
  " Germany is forbidden to maintain or construct any fortifications on the left bank of the Rhine or on the right bank to the west of a line drawn 50 kilometres to the East of the Rhine."
  I want to know, first of all, what is a fortification. I want the Prime Minister to give us an explanation of Article 43.
  "In the area defined above the maintenance and assembly of armed forces, either permanently or temporarily, and military manœuvres of any kind, as well as the upkeep of all permanent works for mobilisation, are in the same way for bidden."
  I want to know whether the Army of Occupation in Ireland—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to question my ruling. I have already pointed out twice that he is not entitled to introduce the question of Ireland into the discussion on this Bill.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I want to know, if we are to have military forces in Germany, whether the forces in Ireland will be taken from Ireland and sent to Germany?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to discontinue his speech.
  Mr. HOGGE: I am sorry that this discussion is taking the line it has taken. I am rather sorry that my hon. Friend with whom I usually agree on Irish questions seconded this Amendment for an ordinary purpose. If it were not this hour of the morning, and had it not been a very serious question, I would have been prepared to second this Amendment. I could give very substantial reasons why it ought to be put to the House; because, although all of us with the exception of four had
  1122
  agreed to the previous Treaty, there are, certain matters in this Treaty which do require explanation. Some of them I put in the speech I made yesterday afternoon, to which my right hon. Friend did not reply.
  I would like to say this first about this Treaty. One thing that struck every Member of this House when war broke out was the kind of indistinct understanding that there was between France and this country which we used so often to call the entente cordiale. By that entente cordiale the average Member of this House did not understand and never did understand how far this country was committed to war with Franco. This Treaty at any rate has not the same indistinctness as that phrase had. I made the point yesterday afternoon that because the text of this Treaty is in the Schedule of this Bill we cannot amend it. It would be out of order for any one of us to attempt to amend anything after page one of this Bill. Will my right hon. Friend look at page two and the phraseology that is used? It says:
  "Whereas His Britannic Majesty is willing, subject to the consent of His Parliament, and provided that a similar obligation is entered into by the United States of America, to undertake to support the French Government in the case of an unprovoked movement of aggression being made against France by Germany."
  What is "an unprovoked movement of aggression"? I can understand a movement which resulted in the Germans marching through Belgium, but who is to interpret such a phrase as "an unprovoked movement of aggression"? After all, what does this Treaty mean? It means, surely, a Triple Alliance inside the League of Nations. It means the Triple Alliance of France, Great Britain, and America inside the League of Nations. It means the dominance of these three great Powers.
  An HON. MEMBER: No!
  Mr. HOGGE:Somebody says "No." Neither the hon. Gentleman who says "No" nor myself can dogmatise about that. I am quite willing to concede that point, but knowing the influences that are involved in the League of Nations it is quite obvious that Great Britain, France, and America are the most powerful of those nations. If that is so it means that those three nations are going to dominate the policy of the League of Nations. If they are, and if, as I pointed out this

  1123
  afternoon, my right hon. Friend is willing to admit Germany, as we all are at some time—we shall not quarrel about the time—and if it is true that you must have unanimity within the League of Nations before you can get anything done, what chance of unanimity is there if you set up this preliminary barrier of three great Powers? I put a point to my right hon. Friend this afternoon and he never answered it. I will put it again. I may be wrong, but I understand that one reason why Great Britain agreed to this Treaty was that unless we had agreed to the French Alliance inside of the League of Nations, France insisted upon having the whole of the left bank of the Rhine. I do not know if that is true or not. We have been vouchsafed so little information during the six months that my right hon. Friend was away from the House that we are really groping in the dark at this time in the morning when we are discussing one of the most important measures that has ever been passed through this House. I wish my right hon. Friend had agreed to postpone it. Honestly I do not think it is proper that because the bulk of hon. Members of this House are going to see the Fleet to-day that we should not postpone discussion on this Bill. That is a point that the Prime Minister ought to bear in mind as well as the point about the people in France. He said the people in France would not understand our not passing this Bill. The people in this country, similarly, will not understand our preferring to go and see the Fleet rather than discussing a Bill which may involve this country and the whole Empire in a war at any time. I have heard my right hon. Friend make many speeches in the House from time to time. He has made great speeches in favour of what he calls open diplomacy, in which he said that if these things were discussed on the floors of our Parliaments we should have fewer wars. My right hon. Friend, over and over again, has taken that line, but now he is asking us here to commit ourselves to a new Triple Alliance and to a policy of implication in Europe which is against all the traditions of Liberal policy.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: And Conservative.
  Mr. HOGGE: I am speaking for my own party. My right hon. Friend knows that the policy of splendid isolation did more for this country than any implication and complication
  1124
  did in the Concert of Europe. Here is a new proposal, put in such a way that my right hon. Friend knows that this House cannot discuss it. There are only twelve lines, two paragraphs on page one of this Bill, which are competent for this House to deal with. Everything else in the Bill, except the Annex, which deals with American action, is outside the purview of this House. I remember the early days of this War, and the discussions we used to have in this House, and how all of us used to say that if we got through this War certain things would never happen again. We hoped to have things done more openly and above-board than ever before in our life, yet here, at the end of the War, at 3.30 a.m. in the morning, we are taking the Second Reading of a new Triple Alliance Bill, which not only affects the destiny of the people of this country, but of Europe. That is why, if it were necessary, I should not hesitate for a moment to move the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Hull, which says that the proposal is inconsistent with the spirit of the League of Nations. Why is it inconsistent? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members may say "Oh!" as often as they like, but they cannot get beyond this, that, after all, many of them may be in a House of Commons in the future as members of a small party, and may have got to stand up against a big party. They should never forget that the private Member has his rights. The Prime Minister was a private Member once, and he used his rights very strongly. I put another point to my right hon. Friend, and he never answered it. I said this was the triumph of the old regime, and pointed out that the history of France and her policy in Europe was that of erecting and maintaining flank States in the East as against the domination of Germany. I reminded him of Poland, of Sweden, and other States, and I pointed out that now that Russia had gone France had created, with the help of the Allies, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, and Yugo-Slavia. Because they were weak, France had called in America and England to support her. That is why this is inconsistent with the League of Nations. The entente cordiale carried us further than the country knew. The country took the pledges of its Ministers, and did not discuss the niceties of it at that time. Let us, in this House, know what we are going into. The Amendment says that the Bill

  1125
  "imposes upon this country unprecedented military burdens which will impede its financial recovery."
  I asked another question, which the right hon. Gentleman did not answer this afternoon. I invite him to do so to-night. If he sincerely believes, as 1 honestly believe he does, in the efficacy of the League of Nations, will he answer this simple question? In this House we have had huge Estimates for the Army and Navy and the Air Force. We have been told by every Minister who introduced them so far that they were drawn on the basis on which they were framed because they did not know what was going to happen. Everyone was asked whether he would lay amended Estimates before the House prior to the end of the allotted days. No amended Estimates have been laid before this House, which is committed to enormous expenditure. Will my right hon. Friend, who used to be an advocate in this country of the League against militarism, tell this House whether he, as Prime Minister, is prepared before the end of the days on which we can take Estimates—practically before the end of this month—to introduce Estimates of a limited character affecting the Navy particularly, in view of the fact that Germany now—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a point which the hon. Member would be quite right to inquire into as a matter of administration. But what has it got to do with the Treaty?
  Mr. HOGGE:It has this to do with the Treaty. The Amendment says that this Treaty "imposes upon this country unprecedented military burdens which will impede its financial recovery." This Treaty binds this country with America to prevent unprovoked movements of aggression. We are entitled to assume until we are told what unprovoked movements of aggression means, that the provision in the Estimates is to meet the necessities of this Treaty. I am willing to bow to your ruling and leave the subject undeveloped if you think it is not necessary to develop it further. These are the reasons, however, why if my hon. Friend had not seconded the Motion, I would myself have done so. After this great War I do not want this country to be implicated again in what was called the concert of Europe. If we are going in I want to know much more explicit terms than this phrase.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will answer the two or three points raised by my hon.
  1126
  Friend. With regard to "unprovoked movements of aggression," I do not think we need any better illustration than the present War. Germany made a movement of aggression which was perfectly wanton and unprovoked. As to the second point that this Treaty is not in the interests of the people of this country, I venture to say that if you were to put this Treaty to the people of this country 99 per cent, would be in favour of it. I should be surprised if the same observation did not apply to the people of Ireland. The other point raised, I think, by the Mover of the Motion was whether this Treaty would not provoke fresh wars. As a matter of fact if this Treaty had been in existence on the 1st of August, 1914, with the signatures of Great Britain and the United States of America to it, there would have been no war.
  Amendment negatived.
  Resolved,
  "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. Pratt.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
  [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  ANGLO-FRENCH TREATY (DEFENCE OF FRANCE) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Approval of Treaty.)
    The approval of Parliament is hereby given to the Treaty set out in the Schedule to this Act.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: This Bill has not been properly explained; it has not been properly debated, and it is not properly understood by this Parliament. This Parliament, with all due respect, is abrogating its proper functions, and at a time when the only hope of order and progress is the fairness, the respect and dignity of Parliament, it is brought in here at this early hour of the morning. I do not believe the people of the country will tolerate it, or the mass of the soldiers and the sailors of the Navy if they knew what was being done. We are on our last trial, and we are failing.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. HOGGE: I will not keep the House a few minutes, but I want to repeat this as often as I can. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether this Bill is necessary, because the French wanted to claim the left bank of the Rhine? Will he tell us, as the head of the Government, when he proposes to reduce our Army?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The second question I have already answered. With regard to the first, I support this Bill on its merits, because I think it is the right thing to do. So far as the French Prime Minister is concerned, he never made the claim to the left bank of the Rhine—never.
    This is a guarantee which, I think, we ought to give having regard to the terrible condition of France after the War. I will only say further that I am very much obliged to hon. Members for enabling the Government to get this Bill to-night. I think it will have a very good effect abroad.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would like an assurance from the Prime Minister—it would be a good thing if he
    1128
    could give it—that there is no truth in the Press reports going about America that both the Americans and the British will keep up four times the land forces that they had before the War on account of this Bill. I am putting this forward in the most friendly manner. It would relieve the minds of people in this country.
    The PRIME MINISTER:I have never heard the statement, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member and the House that there is not a word of truth in it.
    Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed
    ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved,
    "That this House do now adjourn."[Lord E. Talbot.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four minutes before Four o'clock a.m.

COAL.
  INCREASED PRICE.
  INCREASED PRICE.
  LOCAL OVEESEERS.
  LOCAL OVEESEERS.
  RAISING COST.
  RAISING COST.
  COST, PRICE, AND PROFIT.
  COST, PRICE, AND PROFIT.
  TREASURY CONTRIBUTION.
  TREASURY CONTRIBUTION.
  EXCESS PAYMENTS.
  EXCESS PAYMENTS.
DEVASTATED AREAS, EUROPE.
  RELIEF MEASURES.
  RELIEF MEASURES.
  FRENCH SUR-TAXES.
  FRENCH SUR-TAXES.
  LIQUOR TRADE (RESTRICTIONS).
  LIQUOR TRADE (RESTRICTIONS).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
INCOME TAX.
  TAXABLE INCOME.
  TAXABLE INCOME.
  ABATEMENT ("FIRST CHILD")
  ABATEMENT ("FIRST CHILD")
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  BACON.
  BACON.
  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (COMMERCIAL TELEGRAMS).
  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (COMMERCIAL TELEGRAMS).
  ROYAL FLEET RESERVE (CONCESSION PAY).
  ROYAL FLEET RESERVE (CONCESSION PAY).
DEMOBILISATION.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  MURMANSK FORCE.
  MURMANSK FORCE.
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  YPRES (OFFICIAL GUIDE).
  YPRES (OFFICIAL GUIDE).
  WAR DECORATIONS (HOME SERVICE).
  WAR DECORATIONS (HOME SERVICE).
  INJURED SOLDIERS (DECORATION).
  INJURED SOLDIERS (DECORATION).
  MERSEY DEFENCE OFFICERS (BONUS).
  MERSEY DEFENCE OFFICERS (BONUS).
  TRANSPORT FACILITIES, MORAYSHIRE.
  TRANSPORT FACILITIES, MORAYSHIRE.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS
  ACTING RANK (GRATUITY).
  ACTING RANK (GRATUITY).
  PRE-WAR SERVICE PENSIONS.
  PRE-WAR SERVICE PENSIONS.
  DEMOBILISATION GRATUITY.
  DEMOBILISATION GRATUITY.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  TECHNICAL PAY.
  TECHNICAL PAY.
  AIR MINISTRY (CORRESPONDENCE).
  AIR MINISTRY (CORRESPONDENCE).
  NORMAN THOMPSON FLIGHT COMPANY.
  NORMAN THOMPSON FLIGHT COMPANY.
INDIA.
  UNCOVENANTED SERVICES (PENSIONS).
  UNCOVENANTED SERVICES (PENSIONS).
  UNION PARLIAMENT (ASIATICS).
  UNION PARLIAMENT (ASIATICS).
  ASIATICS TRADING AND LAND ACT (TRANSVAAL).
  ASIATICS TRADING AND LAND ACT (TRANSVAAL).
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (RECONSTITUTION).
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (RECONSTITUTION).
  FATHERLESS CHILDREN (EDUCATION).
  FATHERLESS CHILDREN (EDUCATION).
  ELECTION CANDIDATURES (DEPOSIT).
  ELECTION CANDIDATURES (DEPOSIT).
HOUSING.
  BUILDING BRICKS.
  BUILDING BRICKS.
  SPECULATIVE BUILDING (ASSISTANCE).
  SPECULATIVE BUILDING (ASSISTANCE).
  WEDNESBURY SCHEME.
  WEDNESBURY SCHEME.
  UNOCCUPIED BUILDINGS (CONVERSION).
  UNOCCUPIED BUILDINGS (CONVERSION).
  WARMINSTER GUARDIANS (OFFICIALS' WAR BONUS).
  WARMINSTER GUARDIANS (OFFICIALS' WAR BONUS).
  FACTORY AND WORSHOPS ACT (KITCHENS).
  FACTORY AND WORSHOPS ACT (KITCHENS).
  SPECIAL CONSTABULARY MEDAL.
  SPECIAL CONSTABULARY MEDAL.
  APOTHECARIES' ASSISTANTS (REGISTRATION).
  APOTHECARIES' ASSISTANTS (REGISTRATION).
RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.
  FARES.
  FARES.
  RAILWAY CLERKS' ASSOCIATION (REPRESENTATION).
  RAILWAY CLERKS' ASSOCIATION (REPRESENTATION).
  UNIFORMED STAFFS (WAGES).
  UNIFORMED STAFFS (WAGES).
  WAGON SHORTAGE.
  WAGON SHORTAGE.
  CONSIGNMENTS DELAYED.
  CONSIGNMENTS DELAYED.
  TRADING WITH GERMANY.
  TRADING WITH GERMANY.
POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  SUB-OFFICES (WAGES).
  SUB-OFFICES (WAGES).
  TELEGRAMS (SENDERS' ADDRESS).
  TELEGRAMS (SENDERS' ADDRESS).
  DISABLED SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).
  DISABLED SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).
  INDUSTRIAL AFFAIRS (DISCUSSION).
  INDUSTRIAL AFFAIRS (DISCUSSION).
  MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE (STAFF).
  MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE (STAFF).
  PUBLIC HALLS (PROVISION).
  PUBLIC HALLS (PROVISION).
  HAY.
  HAY.
  SMYRNA.
  SMYRNA.
  SHANTUNG PENINSULA.
  SHANTUNG PENINSULA.
  GUNS AND WAR, VEHICLES.
  GUNS AND WAR, VEHICLES.
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LLANELLY RURAL DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Read 3a with the Amendments and passed, and returned to the Commons.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION (RATES) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BOLAND'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendment made (Clause 6 deleted).

FORESTRY BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Establishment of Forestry Commission.
1.—(1) For the purposes of this Act it shall be lawful for His Majesty by warrant under the sign manual to appoint seven commissioners, to be styled the Forestry Commissioners, of whom one, to be appointed by His Majesty, shall be chairman.
(2) There shall be paid to not more than three of the Forestry Commissioners, in this Act referred to as "the Commissioners," such salaries in each year (not exceeding in the aggregate four thousand five hundred pounds) as the Treasury may direct.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this section the term of office of a paid Commissioner shall be five year, and the term of office of an unpaid Commissioner shall be live years.
(4) On a casual vacancy occurring owing to the death, resignation, or incapacity of a Commissioner, the person appointed by His Majesty to fill the vacancy shall continue in office until the date on which the Commissioner in whose place he was appointed would have ceased to hold office.
(5) A person who has vacated office as a Commissioner shall be eligible for re-appointment.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), after "one," to insert "shall be a recognised authority on scientific research as applied to forestry, and one." The noble Lord said: I desire to move this Amend
802
ment with the object of securing that one of these Forestry Commissioners shall be a recognised authority on scientific research as applied to forestry.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): May I ask my noble friend where he proposes to make the Amendment? I cannot find it on Page 1, line 3.
LORD BLEDISLOE: It conies in line 8. The "3" on the Amendment Paper is a mistake. I do not know if the noble Earl sees how the subsection will read. Perhaps lie will allow me to quote it as it will read with my Amendment included—
"For the purposes of this Act it shall be lawful for His Majesty by warrant under the sign manual to appoint seven Commissioners, to be styled the Forestry Commissioners, of whom one shall be a recognised authority on scientific research as applied to forestry, and one, to be appointed by His Majesty, shall be Chairman."
I do not think the Amendment requires much explanation. In submitting it, on behalf of the British Science Guild, I should like to point cut that these Commissioners have not the task of delegating to others the work of scientific investigation and research. If your Lordships will turn to Clause 3, subsection (3), paragraph (h), you will see that they have the task thrown upon them of making or aiding in making such inquiries, experiments and research as they may think important for promoting forestry and the teaching of forestry.
In this connection I may remind your Lordships that there is a vast field of research which so far as this country is concerned has yet to be undertaken in the matter, amongst other things, of those pests which are injurious to various trees in this country. For instance, we have derived our information with regard to fungoid and insect pests of foreign timber almost exclusively, if not exclusively, from Germany and other Continental countries, and it was assumed that the facts therefrom derived necessarily applied to the conditions prevailing here; but it is found by experience that they do not. It is important, in order that time and money should not be wasted, that thorough research should be made into this and other forestry problems, and, if the Commissioners are going to carry them out, it is not unreasonable to ask that at least one of them shall be a person who has some scientific knowledge of research as applied

803
to forestry. I do not think I need say any more in commending this Amendment to your notice, except that the war, I am sure you will agree, if it has taught us nothing else, has taught us the sad lesson that we have suffered very materially in the military and civilian sense in the past from the lack of application of scientific principles to our various activities, and if we are going to turn over a new leaf in this country we should take the first move in our reconstruction Bills.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("one") insert ("shall be a recognised authority on scientific research as applied to forestry and one").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have the greatest sympathy with Lord Bledisloe's plea that a great deal of research has to be done by the Forest Authority. I agree with everything he said. He argued that it is desirable that one Commissioner should have a knowledge of research in regard to forestry. Well, I hope that all the Commissioners will have a general scientific knowledge of this subject. But I would ask the noble Lord whether it is desirable to define at the outset the qualifications of the Commissioners. I am inclined to think not. We want the Commissioners to be men of general knowledge and experience of sylvicultural matters. I do not think we want to choose our Commissioners, with the exception of the two reservations I made last week, for their connection with any particular branch of sylvicultural pursuits. If you say one of the Commissioners is to be a recognised authority on scientific research, by which I presume Lord Bledisloe means forestry pests—
LORD BLEDISLOE: Very largely.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD:—you are going to limit yourselves, I was going to say to one or two persons, certainly to not more than two or three. If you take the European standard of comparison I do not think we have any one who will be called an "acknowledged authority" on forest entomology. I suggest that it would be better to assume that the Forest Authority is going to secure the roost efficient subordinate officers it can for carrying out scientific research under this clause, and not to state on the Statute that one of them is always to be an acknowledged authority on scientific research. The
804
words are limiting. I do not think if they are put in they will really make it easier for the Forestry Authority to carry out the work which both Lord Bledisloe and I think is essential.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I agree with the noble Earl to this extent, that I think if Lord Bledisloe's Amendment were inserted it would not do enough to transform the character of the Commissioners. At the same time it is very useful, because it insists on what I am sure is going to drop out of sight in this Bill. The Government have never realised the magnitude of the scientific and administrative problem with which they are face to face in dealing with forestry. There are comparatively few outside the scientific world who really know what is meant by the absence of knowledge here, contrasted with the presence of knowledge in such countries as France and Germany. The Amendment is intended to insist upon the Commissioners having, as far as possible within the limits of the principle of this Bill, the character of that knowledge.
I protested strongly on the Second Reading—I am not going to raise the point again now, although it is very relevant to the Amendment—that what those of us who wanted a really good forestry organisation sought for was that research, knowledge, and light should be the foundation of the whole matter, and that these should be centred, as is proper, in the metropolis, where they can be most easily accumulated, the work of that research and knowledge being done co-operatively from the various parts of the United Kingdom We wanted to see administration separated from that and devolved. That has been denied to us, and we entertain gloomy anticipations as to the future of the baby that will be born as the result of the Government's efforts.
Here is an opportunity of asserting What has been left to drift out of sight—the absolute necessity that this Commission should be a very different one from the kind of Commission now contemplated. I knew the noble Earl would say that they intended to put on the Commission the most eminent people, but the definition of "eminent people" is the whole matter in question. What you want is scientific knowledge and the driving power that comes from science and knowledge. What you do not want is to get a lot of gentlemen who

805
have done admirably in managing their own estates, are excellent citizens, but who are unconscious of the vastness of the field with which they have to deal. I shall support the Amendment of the noble Lord.
LORD LOVAT: I think it would be unfortunate if the Muse divided on this question. I am sure that all who have taken any part in the discussions of this Bill have never forgotten for a moment the necessity for having the scientific side of forestry fully and aedquately represented on the Commission. I am sure that if Lord Bledisloe had taken part in all the discussions he would have been reassured that there is going to be any continuity of the policy which exists at present, and continuity between the existing authority and the authority which is eventually going to deal with this subject, and that he need have no anxiety on that point.
If Lord Bledisloe presses his Amendment to a Division he would only serve the purpose of the noble Viscount and those who have opposed the Bill, and would put the Government in the very awkward position of haying, apparently, to refuse to make this body scientific while their very object is to make it thoroughly scientific. They do not wish the limiting Amendment which the noble Lord has put forward. The noble Viscount has strayed away into a general attack on the Bill. Might I follow him on one statement? I trust, although the future authority may not have many children, yet translated by trees, that they will be much more numerous and come to more fruition than in the case of those bodies who have not planted any trees at all.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I do not feel justified, after the sympathetic way in which the Amendment has been received, in pressing it further. Might I ask whether there is any prospect of appointing a scientist as one of the Commissioners?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I had been anxious to state to your Lordships to-day the general proposals as to who the Commissioners should be, but I am sorry I am not in a postion to do so. It is possible that I may be able to make the announcement on the Third Reading, and I think it would disperse some of the anxieties which some of your Lordships entertain.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3:
Powers and duties of Commissioners.
3.—(1) The Commissioners shall be charged with the general duty of promoting the interests of forestry, the development of afforestation, and the production and supply of timber, in the United Kingdom, and shall exercise and perform any powers and duties which are or may be conferred or imposed on, or transferred to, them under the provisions of this Act.
(2) There shall be transferred to the Commissioners the powers and duties of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Department. of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland in relation to forestry, and also the powers of those Departments under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907, so far as those powers relate to insects or pests destructive to forest trees and timber:
Provided that the Departments from whom the powers and duties aforesaid are transferred to the Commissioners shall, if arrangements are made for the purpose, continue to exercise and perform on behalf of the Commissioners such of the transferred powers and duties as may, from time to time, be agreed between the Commissioners and the Department concerned.
(3) The Commissioners shall have power to do any of the following things—

(a) Purchase or take on lease and hold any land suitable for afforestation or required for purposes in connection with afforestation or with the management of any woods or forests, and manage, plant, and otherwise utilise any land acquired, and erect such buildings or execute such other works thereon as they think necessary:

(b) Sell or let any land which in their opinion is not needed or has proved unsuitable for the purpose for which it was acquired, or exchange any such land for other land more suitable for that purpose, and pay or receive money hr equality of exchange:

(c) Purchase or otherwise acquire standing timber, and sell or otherwise dispose of any timber belonging to them, and generally promote the supply, sale, utilisation, and conversion of timber:

(d) Make advances by way of grant or by way of loan, or partly in one way and partly in the other, and upon such terms and subject to such conditions as they think fit, to persons (including local authorities) in respect of the afforestation (including the replanting) of land belonging to those persons:

(e) Undertake the management or supervision, upon such terms and subject to such conditions as may be agreed upon, of any woods or forests belonging to any persons, including woods and forests under the management of the Commissioners of Woods or under the control of any Government Department, or belonging to any local authority:

807

(f) Establish and carry on or aid in the establishment and carrying on of woodland industries:

(g) Undertake the collection and preparation of statistics relating to forestry, and promote and develop instruction and training in forestry by establishing or aiding schools or other educational institutions or in such other manner as they think fit:

(h) Make or aid in making such inquiries, experiments, and research, and collect or aid in collecting such information, as they may think important for the purpose of promoting forestry and the teaching of forestry:

(i) Make or aid in making such inquiries as they think necessary for the purpose of securing an adequate supply of timber in the United Kingdom and promoting the production of timber in His Majesty's dominions:

Provided that any advance by way of a grant under this section shall be subject to the condition that so much of any profit which may be attributable to the grant shall be paid to the Commissioners and restored to t lie Forestry Fund.
(4) An advance shall not after the commencement of this Act be made under subsection (1) of section one of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, for the purposes of forestry, unless before that date the Development Commissioners have made and the Treasury have approved a recommendation for the advance.
(5) It shall be lawful for any of the persons under a disability referred to in section seven of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845, or of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act, 1845, to enter into agreements with the Commissioners for the purposes of this section in like manner in all respects as they are entitled to enter into agreements for the purposes of those sections.
(6) In this section the expression "timber" includes all forest products.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, after "insects or pests destructive," in subsection (2), to insert "only"; and after "to forest trees and timber," to insert "but so far as they relate to other insects or pests destructive or injurious alike to fruit trees or farm crops and to forest trees and timber, the Commissioners shall exercise such powers in consultation with the said Departments."
The noble Lord said: The object of these two Amendments is to prevent overlapping as between the Forestry Commissioners and the existing Departments of Agriculture in relation to pests which are common to timber and farm crops, and fruit trees. Your Lordships are no doubt aware that the powers under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts are very drastic, and are sometimes drastically exercised in respect of gooseberry mildew. As the result of
808
these pests a large number of fruit trees are compulsorily destroyed over a large area. Such an operation, if it were carried on under the initiative of the Forestry Department, might cause serious interference with the operations of cultivators of farm and garden crops, unless they were acting in close co-operation with the Department of Agriculture which now exercises powers under these Acts.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 7, after ("destructive") insert ("only")
Page 3, line 8, after ("timber") insert ("but so far as they relate to other insects or pests destructive or injurious alike to fruit trees or farm crops and to forest trees and timber, the Commissioners shall exercise such powers in consultation with the said Departments").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have no objection to accepting these Amendments, but I have been puzzling my mind as to what pests the noble Lord refers to. There is the rabbit, there is the wireworm, and our old friend daddy-long-legs. Apart from them it is difficult to think of pests equally injurious to conifers and turnips or grain. We wish to prevent overlapping if we can, but do not let us be frightened into making it a fetish. I do not think the Amendment will do any good, but I do not think it will do any harm, and therefore I will not oppose it.
LORD BLEDISLOE: There are certain districts where forest trees are grown where there are also orchards, and there are a considerable number of pests, including the barbed beetle and the pine weevil, which attack both forest trees and orchard trees.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I will accept the Amendment. In Scotland the pine weevil does not attack our orchard trees. He is much too well behaved there.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (3) (c), after "them" to insert "or subject to such terms as may be mutually agreed, to a private owner." The noble Lord said: I lay some stress upon this Amendment. The subsection provides for the Commissioners having power to purchase or acquire standing timber, or sell or otherwise dispose of any timber belonging to them, and I desire to add words which

809
will empower them to do the same with regard to the timber of a private owner after agreement between the Commissioners and such owner. In districts where there is a large amount of private timber, and where Crown timber is also grown, the Crown is often such a competitor as to render the timber of the private owner practically a drug in the market. It is desirable where there are large contracts to be fulfilled that the Commissioners should be able to enter into amicable arrangements with the local owners, in order to be able to dispose of the timber in one commercial transaction. As I have told your Lordships before, I live on the edge of the only economic publicly owned forest in England, and we feel great difficulty in such a district, where the Crown becomes such a competitor as to take away all stimulus for private owners.
Amendment moved
Page 3, line 30, after ("them") insert ("or subject to such terms as may be mutually agreed, to a private owner").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am very ready to accept the Amendment. Of course it is quite clear, from its terms, that this can only be done by mutual agreement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (3) (e), after "upon" where that word secondly occurs, to insert "or give direction or advice in relation to the planting or management." The noble Lord said: This subsection set out the power given to the Commissioners to undertake the management or supervision, upon such terms and subject to such conditions as may be agreed upon, of privately-owned woods or forests, and also woods or forests in the hands of Commissioners, and I ask your Lordships to insert words which will empower the Commissioners not only to manage and supervise but also to give assistance or advice in relation to the planting or management of such privately owned woods.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Amendment says "give direction or advice."
LORD BLEDISLOE: That is not the Amendment which I put down. The word "direction" should be "assistance." The ideal I had in my mind was this. There are a great number of people quite in
810
sufficiently acquainted with the modern-day scientific system of management of woods, who may resent having them managed by a public authority, but who will warmly welcome the sort of advice which it is hoped, as a result of the Bill, the public authority will be able to give to enable them to manage woodland on their estates in the most up-to-date and economical manner.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 41, after ("upon") insert ("or give assistance or advice in relation to the planting or management").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am most anxious to accept this Amendment, but I wish to make a reservation. I should like to consult your Lordships whether it would not have been better had this been put in rather higher up in the subsection.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I rather doubt it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It makes it rather a long and complicated sentence as it stands. All I want to say is that it is desired by the authority to give the maximum of assistance to all those who desire to enlist their expert help. I think there must be some limitation. Anybody who has got a few trees cannot be allowed to call upon the services of a rather expensive officer to come down and give advice. In the original Amendment it said "free assistance or advice."
LORD BLEDISLOE: That is a mistake.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In this Amendment it simply says "assistance or advice," and under those conditions I take it the authority will be at least entitled to charge the man's expenses and a modest fee for technical advice which he is to give, and for drawing up a forest plan or making a statistical estimate of yields. As the words stand I am prepared to accept the Amendment; but though I am no draftsman I should have thought it might have come in at a better place, and I suggest that notice can be given on the Third Reading if the draftsman can suggest a better place.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Take it where it stands now, and, if necessary, alter the place on Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at the end of paragraph (f) of subsection (3), to insert "but not so as to compete unduly with or damage or destroy such industries already being carried on efficiently by private enterprise." The noble Lord said: This relates, of course, to the establishment of woodland industries. I foresee here a great danger of what I am sure is not really intended, and that is a semi-nationalisation of a large number of very important woodland industries, some of them of great importance to agriculture, as a result of Government competition; such industries, for instance, as the making of hurdles or gates, axe handles, clogs and toys, and what is known as the destructive distillation of timber. There have been in many districts in days gone by, before German competition killed them, very thriving industries of a kind generally described as the destructive distillation of timber. Nearly all those industries have been killed during the last thirty years, and it is desirable in the national interest that some of them should be revived; but there will be no stimulus to do so if the State is to be the only manufacturer of these woodland products, whether for profit or otherwise, to the detriment of those who are either carrying on some of them or are prepared to do so in the future.
Perhaps I may just refer to the question of acetone, which is an important one. Fortunately we had established before the war in the Forest of Dean an acetone factory. Acetone being the chief raw material of cordite, this was one of the most valuable assets to us during the period of the war. Unfortunately at the present time the Government have decided to abandon these works. But there are private companies who probably would be willing to take over the acetone factory could they be assured that if they did so the Government would not again in the national interest set up an acetone factory to compete with the private ones. For that reason I ask that the Government should not unfairly and unduly compete with private enterprise in these matters.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 4, after ("industries") insert ("but not so as to compete unduly with or damage or destroy such industries already being carried on efficiently by private enterprise").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD LOVAT: I would point out that the Forestry Authority will be so hard at
812
work in developing and looking after its forestry—the planting of trees, the codification of rules, etc.—and that there would not be much opportunity for starting any enterprise on a very large scale. I would advise the Government, if I may do so, that there would be no risk in accepting this Amendment. Certainly the experience in France would bear that out. In France, where they have their various Codes, which have now been added to over a period of 100 years, practical experience shows—and to a great extent it is so in Germany also—that the rural industries undertaken are not those which are going to compete with private enterprise, but they are of the character of acetone factories, etc. Those are things winch can only be run by a central authority. I do not think that His Majesty's Government would be disadvantaged by accepting the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am inclined to think that we had better not accept this amendment now. It is quite obvious to all of your Lordships that if this Bill passes this year then in three or five years time new light will have been thrown upon the problem, and an Amending Bill will then have to be presented. I think, therefore, in regard to this Amendment—and one or two that come later on—that we should do well not to put any rather contentious and certainly rather litigious phrases in the Act of Parliament until we know whether they are really necessary.
I do not know what "undue competition" means; no more does anybody excepting the House of Lords in its judicial capacity. I do not know what "efficient conduct of private enterprise" is either. I do not know what "damaging" an enterprise means. In some ways competition means damage, and destruction means bankruptcy I presume. There are a variety of extremely difficult points of analysis and definition here which I confess I am rather afraid of. It does not say when the competition is to arise. The State may establish an industry to-day which may not compete for 10 years. As the Amendment stands, I think that if competition is anticipated the private owner would be entitled to intervene.
I would suggest to Lord Bledisloe that this is a matter which for the next few years at any rate had better be controlled as Lord Lovat suggests. In the first

813
place there will be no extravagance especially on woodland industries, and, secondly, by the ordinary Parliamentary methods of Question, if anything untoward occurs in any of these particular areas the matter can be ventilated. Though I have nothing really to say against the sentiment underlying the Amendment, I am averse to acquiescing in what Lord Bledisloe asks.
LORD BLEDISLOE: The noble Earl has been so generous in his acceptance of my previous Amendments that I do not press this one. I know that the assurance he now gives will be acted upon by the Commissioners when they come to be appointed.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at the end of paragraph (h) of subsection (3), to insert "and publish or otherwise take steps to make known the results of such inquiries, experiments or research, and to disseminate such information." The noble Lord said I desire that further powers should be given to publish or otherwise make known the results of inquiries, experiments or research. I need hardly tell your Lordships that it seems somewhat futile that research work should be carried on at great expense to the State and that the results of that research should not be known to those whom it may concern, and who could best make use of it. I may mention that at a very interesting Imperial education conference which took place about a month ago, when the question of research was discussed, it was pointed. out that in various parts of the Empire, both in relation to agriculture and indeed to forestry, a large amount of valuable research had been carried out, and that the results of that research were hidden away in various scientific journals and bulletins of learned societies, and had not in fact been made available to other parts of the Empire than those in which the research had been conducted. I think your Lordships will agree that the Commissioners should be enabled, at, the expense if necessary of public funds, to make known to the public the results of the research for which they are responsible.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 13, after ("forestry") insert ("and publish or otherwise take steps to make known
814
the results of such inquiries, experiments or research and to disseminate such information").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The object of this research, inquiry, and experiment is to promote forestry and its teaching. I should have thought that publication would follow as a matter of course, but I am ready to put in these words. Though I do not object to the words I make this reservation. Lord Bledisloe said just now that there was a large amount of valuable research hidden assay in bulletins and journals. Of course there is, but that is the proper place for it. You do not want it in the Daily Telegraph newspaper. And in regard to the noble Lord's use of the words "to disseminate such information," the Forest Authority, I think, would be quite justified in ensuring that it was put into the scientific periodicals with the certain knowledge that through that agency it will reach all those who are directly concerned in sylviculture.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Could it not also be published in the Journal of the Board of Agriculture?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Certainly, if they will take it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Could not the Forest Authority have a journal of their own?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think they probably will. We have extremely good sylviculture journals in this country, and certainly there is a first-class one in Scotland; and I hope that the result of the awakening of the State to this matter will mean that the journal will be much more frequently published.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved to omit from the proviso at the end of subsection (3) the words "which may be attributable to," and to insert "as represents the monetary equivalent of." The noble lord said: I move this Amendment with some hesitation, because the proviso was the subject-matter of a considerable amount of discussion on the Report stage of the Bill. This only amounts to a suggestion as to how, in my opinion, the difficulty may be met.
Your Lordships will remember that the proviso at the end of this subsection states that any advance by way of a grant under this section shall be subject to the condition that so much of any profit which may be attributable to the grant shall be paid to the Commissioners of Forestry and restored to the Forestry Fund. The words "attributable to" are very vague. It is difficult to interpret them, as I think your Lordships agree. If what is really meant is that the amount to be returned to the Forestry Fund shall, in fact, be, where there is a profit, the actual monetary equivalent of the amount advanced, it seems to me that no hardship will be done on either side, and this Amendment will make perfectly clear what is now extremely vague.
If I may illustrate what I mean, I understand that the sort of grant which it is intended to make will amount possibly to £2 or £3 per acre. It is quite conceivable that no profit may arise. On the other hand, there may ultimately be a profit. The exact amount expended on that particular area will be registered and known, and that amount and the profit, when it is ultimately obtained, can be taken and returned to the Forestry Fund. It is not quite a loan; it is in a sense an additional loan dependent on the profit actually being made.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 21, leave out ("which may be attributable to") and insert ("as represents the monetary equivalent of").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: I confess I am very much disappointed that nothing has been done by the Government to amend this proviso, after the criticisms which were passed upon it on the last occasion. And I certainly thought, after the expectation which was raised, that the Government would reconsider it. I appeal once again to all lawyers and all business men to consider the unworkable nature of this proviso. Who is to pay to the Government that sum which is supposed to be profit? If it is the original recipient of the grant it is easy enough, but, except in the rarest cases, it will not be the original recipient. In the case of very quick-growing timber, such as larch and possibly beech, if a man plants young and lives to be old and does not sell he may be the man who ultimately reaps the profit; but in nine cases out of ten he will either have died and disposed of his property by his
816
will, or it will have gone to his heirs, or he will have sold the property before the profit is reaped. I appeal to any lawyer to say whether the prima facie reading of this is not that the original man should pay, or the executors or administrators. But what an extraordinary proviso that will be. A will have received the grant, B. will be reaping the profit, and C., who is A.'s executor, will have to pay. Who can leave an estate in such conditions, with such a burden to his executor? He will be required to keep a fund ready for all time to have means to meet this claim.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It happens in many forms already, I think.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I doubt it, but it is an extremely inconvenient course. I certainly doubt it. Many public loans run with the land, but that is another matter altogether. If it is intended that this shall run with the land, and that the owner of the land at the time when the profit is reaped should pay, it is an intelligible proviso. It makes a burden that runs with the land, it makes another incumbrance for conveyancers to deal with, but it is intelligible. But I venture to think that is not the effect of the language as it stands.
It may be supposed that the Government intimate to the owner of the forest who is not the original recipient, "Well, now, if you cut down this forest we shall take the profit." In that case why should the man take the trouble to cut down the forest at all? If he is not going to get anything for it he had better leave it, and get the amenities from it. I cannot help thinking that what happened with regard to this proviso was this. Somebody suggested a grant, and then somebody else arose and said, "Oh, it will never do to make a present to landowners." And then the Treasury draftsman was set in a hurry to sketch out a proviso of this kind. I am very much disappointed that this has not been reconsidered by the Government and its advisers, since the last criticisms were passed upon it.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I quite agree with what Lord Phillimore says. I think those who were present when this point was raised in Committee certainly understood that the Government were going to consider the point and put down some words that an ordinary layman

817
would be able to understand. Apparently even those who are accustomed to deal with these questions professionally are just as badly off as the layman. The intention probably is that nobody should ever get the profit. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill was quite unable to explain what these words meant, and we expected to see him put down an Amendment. Whether the Amendment proposed by my noble friend will effect the desired object I do not know.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I think this Amendment is, at any rate, a little better than the original wording of the Bill. It makes the individual as it were, the mortgagee, to get his money back in the event of the speculation turning out a success, instead of making the Government a partner. But I should like to know what is the "monetary equivalent" Suppose the Government advances £2 an acre now. The "monetary equivalent" will be £2 reinvested at compound interest at 5 per cent, in eighty years. If so, it will probably swallow up the whole value of the crop, to say nothing of profit. I still feel that this was put in to pacify those who are afraid of the private owner getting any profit out of Government finance. It will really tend to prevent any landowner who desires to plant being bothered with any Government advance at all.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Who is going to decide whether there is any profit at all? Will the Government tell us that?
THE EARL OF POWIS: I moved an Amendment to this Clause in Committee, and I certainly understood from the noble Earl that he would have some alteration made. I suppose I misunderstood him, but I have referred to the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I see that he said
"I will make it my business to see that the expert draftsman examines the problem."
It seems to me that whether the expert draftsman has examined the problem or not there is no result from it. The Amendment moved by the noble Lord seems certainly better than the original drafting of the Bill, but my own opinion is still that the whole thing would have been much better left out. If it is a grant, let it be a grant. The grant was recommended in the Forestry Report, and it was first of all put into the Bill. It is in the Bill in a previous clause as a grant, now in this proviso you turn it into a loan.
LORD LOVAT: May I suggest that an Amendment might be put forward to define what is actually meant by "profit"? I think one might fairly say, in a risky undertaking like forestry, that it is only fair that the individual who plants the ground should have not less return that 4 per cent. on his money, and that after all is considerably less than the interest which would be required in any other form of commercial enterprise; and the 4 per cent. should go to the individual or corporation who planted the land. This 4 per cent, would, of course, run at compound interest and the annual cost of the plantation would also run at compound interest. The annual cost would be, of course, the rent of the land, the taxation, and the repairs and fencing from time to time.
With your Lordships' permission I will read what I am afraid is a very long Amendment, but it is one which I think brings out what appeared to be the feeling of the House when this matter was discussed in Committee. The Amendment I suggest is as follows—
"Provided that where an advance by way of grant or by way of loan has been made to an owner for planting and it is shown that at the end of a rotation which may be agreed upon, a profit accrues to the owner on the estimated yield of the crop after allowing for a return to him of 4 per cent. compound interest on the costs incurred by him in producing the crop, then that part of the profit which represents the proportion of the total costs of producing the crop which has been advanced shall be repaid to the Forestry Fund up to an amount not exceeding the vlaue of the grant or loan accumulated at 4 per cent. compound interest. Any dispute which may arise between the Forestry Commission and the owner with regard to any agreement giving effect to, this proviso shall be decided, in default of agreement, by a person nominated by the President of the Surveyors' Institution."
I am afraid it is rather complicated, but it means broadly that the first 4 per cent. goes to the owner, and that out of the remainder the State is repaid at 4 per cent. compound interest for whatever sum the Commissioners fix to be advanced. They will get the advantage of having a definite loan, a loan of which individual planters and corporations may take advantage, and which is comparatively speaking simple. One can only say "comparatively speaking simple," because the cost per acre per-annum for upkeep and so on will have to be defined in each case. It will be impossible to imply what the annual cost, rent, taxation, and the charges for cleaning, etc., would be in each case. It would therefore

819
be necessary for investigation to be made and a definition and agreement arrived at. I would like to submit this as an Amendment to Lord Bledisloe's Amendment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: May I suggest that the Amendment should not be moved for the moment? The reason is that I must plead guilty to what the noble and learned Lord said. It is not true that this matter has not been considered and reconsidered; I have devoted a great deal of time and attention to it; but I must frankly confess to your Lordships that there has been a little disorganisation since Friday last. The post has gone wrong; I have not received communications, and communications sent by me have not been received by the intended recipients, as I had hoped. Accordingly I am in the difficulty of not being able to state very clearly what I had hoped to be able to announce to-day. But let me remind my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch that I did not promise to amend this clause in the least. I still think that it is a good clause. I am advised that Lord Bledisloe's words remove one element of ambiguity, and I am also advised that the last words of Lord Lovat's proposed new clause provide a tribunal which would settle a variety of points of dispute which might and perhaps would arise.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Has the noble Earl been advised as to whether this creates a personal liability on the original recipient of the advance or a liability on the person who actually makes a profit by cutting down the trees; and which is it his intention should be liable?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The noble and learned Lord asked me who was to repay this money?
LORD PHILLIMORE: Yes.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am advised that clearly it will not be the man unless there is an extraordinarily quick growth—unless he begins to plant while he is a minor. But one assumes it would be the man's grandson—two or three generations later—who would be the successor of the man who originally obtained the State grant.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He might have sold it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If he sells the property with a liability on it he must either clear off the liability at the moment of sale or pass on that liability to his successor in title. That is a common proceeding, notably in the case of drainage in the Fen country.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I do not think there is any personal liability then. I think it is a liability on the land. What I want to know definitely is whether it is a liability on the land or on the person and his estate?
LORD DYNEVOR: Suppose the land is sold; how are you to arrive at the profit which is likely to accrue in sixty years time?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Let me start at the beginning. When a grant is made it would be made subject to the terms of an agreement between the owner of land who means to plant and the Forest Authority. The Forest Authority cannot force anyone to take a grant. No land-owner has any right to demand a grant from the Forest Authority. The initial proceedings, therefore, are perfectly free; and during those initial proceedings steps will have to be taken by the two authorities concerned—the private planter on the one side and the Forest Authority on the other—as to the method of determining those problems.
I am informed that, though not easy, it is perfectly practicable for skilled surveyors and actuaries, subject to reservations to draw up a. scheme by which profit can be ultimately assessed fifty, seventy, or eighty years later. There remain a variety if incalculable circumstances—frost, fire, snowbreak, and so on—in all forestry work, and those will have to be provided for (if provided for) by some system of insurance. That being so, it will be the duty of the two authorities concerned at the outset to settle how the property in woods which have not reached maturity is to be passed from one owner to the other in the event of sale. I am told that is a perfectly feasible proposition when the lawyers and surveyors put their heads together. It will vary in different countries according to the different climates and the different soils, all of which factors govern differences of rotation. Lord Lovat has pointed out what I understand to be a mistake in the Bill—namely, that no

821
authority is provided to determine profits at issue. He has given me a copy of his Amendment, and he suggests that the President of the Surveyor's Institution for the time being should nominate a suitable man.
As I have said, I have to plead guilty to not being as well prepared on this matter as I expected to be, owing to the recent festivities. I would suggest that Lord Bledisloe's Amendment should be accepted, and that Lord Lovat's Amendment should be put on the Paper. This latter Amendment is rather a long one for your Lordships to accept off-hand, not having seen it in print; and if it can be put on the Paper for the Third Reading we shall have a very much better opportunity of assessing its merits, and by that time I hope I can show your Lordships that I shall be in a position to answer some of the conundrums which Lord Phillimore and some others have put.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble. Earl has explained to us the, circumstances in which his correspondence has been interfered with. He still does what I think is almost unnecessary in the circumstances; he still attempts to defend the proviso. I admire his great loyalty to his Bill, but I really think that the proviso is universally condemned as it stands.
In the first place, a grant which is repayable is not a grant really; it is a loan. It is a misnomer from the beginning of the first line of the proviso. Then there is the word "attributable" which the noble Earl on the last occasion admitted he could not explain. He said it was vague, and it remains vague; it has not changed its vagueness between the Committee stage and the Report. Then the noble Earl said that all these matters as to what a property is worth and how it is to be calculated are matters which can be arranged by lawyers and surveyors in different cases according to the different circumstances. There is no such power at all. If the noble Earl has said that according to some scheme this property is to be paid for—a scheme to be determined by so and so—then his argument would be apt. The words here lay down in terms a certain provision of an Act of Parliament, and no variations which the lawyers and the surveyors might afterwards want to make would be legal; it
822
would have to be what the Judge who ultimately had the honour of interpreting these words thought they meant; and all the arrangements which the noble Earl thinks might be made would be so much waste paper unless they happened to coincide with that.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The noble Marquess must remember that these grants under subsection (b) are made by the Forestry Authority on such estimates and subject to such conditions as they think fit.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Provided a certain thing is sold. The proviso is express.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That gives them a right of variation according to different conditions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But, always subject to this proviso. It is not to be varied; it is to be expressed, and has to be the same in every case. It does not say it is to be subject to any conditions; it is an absolute proviso. It is vague in its terms, but absolute in its character, which combination is the worse kind of legislation you can possibly have. Therefore I am sure that the noble Earl when he looks at it, as I am sure he will do between this and the Third Reading, will sec that the proviso requires to be altered.
I listened as well as I could to the Amendment suggested by my noble friend Lord Lo-vat. That appeared at any rate to cover the ground. It was rather complicated, and I expect ire shall be better able to judge of it when we have seen it on paper. It seems at any rate to provide sufficient machinery for the purpose. I am sure the House will not be satisfied unless the proviso is re-cast between this stage and the Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Prevention of damage by rabbits and vermin.
4.—(1) Where the Commissioners are. satisfied that trees or plants are being or are likely to be damaged by rabbits or vermin owing to the failure of an occupier of land to destroy sufficiently the rabbits or vermin on the land in his occupation or otherwise taking steps for the prevention of such damage, the Commissioners may, after giving to the occupier and owner such opportunity of destroying the rabbits or vermin or taking such steps as aforesaid as in the opinion of the

823
Commissioners is reasonable, authorise in writing any person to enter on the land and kill and take the rabbits or vermin thereon, and the Commissioners may recover from the occupier summarily, as a civil debt, the net cost incurred by them in connection with the action so taken.
(2) Any person acting under an authority given by the Commissioners under this section shall, if so required, produce his authority, and if any person obstructs any person so authorised in the exercise of his powers or duties under this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
(3) The person entitled to kill rabbits or vermin on any common lands shall for the purpose of this section be deemed to be the occupier of the land.
(4) For the purpose of this section the expression "vermin" includes squirrels.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at the commencement of subsection (1), after "satisfied that the trees or," to insert "tree." The noble Lord said: My object is to make it perfectly clear that the plants which are here referred to are not, as humorously indicated during the Committee stage, carnations or lobelias or cabbages, but are in fact tree plants. I hope the noble Lord will accept this as making it the more clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 38, after ("or") insert ("tree").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), after "rabbits" where that word first occurs, to insert "hares." The noble Lord said: I quite admit that rabbits are undoubtedly a pest, but there are certain areas in which I venture to think that hares are no less a nuisance and do no less damage, at any rate to young plants. I think it was the rhymning husbandman Tusser who in 1573 said where the cattle and the coney may enter to crop the young oak you are in danger of losing your crop. I do not know whether Tusser was acquainted with hares as well as rabbits, but I know of no animal more capable of removing the crops of hardwood trees than the hare if he is given an opportunity of doing so. In the South of England where hares are very numerous and cover more ground than rabbits, and therefore are not so much under the control of a single owner, I am sure that young hardwood trees stand a great chance
824
of suffering considerably unless hares are treated in a similar fashion to that in which rabbits are treated. I do not want to enter for the moment on the more difficult question as to what other animals should be dealt with; but I suggest that if you are treating rabbits as vermin ad hoc you ought, where you are expending a large amount of public money on re-afforestation, to treat hares in a similar manner.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 39, after ("rabbits") insert ("hares").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My recollection is that this clause is taken verbatim from existing Statutes which do not include the word "hares." My desire, I confess, is to include hares. They cut straight through a plantation doing horrible damage all the way through, and they are pests. It is, however, not so easy a problem to deal with them as with rabbits. The hare is more difficult to control. His range of feeding is far more extended, and, though ready to put in the hare, I express the view that protection will have to be achieved at the feeding ground itself rather than at the breeding and lying ground of the hare. In spite of that difficulty, however, I think "hares" ought to go in, and accordingly I propose to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), after "vermin," to insert "as hereinafter defined." The noble Lord said: I rather hesitate to suggest that we should re-discuss a matter which was threshed out at some length on the Committee stage, but in moving this Amendment I would submit to the noble Earl that there ought to be some indication given in this Bill, or, failing the Bill, in Regulations made under the Bill, as to what is meant by the term "vermin." The only indication we have on the face of the Bill is that "vermin," whatever else it may or may not mean, means squirrels. Personally I think that is a blot upon the Bill; but however that may be, we are given no indication as to what animals beyond squirrels are included. It is quite obvious that the ordinary sense of the word as applied to animals that are destructive of game is not intended here. Let me give a very good illustration of what I mean. The noble Earl very naturally

825
desires to see war made upon rabbits as the animals chiefly destructive of timber, but stoats and weasels are the chief enemies of the rabbit., and, if they are the vermin you have in mind, you are in fact going to destroy the very animals which are the chief enemies of the greatest pest against which you desire to direct your hostilities.
It is only fair to ask those in charge of the Bill to give some idea of what vermin what vermin ad hoc (if I may use the term) are intended by the Bill. We are told that squirrels are destructive. Of course they are destructive, but. I should be sorry to see them exterminated in this country. I see that the noble Lord said during the Committee stage that it would be difficult to exterminate squirrels. I can conceive of few animals which it would be easier to exterminate. Any one with a shot gun, however bad a shot. he is, can probably bring down a squirrel off a tree as long as he can keep the squirrel in sight; but, however that may be, there are other animals as, for instance, roedeer or even black game which do, in my judgment, infinitely greater harm to timber than even the squirrel. For the moment, all I want to suggest is that we should get some definition of the term "vermin," which, in this case, is ambiguous. If the House is not prepared to accept the consequential words—"such animals or birds as the Commissioners may from time to time determine"—I think I am at least justified in asking the noble Lord to give us some idea of what is intended by that vague expression "vermin."
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 39, after ("vermin") insert ("as hereinafter defined").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: This Amendment would obviously be of great convenience to the Forest Authority. Under it they would be free to do whatever they pleased and to destroy any bird, any quadruped, any insect of any description which they thought fit to destroy. My inclination would be to accept the words because that would save the Forest Authority so much trouble, by giving them unrestricted freedom. But I am afraid that if we accepted these words and gave complete and unfettered freedom to the Authority we should produce a difficulty in the other direction amongst persons who are a little distrustful of public authorities being invested with complete discretion. I
826
have a perfectly open mind about roedeer or black game or anything else, but I must remind your Lordships that dangerous as the roedeer is, you cannot isolate him like you can the rabbit. He may travel for miles and miles. Black game will certainly travel for many miles, and it is impossible to treat black game as one proposes under the Bill to treat rabbits or coleoptera. My impression is that the safeguarding must take place actually at the feeding ground rather than on the breeding or lying ground. In Germany, course, the roedeer are turned into the forest—fenced into the forest and not fenced out of the forest.
LORD BLEDISLOE: In what forests?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In all forests. I do not think I am in a position to accept Lord Bledisloe's Amendment. I think it would produce a contentious state of affairs and I should not like the Forestry Authority to embark upon its activities by incurring it. One noble Lord asked me to define "vermin." I think probably noble Lords of legal experience will tell me there never has been a comprehensive definition of the term. I cannot recall it. Broadly speaking, I think we are pretty well acquainted with the fauna which are injurious to forest life, but I certainly fear I am not in a position to give any clear definition of the point which, of course, is one of very great complexity.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I hope sincerely that the murderous activities of this new Department will be confined within as narrow limits as possible. I trust it may yet be possible to reprieve the squirrel, but, if that be impossible, the idea of giving this Department power to determine as they please what animals or birds are to be destroyed on other people's land on the terms that, after they are destroyed, the person on whose land they have been killed should have the pleasure of paying for their destruction is, I submit respectfully, to ask the House to go much farther than your Lordships ever desired to go. If the proposed Amendment were added, it would enable the Commissioners to direct a man to go and shoot black game or any other game on a person's land and, when he had had a pleasant afternoon's sport, to send the bill to the owner on whose land the birds had been destroyed. It is no use saying that a Government Department will not

827
do it. When once you have given the power how are you going to know that the power is not going to be exercised? It is of the utmost importance that the power should be kept as narrow as it possibly can be. I regard with nothing short of horror the prospect of a country in which we are no longer to see our deer in the fern or black game in the trees or squirrels or any of those things which have made the country beautiful, but, in their place, we are to have utilitarian forests. I should think this would add to the migration from the country.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am not entitled to speak again, but, if I were, I would protest with all the vigour in my power against the idea that the forest is an ugly thing. The forest is the most beautiful thing in the world, and we are going to grow some under this Bill.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I do not desire to press this Amendment.
Amendment; by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEFFIELD: There is a consequential Amendment in line 41 on Page 4. Having put in "hares" after "rabbits" in line 39, we must also put in that word in line 41.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for drawing attention to it, and I will move that.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 41, after ("rabbits") insert ("hares").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE: The next Amendment is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 1, after ("rabbits") insert ("hares").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), after "authorise in writing any," to insert "competent." The noble Lord said: I lay stress on this Amendment. This subsection authorises the Commissioners to employ any person to enter on the land and kill and take rabbits, hares, or vermin thereon. May I point out that the man who shoots badly is
828
capable of inflicting a considerable amount of cruelty, and the man who traps unskilfully is capable of inflicting a great deal more. Presumably there will not be shooting parties in order to keep down game on private estates and the work would be done by gins and wires. In thick woods wires would not be effective and gins would have to be set. Many gins would be unskilfully set, and it would be no uncommon sight to see deer, or domestic farm animals, going about without a foot. In any case we know what an infinite amount of cruelty an incompetent trapper can inflict, and for that reason I ask that the Bill shall ensure that a competent, and only a competent, person shall be employed in this way. In answer to Lord Strachie the noble Earl in the Committee stage said that the Commissioners would probably choose the nearest man they could find who was competent to destroy rabbits.
It will be difficult in many localities to find a really competent man. If you rule out of court your keepers, and trappers, and the most expert of your poachers—I do not know whether they should be left out—I do not know where you are going to look for really expert men unless the Commissioners are prepared to give them proper training and employ them. As regards the expert poacher I am doubtful indeed as to whether this person ought to be encouraged for this purpose, because I am rather afraid he will take advantage of the knowledge he derives as a result of this Government employment to extend his unofficial labours on his own account. I am sure the noble Earl is not going to find the sort of person he wants simply by looking round and picking him up.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 3, after ("any") insert ("competent").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: This means that in carrying out this work the Forestry Commissioners are to employ people who are competent to do the work. I do not think there is any objection to that. I should assume, prima facie, that they would not employ any but competent men. The adjective is rather vague, and any man who is employed will by Statute be able to state that he is authorised as it competent person. If it is a safeguard I will certainly put it in.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE: The word "hares" should again be inserted after the word "rabbits" in line 4. It is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, after ("rabbits") insert ("hares").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to omit from subsection (1) "and the Commissioners may recover from the occupier summarily, as a civil debt, the net cost incurred by them in connection with the action so taken." The noble Duke said: I do not intend to press this Amendment. I have put it down in order that your Lordships may realise what this Clause does. It authorises the Commissioners to send trapping or shooting parties over any estate and to make the person on whose land they go pay the expenses. Personally I agree with the proposal to keep down hares and rabbits in order to prevent the destruction of forest plants and also of agricultural crops, which is a great deal more important, but at the same time I think this clause requires some further safeguard; and I hope the Government will look into the question and see if words cannot be inserted which will prevent any abuse of these great powers which, are, given to the Forestry Commissioners which, quite possibly, may be abused. We have had examples during the war of what Government Departments may do, and we have seen their powers grossly abused on many occasions. During the war that was all very well, but this is to be permanent.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, leave out, front ("thereon") to the and of subsection (1).—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
LORD SHEFFIELD: I think we ought to have some explanation if the Amendment is not pressed. We are told that the Commissioners can appoint a competent person, some man who will be paid a wage say of 10 s. a day or £3 a week. He sallies forth in pursuit of squirrels. If he happens to shoot one squirrel during the day has the farmer on whose land the squirrel is shot to pay the whole of his wages. If he shoots three squirrels, on three different farms, are his wages to be paid proportionately by the three? It is a duty which, I think, is quite unreasonably put upon the farmer. The man also has power to go anywhere, on any land. This
830
proposal, which enables the Commissioners to employ a competent man, and send him forth over the length and breadth of the country to kill animals which are considered injurious, and levy his costs on those on whose land he operates, is a most impracticable one.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The noble Duke said he was anxious to prevent the abuse of these powers; and Lord Sheffield said the same thing. The Forestry Authority, of all things in the world, desire to work with harmony and without friction, and you may depend upon it that their desire and determination will be to avoid friction. If there is friction and disagreement they will lose the assistance upon which they count for getting forestry work done. Really noble Lords have gone a little far in denouncing this clause. Lord Sheffield, for instance. It is on the Statute Book to-day, has been for several years, and it is only put into this Act in order to transfer to one Department duties which are now done by another Department.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEITCH: That is the Corn Production Act.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes.
Several NOBLE LORDS: A temporary Act—a war measure.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Do noble Lords imagine that the Corn Production Act ends with the Declaration of Peace. It was a war measure, but I hope it is going to be a peace measure too. It is because of the lessons we learned during the war that it is to be one of the permanent statutes of the realm.
LORD STRACHIE: That Act is limited to five years.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes.
LORD SHEFFIELD: This is not.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Noble Lords will forgive me, but for the period of the Corn Production Act these powers already exist, and I think Lord Sheffield must have forgotten that.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Yes, there were lots of things done during the war which we shall be glad to forget for ever.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: There is going to be no abuse of these powers. Your Lordships have put in the word "competent," which assures that the man who is employed to destroy vermin is efficient in his business. That will prevent him taking a large day's wage for the duty of killing a single squirrel, which Lord Sheffield fears. The real remedy is with the occupier of the land and the owner of the vermin. One noble Lord said that there would be shooting parties over the land where rabbits are in excess. If those rabbits are doing damage to forests they should be killed, and the occupier himself should hold a shooting party. If he does not, is it not unreasonable to deny that the nuisance must be abated and that somebody must be sent to do the work for him? That being so, which I think ought to be conceded, and which as I have said is already the law of the land, it is not unreasonable that the Commissioners should recover the cost, and I hope your Lordships will not exclude the last three lines of the subsection.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I think the Government are over-rating the importance of this clause. Does anybody suppose that in these days, when rabbits are at a high cost, anybody will refrain from killing rabbits if he can manage to do so. If the Commissioners really find rabbits are in such numbers as to do serious damage, and they have to send a person to kill them, it will be a poor day's operation which does not pay the expenses of a competent person. Therefore I think the Government are over-estimating the necessity of framing a charge. Of course if you send some person to a place where he is not required, and he tries for several days without result, it would be very hard to put the cost upon the occupier.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (2), before "exercise," to insert "due." The noble Lord said: I understand that the noble Earl is prepared to accept this Amendment. It is consequential upon the "competency" of the person, and it is only in the course of the "due" exercise of his powers that subsection (2) will operate.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 11, after ("the") insert ("due").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If it is considered to be a safeguard—the distinction between "exercise" and "due exercise"—I will accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 14, after ("rabbits") insert ("hares").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Consultative Committees for England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales.
6.—(1) It shall be lawful for His Majesty, by Order in Council, to establish consultative committees for England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales respectively, for giving to the Commissioners in accordance with the provisions of the Order advice and assistance with respect to the exercise and performance by the Commissioners of their powers and duties under this Act.
(2) The constitution of each consultative committee shall be such as may be determined by the Order, so, however, that the Order shall, as far as practicable, provide for the inclusion among the members of the committee of—

(a) persons having practical experience of matters relating to forestry;

(b) representatives of labour;

(c) representatives of county councils and any other local bodies interested in forestry;

(d) representatives of any societies existing for the promotion of afforestation;

(e) representatives of woodland owners.

LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "forestry" to insert. "woodcraft and woodland industries." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see that this clause provides for the setting up of Consultative Committees for giving to the Commissioners advice and assistance in respect of the performance and exercise of their powers and duties. Provision is made in paragraph (a) for the Committees to include "persons having practical experience of matters relating to forestry," and there it stops. I suggest that you want not only persons who may claim to be well acquainted with forestry as the result of taking a University degree, but others who have actually done manual work in the forests or woods, and who realise the difficulties; and also if the Commissioners are themselves to develop these woodland industries, surely you should have on your Advisory Committees, amongst others, persons who know something about woodland industries. For that reason I move my Amendment, in

833
order to make this paragraph comprehensive.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 43, after ("forestry") insert ("woodcraft and woodland industries").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am most anxious to meet the noble Lord, and unless your Lordships take serious objection to what is proposed I suggest putting in the Amendment, but I defy anybody to discover what "woodcraft" is in the legal sense of the word. I read it quite differently from what was explained by the noble Lord. I considered myself that anybody engaged in the conversion of timber would come under the definition, but the noble Lord seems to think that it applies to men engaged in cutting down trees.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I include in the term "woodcraft" anybody who understands how to put timber to economic uses as the result of manual labour. However, it does not really matter—it is a much wider term than "sylviculture" or "forestry," which standing by themselves may mean only a scientific or technical knowledge, and I want to include somebody who understands the practical work.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
Compulsory acquisition of land.
7.—(1) If the Commissioners are unable to acquire by agreement and on reasonable terms any land which they, consider it necessary to acquire for the purpose of this Act, they may apply to the Development Commissioners for an order empowering them to acquire the land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of the schedule to this Act, and the Development Commissioners shall have power to make such order.
(2) No land shall be authorised by an order under this section to be acquired compulsorily which, at the date of the order, forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground, or forms part of the home farm attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house, or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house, or which at that date is the property of any local authority, or has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking, or is the site of an ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest.
(3) Where an order made by the Development Commissioners under this Act authorises the acquisition of any land forming part of any common, open space, or allotment, the order, so far as it relates to the acquisition of such land, shall be provisional only, and shall not have effect
834
unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament, except where the order provides for giving in exchange fur such land other land, not being less in area, certified by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to be equally advantageous to the persons, if any, entitled to commonable or other rights, and to the public:
Provided that the foregoing provision shall not apply if the order provides for the granting to the public of reasonable access to the land for air, exercise or recreation, unless the land to be acquired has been dedicated to the public use and enjoyment, or is a metropolitan common within the terms of the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, or is a suburban common as defined by the Commons Act, 1876, or is subject to a scheme of regulation made in pursuance of the Metropolitan Commons Acts, 1866 to 1898, or the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, or the Commons Act, 1899, or to a private or local Act of Parliament.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "unless the owner of the land objects to the making of the Order, in which case the question of the compulsory acquisition of the land shall be referred for decision as provided in the Schedule to this Act,"
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I move is one which I moved on the Committee Stage of the Bill, its object being that the land owner should not be compulsorily deprived of his land without having an opportunity of appealing to an independent authority as to whether the lend should be taken or not. The noble in charge of the Bill opposed the Amendment en several grounds. In the first place he did not approve of the machinery which I proposed to set up in the Schedule, by which I suggested that a Judge of the High Court should decide whether the land should be taken. I should have been perfectly prepared to defend that suggestion if I had moved that Amendment, because the noble Earl said it seemed to him undesirable that a Judge should be taken away from his duties. It appears to me he might be more suitably employed in deciding this question, than for many of the other purposes for which judges are being employed at the present time; for instance, such controversial and political questions as whether coal should or should not be nationalised; but as I do not proceed with that Amendment I will say nothing more about the matter. After all it is a question of machinery, and does not touch the principle, which is not to decide who shall be the person who shall determine whether land is to be compulsorily taken or not, but whether it shall be taken arbitrarily,

835
without the decision of an independent person.
The next point which my noble friend made against my Amendment was that it was already the law of the land in the Development Act of 1909. It is quite true that it appears in that Act, but it is an Act of much more limited character than the present one. In addition it is very much safeguarded. There is subsection (3) of Clause 5 which says that the Commissioners, in making an Order for compulsory purchase of land, shall have regard to the extent of land held by any owner. There are also provisions in the Schedule which, I think, safeguard the owner very greatly. The noble Earl also referred me to the Acquisition of Land Bill, and stated that he thought that that would be a very suitable Bill in which to insert a provision of this kind. With due respect to the noble Earl I am afraid that I cannot agree, because, as I read the title of that Bill which is now before your Lordships, it is as follows: "An Act to amend the law as t o the Assessement of Compensation in respect of Land acquired compulsorily for public purposes and the costs in proceedings thereon." But the Bill says nothing as to whether the land shall be compulsorily taken or not. It only deals with the tribunal which has to be set up to decide as to the compensation which has to be granted, and also the principle on which that compensation is to be assessed; whereas the Bill before us is one which distinctly goes into the question of whether land shall be taken or not, and excludes certain lands specifically in the seventh clause. That clause excludes certain lands which cannot, under any circumstances, be acquired compulsorily by the Development Commissioners. For instance, it says, "no land which forms part of any park, garden or pleasure ground can be acquired." Various other kinds of land are excluded.
What I want to insert in the Bill is that, where other land is taken, at any rate the owner shall have an opportunity of appealing to an independent authority. The noble Earl said that he believed that the Commissioners themselves would give an opportunity for an owner to appear before them, and argue as to whether it was desirable his land should be taken. I do not think that would be satisfactory, because after all they are the people who wish to purchase the land, and there is not
836
much good in going before people who have the power to decide as judges when they are also in the position of being, so to speak, the petitioners.
My noble friend Lord Salisbury pointed out that there was an appeal because the appeal was from the Commissioners themselves to the Development Commissioners, but as far as I read this Bill it appears to me that the duty of the Development Commissioners is merely to see whether they think fit to recommend the advance of money necessary for the purchase, and it is no part of their duty to protect the owner who is having land taken from him, as he thinks unnecessarily. My noble friend Lord Midleton referred to the case of Ireland, and pointed out that there we had not that absolute confidence in the Commissioners which the noble Earl seemed to expect us to have. Very little land is left to landowners in Ireland. Let us take an instance of what might happen there. The Commissioners may find that besides the demesne which is left to the landowner there is a considerable amount of what they would consider waste land—bog land which would be suitable for planting. They might, under the powers of this Act, acquire this compulsorily, and having so acquired it they might plant trees. The local poacher might be given a roving commission to wander over adjoining land in search of squirrels and other vermin, and the landowner would have no opportunity of pointing out, as he would wish to do, that the bog land is really reserved for the purpose of fuel, and that it is necessary for him to retain it in order to provide his own house and the houses of his dependants with fuel. This is only one instance showing that land may be taken by people who do not know very much about it, without an opportunity being given to the owner of pointing out that a grievous wrong is being done to him in the land being taken from him compulsorily in this manner.
I think that a very serious principle is at stake, and that this power ought not to be given to any Government Department without some appeal to a tribunal. The tribunal that I ask for now is a very simple one, that of an arbitrator who would only take a very short time to decide. As I pointed out to your Lordships when I moved this Amendment that in regard to delay the trees take at least twenty years to mature, and it cannot therefore be

837
urged that the delay will be very serious. I hope that the noble Earl on reconsideration will be able to adopt this Amendment; if not I feel so strongly on the subject that I shall feel bound to take your Lordships' opinion upon it.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 13, at end insert ("unless the owner of the land objects to the making of the Order, in which case the question of the compulsory acquisition of the land shall be referred for decision as provided in the Schedule to this Act").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The terms of Clause 7 are the existing Statute of the Realm. That is understood.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: Subject to the third subsection.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Which is equally a Statute of the Realm now. If the Commissioners can come to an agreement with the loan whose land they want they do so, and no further dispute can arise. If they fail to come to an agreement, then the case with which Lord Oranmore and Browne is concerned arises. But I gather that that case is already provided for under the Statute as it now exists. If the noble Lord will read the third line of the Clause onwards he will see that if they cannot come to an agreement they may apply to the Development Commissioners for authority empowering them to secure land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule of this Act, and that the Development Commissioners can make an Order accordingly. Lord Oranmore and Browne says that where the owner of the land objects to the Order—in other words where an agreement cannot be come to—the question of compulsory acquisition shall be reserved for decision as outlined in the Schedule of this Act. There is no more to be discussed, it is already covered by these words.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I have an Amendment to the Schedule.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Which Amendment is the noble Lord referring to?
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: The Amendment on page 10, line 16, after "question" insert "as to whether such land shall be compulsorily acquired and." I raise the question in this place so that it
838
might come into the body of the Bill. I thought it more respectful to the House to raise it at this juncture.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That is already provided for m the Bill.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: Not as to whether land shall be compulsorily acquired. It is only the question of compensation.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The powers to acquire land compulsorily already exist, and it is only put into this Bill in order to transfer that power from one authority to another. The question which Lord Oranmore and Browne has foreseen of dispute and difficulty between the public authority on the one side and the landlord on the other, are duly provided for under Clause 7 and the Schedule of the Bill. The only outstanding points on which the law is going to be amended are the questions of compensation, and later on, when we come to the Duke of Buccleuch's Amendment, for instance, and others of that character dealing with compensation, I shall ask your Lordships to defer the matter until we come to the Acquisition of Land Bill. But, so far as Lord Oranmore's difficulty is concerned, it is already provided for in the Statute.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I do not think the noble Earl can dismiss the matter quite so summarily. It is quite true that the power to take land in the manner proposed by the Bill does already exist, but it was never proposed in a previous Bill that land should be taken on this scale and under these circumstances. Under the Development Act the idea was that it would be necessary to cut a road, perhaps, through property at some particular point. I remember very well explanations being given on that Bill, and it was never supposed under that Bill that immense tracts of country would be taken. That is really the point, and what the noble Earl proposes, having got the power on a minor question, is to apply it on this large scale, and to cases where surely great injustice may be done.
The noble Earl's view is no doubt very much in consonance with what the Government have stated throughout, that there are large vacant tracts in Scotland and in some other parts of Great Britain. But he is going to apply it to Ireland, where the

839
great mass of the land is in the hands of tenants, on whom it is almost impossible for the Commissioners to make this demand. In view of the amount of land which may be taken it is really a case where it is most desirable that the landlord should be heard, not merely as to the price to be received but as to whether he should be forced to part with it at all. I really think that the matter of planting trees, which is only a question of a few weeks' delay, will not make so great a difference as to make it reasonable that the Government should insist that the Commissioners, having set their eyes on some land, and having said that in that part of the country there should be a portion afforested, should say, "We wish for 200 acres," though it is pointed out to them that to take 200 acres there will absolutely ruin the residential value of the land. But there is to be no appeal. The single Commissioner in Ireland has only to state the fact that he has made up his mind, and all that remains is to assess the value. That is carrying too far a good policy—the policy of avoiding delay and of avoiding any undue interference with the public interest. I hope that my noble friend will press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My noble friend says that the original Statute embodying these terms was never meant effectively to apply to afforestation, that it was meant for roads or wayleaves or something of that kind. My memory traverses that view. Many of your Lordships will remember ten years ago, when the Development Act was being passed, that afforestation was one of the biggest achievements which was then looked for, and it was distinctly in reference to afforesting—not 100 acres or 200 acres, for it is not in peddling quantities like that that the Forestry Authority will work—
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Will the noble Earl state how much land has been taken?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Practically nothing.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: There has been no experience.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No, I am afraid the authority has done nothing. That is the reason why a Forestry Authority is going to be set up.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My point is that, although that power may have been taken, it has not been used because it
840
would have been too serious to use it for these large projects.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The only point at issue was whether the original powers were conferred with a view to afforestation. Lord Midleton says they were only conferred with a view to cutting roads, and for wayleaves, and so on. I say that, on the contrary, when the Act was passed, afforestation was going to be one of the big things as the outcome of that Act. It is quite true that nothing has been done, but I am none the less justified in saying that this Statute was passed long before the war with a view to afforestation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand, though I did not hear all the speech of the noble Earl opposite, that he founded part of his case in opposition to this Amendment upon the near approach of a larger measure dealing with this whole subject—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl did use that phrase in Committee. It may be quite true that there is a larger Bill coming, and no doubt, when that Bill comes before your Lordships, we shall have the opportunity of considering this subject afresh and in full detail, and also its bearing, not only upon this particular subject but upon all matters upon which the compulsory acquisition of land is desirable. As far as I am concerned, when that moment comes, I shall approach the whole subject with an open mind in trying to arrive at an adequate decision as to the policy which this country should pursue upon this question. There is no doubt that the matter has to be dealt with, or ought to be dealt with, and we shall be very glad to consider this Bill. But in this particular case we have to consider it in the light of the legislation which already exists, and I think it would be the wiser course, therefore, to add here to the broad lines of past experience rather than to strike out something fresh at this moment before the bigger Bill comes.
Now what is the present condition of things? Broadly, it is that land is not compulsorily acquired, except after an opportunity of appeal by the owner, to be heard before a competent and impartial tribunal, as to whether the land ought to be acquired compulsorily or not. My noble friend opposite says, "But there is the Development Act." I am afraid that my

841
memory is not good enough to record in detail all these provisions of the Development Act, but this is certainly true that there has not been, since that Act was passed, any large experience of the compulsory acquisition of land without this precaution which my noble friend on the Cross Benches desires to insert. We had a great deal of discussion, I remember, at that time over the land on either side of a road which might be acquired by the Commissioners because of its enhanced value in consequence of the making of the road. My noble friend says we also anticipated great forestry development. That, may have been, but I do not think that could have been anything on the scale which is now contemplated, because the money available for the purpose was really trifling under that Act.
So that we are really dealing with a much bigger subject in this Bill than was contemplated in the Development Act. In these circumstances the best plan is to go according to the old rule of not allowing land to be compulsorily acquired without the matter being properly tried before an impartial tribunal until we have to deal with the Acquisition of Land Bill. Indeed I should use the Acquisition of Land Act argument in precisely a contrary way from what was indicated by my noble friend. Until we had to try the big case it is better to go on the old lines. Then, when we have to try the big case, which deals with the whole subject,
we approach it from the new point of view. I shall support the Amendment of my noble friend if it goes to a Division.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I hope that the Government will adhere to what they have in the Bill. I shall certainly strongly support them, if they do. The very purpose that they have in view will be defeated if this matter has to go before an outside tribunal. The only justification, the only reason, for obtaining this land, the only ground for which they want it, is for the introduction of a new system of afforestation. The Commissioners must be the judges of what land is wanted for that purpose and of what the policy is which requires it. You cannot leave that to an outside tribunal without stultifying yourselves; and therefore very properly they have left the Commissioners to come to a decision on the general principle and the tribunal to work it out. When the Acquisition of Land Bill comes before this House we can see what terms there ought to be for the exercise of such powers; but it is a matter of principle on the part of the Government to adhere to the clause as it stands, and I trust that they will not be shaken in their determination.
On Question, whether the words proposed shall be here inserted—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Onslow, E.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Northumberland, D.

Stanhope, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Wellington, D.

Waldegrave, E.

Oranmore and Browne, L. [Teller.]

Camden, M.

Esher, V.

Rathmore, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Aldenham, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Salisbury, M.

Balfour, L.

Saltoun, L.

Abingdon, E.

Barrymore, L. (V. Midleton.)

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

Albemarle, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton)

Brassey, E.

Dynevor, L.

Strachie, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Erskine, L.

Sydenham, L. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Templemore, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Annesley, L.

Lovat, L.

Armaghdale, L.

Phillimore, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Bledisloe, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Bradford, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Eldon, E.

Denman, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Howe, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Jersey, E.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Lytton, E.

Emmott, L.

Sudeley, L.

Powis, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Tenterden, L.

Yarborough, E.

Harris, L.

Terrington, L.

Hylton, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Haldane, V.

Islington, L.

Wittenham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I agree to the next Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, after ("park") insert ("demesne").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule:
(1) Where the Commissioners propose to purchase land compulsorily under this Act, they may submit to the Development Commissioners a draft order putting in force, as respects the lands specified in the order, the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land of otherwise than by agreement.
(2) The order shall be in the prescribed form and shall contain such provisions as the Development Commissioners may prescribe for the purpose of carrying the order into effect, and shall incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts and sections seventy-seven to eighty-five of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, or, in Scotland, sections seventy to seventy-eight of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, and those Acts shall apply accordingly, subject to the following modifications:—

(a) Any question of disputed compensation shall be determined by a single arbitrator, who shall be appointed, and whose remuneration shall be fixed, as respects England, by the Lord Chief Justice of England, as respects Scotland by the Lord President of the Court of Session, and as respects Ireland by the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland and the arbitrator so appointed shall be deemed to be an arbitrator within the meaning of those Acts:

(b) An arbitrator so appointed may, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, determine the amount of costs, and shall have power to disallow, as costs of the arbitration, the costs of any witness whom he considers to have been called unnecessarily, and any other costs which he considers have been caused or incurred unnecessarily:

(c) In determining the amount of any disputed compensation under any such order, no additional allowance shall be made on account of the purchase being compulsory. and the arbitrator shah have regard to the extent to which the remaining and contiguous lands and hereditaments belonging to the same proprietor may be benefited by the carrying out of the purpose for which the land is authorised to be acquired by the Commissioners:

(d) The provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts as to the sale of superfluous land shall not apply.

(4) An order authorising the acquisition of any buildings may, if portions only of those buildings are required for the purposes of the Commissioners, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, require the owners of and other persons interested in those buildings to sell and convey to the Commissioners the portions only of the buildings so required, if the arbitrator is of opinion that such portions can be severed from the remainder of the properties without material detriment thereto, and, in such ease, the Commissioners shall not be obliged to purchase the whole or any greater portion thereof, and shall pay for the portions acquired by them and make compensation for any damage sustained by the owners thereof or other parties interested therein by severance or otherwise.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLBUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLBUCH moved, in (2) (c), after "benefited," to insert "or depreciated." The noble Duke said: I put this Amendment down on the Committee stage, and in explaining it now I will endeavour to be as brief as I can. The noble Earl has already said that he will ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment on the ground that it will be dealt with by the Acquisition of Land Bill. If the Acquisition of Land Bill supersedes the provisions of this Bill for acquiring land, surely there can be no harm in putting in this Amendment. On the other hand, it is possible, I suppose, if not probable, that the Acquisition of Land Bill either may not pass or may be altered. Therefore I think it is reasonable to ask that this Amendment should be accepted.
The noble Earl stated that all these powers would be in the Act when the Development Commissioners were created, but it was never contemplated at the time that the Development Commissioners would deal with these lands. They have certain powers, but it is absurd to say that it was ever contemplated they would deal with any areas to any great extent. Under the Forestry Bill probably, eventually, if its proceedings are successful, there will be something like 3,000,000, or possibly 5,000,000 acres of land which may be taken, and it is a totally different question from the question of land required for other purposes, such as housing, railways, and so forth. Under those circumstances, I think it is only reasonable that if any benefits are to be considered in calculating the price, equally the depreciation should be allowed for. In forestry on a large scale it is far more likely that there will be depreciation than benefit to the surrounding land. In any case it is somewhat difficult to tell until the trees have grown.
There is another point which I particularly wish to draw your Lordships' attention to—that is, the agricultural question. One of the criticisms of this Bill, and the constitution of this Authority, has been that the agricultural question has not been sufficiently considered. I think any of your Lordships who are acquainted with hill farms, either in the south of Scotland or in the north of England, will know that practically every sheep farm can be planted on the lower portions. If those lower portions are planted, it would practically destroy the rest of the farm for any agricultural purpose or for raising stock. It may, of course, if it is heather-rowing, be devoted to grouse, but from an agricultural point of view it is most serious.
As far as I can understand, under this Bill the lower portions of the farm might be taken compulsorily and no compensation paid for depreciation of the land that is left. On the other hand, it is said, I know, that it is never likely that any of these lands which produce large numbers of lambs are likely to be taken for afforestation; but that, we know, is not the case. I am aware of an instance myself where the. Board of Agriculture in Scotland have been more or less in negotiation for five or six years for the acquisition of low-lying farms which carry good sheep stock, which they contemplated planting. I believe the negotiations only await the decision of the Development Commissioners. This shows that there is a great possibility of low-lying lands being taken, and I do not think that any one can deny the statement I made, that if you take the lower portion of the hill farms the remainder of the farm would be useless for agricultural purposes or for the raising of stock, although it might possibly be useful from the shooting point of view.
I therefore hope that your Lordships will see your way to support this Amendment, because although it is obvious how the owner of the land may suffer depreciation which is not allowed for, it is still more important, I think, to consider how the sheep-raising industry in the south of Scotland may be in danger of having damage done to it if the Bill is allowed to proceed in its present form.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 35, after ("benefited") insert ("or depreciated").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have already pointed out to your Lordships that the question of compensation can be dealt with on the Land Acquisition Bill, which deals with the whole subject of land acquired for public purposes and not merely, as now, with land acquired for one single purpose. But, apart from that, depreciation is already provided for in the Lands Clauses Act. There is nothing new in the claim put forward by the noble Duke, and the Lards Clauses Act exists in the Schedule to this Bill. It is not a whole code; it is merely an Amendment. Depreciation is claimed, and, in point of fact, is being awarded by arbitrators almost every day in the week. That right is there; that right is indefeasible in the man whose property is injured. I really do not think, therefore, there is any occasion to add to the corpus of the Statute, which already provides for depreciation in the eases which are mentioned.
LORD DYNEVOR: It seems to me, if you put into the Bill the question of betterment, in justice and fairness you ought to put in at the same time worsement. I do not see why you want to put in the one and writ the other. I sincerely hope, therefore, that my noble friend the noble Duke will insist on the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I entirely sympathise with the object which the noble Duke has in view. Perhaps it is hardly right for nut to speak, not being a lawyer, but I believe an explanation of the difficulty raised does exist. The Land Clauses Acts which are incorporated, with certain exceptions, for the purposes of this afforestation, contain provisions enabling the owner to receive compensation for depreciation. Therefore that need not be provided for. They do not, however, contain any provision for enabling a setoff against any benefit to the owner.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: The object of my Amendment is to ensure that the ownership of minerals in land acquired shall remain the property of the former owner. I am not quite clear whether this is already the case under the Bill as it stands. I have been told that the second clause of the Schedule provides for

847
this; and if the noble Earl assures me that is the case, I shall be content. I want, however, to be quite clear about the matter, because if the House does decide that land can be acquired compulsorily without the landowner having any power to appeal against the land being so taken, and if that power to acquire land compulsorily carries with it the right to acquire the minerals, I want to guard against that by inserting this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, after line 39, insert the following new paragraph:
"(e) The acquisition of the land shall not affect the ownership of the minerals subjacent thereto."—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have gone into this Amendment and that of Lord Dynevor with care, and I think—I hope I shall be able to show—that they are based on a misapprehension, and, indeed, that both Lord Dynevor and Lord Oranmore and Browne are already met by the powers of agreement which exist and which are inherent in the landowner. It is obvious, I think, that the Commissioners cannot be precluded by Act of Parliament from acquiring minerals when they acquire land. It would be unreasonable to say that in buying land they shall never be allowed to buy the minerals. If, on the other hand, the minerals are reserved to the owner, the agreement must ipso facto contain provisions allowing that owner access to his minerals. I think it is a point most clearly brought out in Lord Dynevor's Amendment, though it is, to some extent I think, covered by Lord Oranmore's intentions. If the owner is going to keep his minerals, if he wishes to keep his minerals, or if the Authority say that they do not want to buy the minerals but mean to have the land, an agreement has to be drawn up according to this elaborate system outlined in the Schedule. I do not know, but I cannot imagine that the Development Commissioners or any other Authority could leave a matter like that vague—that the Forestry Commission should acquire land and that the owner of the minerals should have no access to his minerals, no right of way or light railway or way-leave. If nothing of that kind were done the Forestry Authority would have to pay enormously and unduly
848
high for surface land. I am advised that the agreement which has got to take place in all these cases of compulsory purchase will be adequate to meet the cases of both Lord Dynevor and of Lord Oranmore and Browne. The Amendments, therefore, are unnecessary.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: The noble Earl has not made the matter perfectly clear, and I desire therefore to ask a question. It is clear in the case where there is an agreement come to between the Commissioners and the owner, but suppose the land is acquired compulsorily. In that case do the minerals remain the property of the owner from whom the land is taken, or does the fact that the Commissioners acquire the land compulsorily give them the right also to the minerals?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No. There are two subjects which can be acquired. One is the land and the other is the minerals. If the Forestry Authority like to have them both, they can have both and pay for both. If they only take the surface they will either have to compensate the mineral owner or else provide him with facilities for working that mineral in due time.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved to add to (2) the following new paragraph—
"(e)The owner, lessee or occupier of any mines or minerals lying under any land purchased or within such a lateral distance therefrom that the liberties hereby granted can be made avilable for the working thereof shall for the purpose of working the same be entitled to enter on any land so purchased and there to use any existing and to sink, erect, make and use any new shafts, machinery and other works, and for that purpose, if necessary, to remove any timber or other trees or any other things growing or being thereon and to lay and use light rails over the land so purchased and to do all such other things thereon or therein as if such land had not been purchased but so that in exercising such liberties no more damage than is reasonably necessary be done to such land, trees or things, and that reasonable compensation be made for any damage

849
actually caused, and if any question shall arise in respect thereof the same shall be determined by the arbitrator."
The noble Lord said: My Amendment is quite different from the one just moved by my noble friend Lord Oranmore and Browne, because it deals only with the question of the surface of the land. Therefore, it seems to me (and I think my noble friend in charge of the Bill has acknowledged) that certainly there ought to be a full reservation over the surface for getting at the minerals. Your Lordships will no doubt have noticed that under the Railway Act, 1845, which is referred to in Clause 1 of the Schedule, the owner or the lessee of the minerals cannot enter on the surface acquired by the railway. There, however, usually only a narrow strip is purchased. It is very different in this case, where we are dealing with perhaps 2,000 or 3,000 acres. Access over the surface is absolutely necessary to the owner or lessee. Even if the Commissioners do not, under this Railway Act, buy the minerals—which I rather doubt their doing, because it will be a very great expense to acquire the minerals under a very large area—it will still be necessary to reserve the rights over the surface and to get to the adjacent minerals. There may be minerals lying beyond this area and the Commissioners may have acquired land which lies between the further minerals and the railway to which you want to get them. It seems to me most essential to have the wording suggested in the new clause to make it absolutely clear that there shall be no cessation of the development of minerals in the area compulsorily taken by the Forestry Commissioners. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that it is most essential to get these words into the Bill now. Otherwise, we do not really know where we shall be under the Land Acquisition Bill. As a matter of fact, I have looked at that Bill and there is a very vague reference there to minerals. The Railway Act, under which the Commissioners are going to take the land and possibly the minerals, is not referred to in that Bill. Here it is definitely said that under the Railway Act, 1845, the Forestry Commissioners do take their land. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will support me and get this Amendment inserted in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 10 after line 39, insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I can only repeat what I said to Lord Oranmore and Browne. My remarks applied equally to his and to Lord Dynevor's Amendment. When land is acquired an instrument has got to be drawn up. It may be drawn up by voluntary agreement between the Forestry Authority and the landlord, or it may go to arbitration and be drawn up by the Development Commissioners or some other authority; but, whoever draws it up, must insert a clause relating to minerals. The fact of compulsion being used does not mean that there shall be no agreement or group of clauses governing the transaction. The Forestry Authority, prima facie, is not likely to want minerals and, prima facie, Forestry Authority will let the landlord reserve those minerals for himself and in doing so a money consideration will no doubt pass. I gather that all Lord Dynevor wants is that where the minerals belong to the landlord and the surface to the State, the State in due time shall give facilities to the landlord to develop those minerals. I am informed that those clauses must be in the agreement. They cannot be excluded from the agreement and it is inconceivable that minerals shall be left in the property of a private individual wish no right of access to them.
LORD DYNEVOR: I am afraid I did not make myself clear. May I point out that this land is acquired under the Railways Act, 1845.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: And other Acts.
LORD DYNEVOR: But under that Act the owner of the mineral may not enter on the surface acquired by the railway. Put the Forestry Commissioners in the place of the railway and the owner of a mineral cannot enter on the surface of the land acquired by the Forestry Authority.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It is quite true that the Railway Clauses Acts are referred to, but the Land Clauses Act and every other Act which entitles the Government to purchase compulsorily is equally incorporated here.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It is obvious that what the noble Earl has said is quite true. Supposing the Commissioners want to take the surface without the minerals,

851
they will either have to give full facilities to the mineral owner to work his minerals or else they will have to pay as if they had taken the whole of the minerals which they have deprived him of the right to get. The instrument which settles the matter must contain provisions, or else the mineral owner must be paid the full value of what he cannot work and win. It is quite true that the Railway Clauses Act has been grouped, but it contains certain provisions which are very difficult to apply to minerals. The Land Clauses Act provides a much wider power of dealing with these matters, and under the provisions of the Land Clauses Act it is obvious that, if the mineral owner is deprived of his right of access, he will have to be compensated for his loss in the fullest fashion. The result will be that the Commissioners, in order to get the advantage of purchasing the surface, will always provide for that access which the owner requires to work and win what is under ground.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The noble Earl has not answered one of the points of my noble friend. He asked two questions, one was about the minerals under the land, the surface rights of which were sold; and the other as to minerals which lay beyond that land, but which could not be got to the railway except through land purchase. That point was not touched upon by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It is very common in mining circles. It is the problem of wayleaves.
On Question, Amendment negatived.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND (POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 2:
Establishment of an Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council.
2.—(1) There shall be a Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council styled "The Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council."
(2) The Ecclesiastical Committee shall consist of such members of the Privy Council, not exceeding twenty-five in all, as His Majesty from time to time may think fit to appoint in that behalf.
(3) The powers and duties of the Ecclesiastical Committee may be exercised and discharged by any twelve members thereof.
VISCOUNT ESHER VISCOUNT ESHER moved to add to subsection (2) of Clause 2 "the tenure of the office to be for ten years."
The noble Viscount said: As the Bill stands the members appointed to the Ecclesiastical Committee will be, presumably, appointed for life. There are obvious objections to that with which I need not trouble your Lordships. I agree with what fell from the Marquess of Salisbury the other night, that the Prime Minister of the day can be trusted to make these appointments, but even he cannot ensure that after several years they may not become out of touch when dealing with matters of high moment. It is partially with a view of meeting that difficulty that I move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 28, after ("behalf") insert ("the tenure of the office to be for ten years").—(Viscount Esher.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The Amendment is, I think an improvement, and I am quite prepared to accept it.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: May I draw attention to one point. I wonder why it is thought that these appointments will be for life? The Ecclesiastical Committee is to consist of such members of the Privy Council, not exceeding twenty-five in all, as His Majesty from time to time may think fit to appoint. What His Majesty may do His Majesty may undo; and he could take people off the Ecclesiastical Committee. They hold their tenure of office at the will of the Sovereign. Now my noble friend proposes that they should hold office for ten years, and you may get an Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council who are wholly at variance with the policy of the Government of the day. There might be a strong Non-conformist Committee, and the

853
noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, might succeed to Government in which he would have to exercise functions subject to the interference of that Non-Conformist Committee of the Privy Council. I should think, on the whole, it is much better the Amendment was not pressed.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I agree with what the noble and learned Viscount has said. I thought the object of this Bill was that this Committee were appointed from time to time by the Rime Minister, and that they represented the Ministry. I hope this clause, which is introduced with a view of shortening that tenure but which has the effect, of giving them a lengthened tenure, will not be adopted. I think the Bill much better as it stands.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I expressed great doubts from the first as to the. desirability of this Committee at ail, but I am afraid unless something is done it will get into a slate like the Canadian Senate (in which tile appointments are made actually for life) and the practice will grow up that these appointments will be practically for life because it will always be an ungracious proceeding for any Minister to advise the removal of any Privy Councillor. We shall be faced with the same evil which you have in Canada, that when a Ministry has been in office for a long tine and there conies a change of Ministry you find the Committee, or Senate as it may be, composed in such a way as to be in almost permanent disagreement with the representative Ministry of the day. Perhaps ten years is too long, and it may possibly be better to insert such words as "who shall hold office during pleasure."
LORD WITTENHAM: At an early stage I ventured to argue that it would have been better to have had the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. However, that idea did not go far, and we have now to consider the Bill as it is. For my part I. think it would be much better to leave it as it is, because, as the noble and learned Lord has just pointed out, under the clause as it stands there is the power to appoint from time to time. These words are so wide that I should have thought that on each occasion it would have been open to His Majesty in Council, on the advice of Ministers, to appoint such Privy Councillors as shall be thought fit. I do not suppose there will be a flood of cases
854
coming forward, and is it not much better that Privy Councillors should be summoned according to the virtue or necessity of the particular case; but here, if the Amendment is accepted, you are going to have a cast-iron Committee for ten years. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out circumstances and policy may change, and the Committee ought to be sufficiently elastic to conform itself to the feelings of the day.
VISCOUNT ESHER: May I ask whether it- is perfectly clear that, under the Bill as it stands, any member of the Ecclesiastical Committee may be removed by His Majesty from that Committee without removing him from the Privy Council altogether.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I have not the smallest doubt about it. This is a mere Committee of the Privy Council. There are numbers of Committees of the Privy Council appointed from time to time. The Sovereign has power to nominate any member of the Privy Council, and they hold office during pleasure.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In the debates on the Second Reading, and in Committee, a great variety of views were expressed as to the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council. Some noble Lords did not hold the view just expressed by the noble and learned Viscount. They said that, the effect of the clause as it stood was to make a member of the Privy Council who was a member of this Committee a member of it for life. The exactly contrary view was expressed by other noble Lords, who said that it would be in the power of the Prime Minister to nominate a different, Committee for every measure that came up for consideration, or that it would be in the power of a Prime Minister who held the views of the noble and learned Lord behind me, to remove all the members of the Committee and put in a Committee such as he could entirely trust; or that if Lord Salisbury came into office next year he might repeat the same process. It was because this conflict, of criticism disturbed the mind of the noble Lord that he put down this Amendment. The first Ecclesiastical Committee will be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Prime Minister for the time being. Every member would be appointed for ten years Members of the

855
Privy Council are not immortal, and vacancies will occur from time to time. Each vacancy will be filled up on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, but no man will hold office for more than ten years.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of a Bill which has been introduced by the Government in fulfilment of a definite pledge made to the electors during the last General Election. On several occasions in November and December last the Prime Minister stated that the improvement of our transport services, which he described as "an essential part of the problem of increased production," would be undertaken by the Government. In a general statement of policy which he made at the beginning of his election campaign in the Central Hall, Westminster, in November the Prime Minister included the subject which is
On Question, whether the words "the tenure of office to be for ten years" shall be here inserted—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 25.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Howe, E.

Glenconner, L.

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

Powis, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Selborne, E. [Teller.]

Islington, L.

Yarborough, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Argyll, D.

Lovat, L.

Northumberland, D.

Chaplin, V.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Wellington, D.

Devonport, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Esher, V. [Teller.]

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Camden, M.

Newton, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Liverpool, L. Bp.

Lincolnshire, M.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Annesley, L.

Shut, L.(V. Barrington.)

Salisbury, M.

Balfour, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Barrymore, L.

Sudeley, L.

Abingdon, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Sydenham, L.

Albemarle, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Terrington, L.

Brassey, E.

Erskine, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bradford, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Colebrooke, L.

Rathmore, L.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Eldon, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.) [Teller.]

Somerleyton, L.

Strafford, E.

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

Haldane, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Stanmore, L.

Armaghdale, L.

Farrer, L.

Tenterden, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Phillimore, L.

Weardale, L.

Atkinson, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Wittenham, L.

dealt with in this Bill among the questions "so much at the root of our national wellbeing and prosperity which we must face like patriots and not like partizans." I hope to show your Lordships this afternoon that in that spirit the Government have attempted to fulfil the pledge which was given at that time. The question of distribution is inseparably bound up with all the problems of reconstruction which face the country at the present moment. It has been placed in the forefront of the Government programme because without efficient transport none of the other items in our programme can be made successful.
I imagine that your Lordships will agree that the only thing which can save this country from the dangers that lie ahead of us—literally the only thing—is greatly increased production. I imagine that we shall all be agreed about that. But it is impossible to obtain full advantage of increased production unless you have efficient distribution at the same time. We have had a most dramatic object lesson in the last few years of the disaster which can overtake a country through the

857
failure of its distributing system. In Russia we have seen defeat at the hands of the enemy, revolution at home, and civil war, and all the chaos, confusion and anarchy which exist in that country to-day largely as the result of this particular failure. In all the other countries that have taken part in the war the distributing system has been strained to its utmost limit, and we have only escaped disasters similar to those which have overtaken Russia by the very narrowest margin. We are all suffering to-day from the effects of that strain, and I think it is true to say that the country which can first put its transport system in order and can do it most effectively will be the first country to recover from the war. Upon the success or failure of the policy which is embodied in this Bill depend the success of all our other schemes, the development of our trade and commerce, and the contentment and well-being of our people. The importance therefore of this Bill cannot well be exaggerated.
I would now ask your Lordships to consider for a moment the position of all these services upon which so much depends at the present moment. With regard to railways and canals, they both are dependent on State subsidies. As your Lordships are aware, the railway companies have been guaranteed by the Government their receipts of the year 1913. That guarantee has to be continued for two years. The State contribution which is involved in this guarantee is estimated in this year's Budget at £60,000,000. This deficit can only be made up by increase of rate charges and economies in working, but neither of these remedies is available to the companies under their existing powers to-day. Take the question of the raising of rates. Under normal procedure it would only be possible for the railway companies to obtain powers to increase their rates by the end of next year, and I am told that it would be five or six years before these increased rates would become finally operative. Your Lordships will notice that one of the clauses of this Bill—Clause 3, subsection (1), sub-clause (e) on page 5—deals with the question of the raising of rates. A provision is made that increase under the provisions of this Act shall continue in force for a period of eighteen months after the two years to which that power is limited. That is put in because the railway companies know that it will take them that
858
time to obtain the authority from Parliament to raise the rates themselves.
I might give your Lordships another illustration of the slowness of existing procedure on this point at the present time. In spite of special facilities which were introduced in a short Act passed at the beginning of 1913, an Act which removed some of the obstacles to obtaining Parliamentary powers to increase rates, a 4 per cent. increase imposed by the railway companies in that year is not at this moment fully operative. There are still many disputes not settled, still large sums outstanding. And it is the same thing with regard to economy. Nothing on a really large scale, nothing which could in any way place the railway companies once more on a paying footing could be undertaken without the powers given in this Bill.
Canals are in much the same position. The net receipts of railway-owned canals are, of course, guaranteed under the arrangement made with the railway companies, but in the case of other independent canals under the control of the Canal Control Committee the increased cost of all transport services in the last two years and at the same time the maintenance by the railway companies of their pre-war rates produced early in the year 1917 so serious a crisis that the Government found itself compelled to guarantee the 1913 receipts to those canal companies as well. That meant a subsidy of £410,558 in 1917. That amount was increased in 1918 to £676,014, a sum which was actually greater than the total net income of all these canals in the year 1905. And the estimate for this year of what is to be paid by way of compensation to canals and canal carriers amounts to £950,000, or just short of a million.
Docks and roads are not much better. Fifty per cent. of the existing docks are owned by railway companies, and these therefore also come under the arrangement made with the railway companies whereby their net receipts of 1913 are guaranteed. Of the remainder some have been authorised during the war to levy charges in excess of their maximum. But these powers will lapse with the Defence of the Realm Act. Others are at this moment obtaining, or have obtained from Parliament, powers to increase their charges, but this does not apply to some, including, for instance, the Port of London. And of all those dock

859
undertakings I think it is true to say that they must either obtain from Parliament a power to increase their rates, or they must look to the State for some assistance. And half of them, as I have already mentioned, are already subsidised.
The roads are in a somewhat different position, not being revenue earning, but, so far as their condition is concerned, they are no better. The roads have necessarily been starved during the war. No sums of money have been advanced for their improvement. Even at pre-war figures the maintenance of our roads in this country cost £20,000,000 a year out of rates and taxes. Owing to the starving of the roads during the war much larger sums will have to be spent in the next few years. A sum of £10,000,000 has been set aside in the Budget this Year, and many other large sums will have to be spent in order that the roads may be able to take their share in meeting the transport needs of the country.
Then, lastly, there is the very important coastwise service which has been absolutely destroyed during the war by the maintenance of the pre-war rates upon the railways. That traffic to-day is practically dead. This has created great congestion at our ports, enormously increased the transport difficulties generally, and produced the crisis with which the Government is trying to deal at the present time.
The position then is this, that at a time when quick, efficient methods of distribution are more necessary than they ever were in the history of the country, none of our existing transport services is able to give us what we require. All these services, as I have pointed out, are suffering from the war. The position really could not be worse than it is just now: At a time when energy and courage and enterprise are specially required, the existence of this State subsidy, this State guarantee, has removed all incentive to the exercise of those particular qualities. The crying need of this moment is for quick delivery of new plant, but the continuance of the State guarantee has acted as an inducement to the railway companies not to incur expense at this moment when prices are high, but to wait until the time when the period of the Government control is approaching its end and they have reasonable expectation that prices will have fallen.
I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the disastrous effect of this State subsidy on an undertaking like the railways, but the evil effect of it is remarkably illustrated by the attitude of the railway companies at this particular moment. It is admitted by everyone that the railway companies are unable to deal with anything like the traffic which they are called upon to handle at this moment. They are short of wagons. Sir Eric Geddes when he was speaking on the Third Reading of this Bill in the House of Commons estimated the shortage at 75,000. But, anyhow, there are 30,000 wagons which have been sent to France and have not returned. They are handicapped again by the absence of skilled men. Fifty per cent. of the railwaymen who enlisted are still with the Colours. Their rolling stock is below what it should be, and in consequence of all this traffic is congested. But because of the existence of this subsidy, instead of clamouring to the Board of Trade to give new plant, to provide them with the latest pattern of locomotives, the railway companies are more disposed at this moment to seek a way out of their difficulties by restricting traffic.
Now, that is the situation with which the Government is faced at the present moment This guarantee has to be continued. It is a legacy from the past which would fall upon any Government in power at this moment. What, then, are the alternatives? There really are only three possible alternatives: to continue the guarantee and do nothing, to continue to pour out public funds without getting any return in the way of increased efficiency; to nationalise the railways, and to start immediately a system of direct State control—a course which has been urged upon us from many quarters; and (the only other alternative) to set up some machinery of co-ordination and unified control such as is provided in this Bill—to take power, that is to say, to ensure the co-operation of all the services engaged in transport, in eliminating waste, improving their plant, and securing economy. The Government have chosen the third alternative; and I think it is incumbent upon any any who think we have made an unwise choice, who think that we should have acted differently, to show what they would have done in the situation which I have placed before your Lordships. You will see, therefore, that some measure on the lines of this Bill—I do not say this Bill in

861
all its clauses—was absolutely necessary. The situation with which we have to deal is of such gravity that it will not admit of any delay.
Let me now shortly run through the clauses of the Bill and explain to your Lordships what the Bill proposes to do to meet the situation. It establishes a Ministry to supervise all existing transport services and to work out a transport policy for the country as a whole. The Bill gives to this Ministry certain powers, some of which are of a temporary character lasting for only two years, and some of them are permanent; and in reading the Bill I would ask you to keep before you the distinction between those powers which are temporary and those which are permanent. Clause 1 establishes the Ministry, and. Clause 2 transfers to it all the powers of existing Government Departments in respect of the services set forth in pragraphs (a) to (f) on page 1. I have seen it stated, that this transfer of powers includes any temporary emergency powers which may be exercised by a Government Department under the Defence of the Realm Act. That is true only during the period under which the Defence of the Realm Act operates; but it is, of course, untrue that any power under the Defence of the Realm Act which may be transferred under this clause will continue after the Defence of the Realm Act has lapsed.
Clause 3 is the most important clause which deals with the temporary powers of the Ministry. It is a long clause, subdivided into a great many subsections, but the effect of it is to define the powers which will be exercised by the Ministry during the next two years. Paragraph (a), on page 3 of the Bill, continues the control at present exercised by the Board of Trade through the Railway Executive, without the necessity of renewing a Warrant from the Secretary of State every week. Paragraph (b) gives power to the Ministry after one month's notice to establish control, or in the words used in the Bill, to "take possession" of any of the other railways not at present controlled—light railways, tramways not opened by local authorities, canals, and docks. The words "take possession" are adopted from the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, which is the Act under which the railways have been controlled during the war. It does not, of course, give to the Ministry any right to take physical possession. What it gives
862
to the Ministry is a right to take control and to exercise that control in the same way that the Government has taken control and exercised it over the railways during the war.
I would also point out to your Lordships that this clause makes no reference to roads. I doubt if that is fully understood. Roads come in only under Clause 2, which transfers to the Ministry all powers exercised by other Government Departments. I have here a circular which has been sent to me—I presume it has been sent also to other noble Lords—from the Automobile Association which makes certain very extraordinary statements with regard to the powers of this Bill in respect of roads. I find these two things stated. First—
"The Bill contains no definitions; therefore it remains within the power of the Ministry of Transport to control even the private gig, carriage, or motor-car. For example, the Minister will possess the power to control the transport of goods between certain points or in a certain district by railway or canal or road, thus making it a misdemeanour for the private motorist to carry or convey goods on his own vehicle."
Second, with regard to local authorities—
"It is necessary to paint out that local authorities will only retain control over such roads as the Ministry allocates them. They will be deprived of the administrative powers they have possessed for ages over all the highways inside their boundaries, and they will only deal with the Road Department on the question of the amount of the Government grant for which they may apply in relief of the rates or for special road improvement."
I can only say that from beginning to end there is not a clause in this Bill which justifies either of those two statements. The only way in which this Bill affects the roads in this country is to transfer to the Ministry, under Clause 2, the powers at present exercised by the Board of Trade and the Road Board, without alteration and without addition.
To continue my remarks on Clause 3. Paragraph. (c) gives a list of the kind of Orders which the Minister may exercise during the period of temporary occupation; they include all the powers that are referred to in sub-paragraphs (i) to (viii). All these are new powers not at present possessed by any Government Department, and they are all temporary—to be exercised for the period of only two years. The other clauses which confer powers upon the Ministry are Clauses 9, 12, and 16, and all these create permanent powers. Clause 9

863
authorises the Minister to establish and work new transport services by land or water, if he is satisfied that they cannot be worked by existing authorities, and subject to conditions. First, that Treasury sanction must be obtained to an estimate of the capital expenditure required to complete the whole undertaking; second, that the authority of Parliament must be obtained for a total capital expenditure exceeding £500,000 on any one service; and also to the acquisition of land compulsorily, or the breaking up of roads. Although that is in the nature of a permanent power, it is governed by subsection (4) which says that no new works may be commenecd after the period of two years without further sanction by Parliament.
Clause 12 gives power to the Minister to purchase privately-owned wagons on railways, the terms of the purchase to be submitted in a draft Order and approved by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Clause 16 gives power to the Minister to make grants or loans, with Treasury approval, for the construction, improvement, or maintenance of transport services covered by the Bill; and no advance exceeding £1,000,000 is to be made without the authority of the House of Commons. Those are the powers which are given in the Bill.
Let me say one word about the limitations, the safeguards, and modifications of those powers which are contained in other clauses. First let me draw your Lordships' attention to three Advisory Committees which are set up in the Bill. The first is an Advisory Committee on rates, which is provided for in subsection (3) paragraph (a) on page 6. This Committee is to consist of five persons—a lawyer, who will be the Chairman of the Committee, appointed by the Lord Chancellor; two representatives of the trading interest, to be appointed by the Board of Trade; one representative of transportation interests, to be appointed by the Minister; and one representative of labour interests to be appointed by the Minister of Labour—with an additional member, if necessary, to be nominated by the Minister. This Committee is to consider all questions dealing with alterations in rates, tolls, or charges. Before any alteration of that kind is made the Minister has to consult the Committee, and they must hold an inquiry and take evidence from any persons likely to be affected by such alterations—
864
that is to say, if the alteration is in the nature of an increase.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the Bill say "must"?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The Minister has to consult the Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is the Committee compelled to take evidence?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The Committee, before reporting or advising shall, unless they in their discretion consider it unnecessary, enquire into the matter, and any persons affected may make representations to the Committee. If there is to be an increase of rates, before that increase takes place there must be an inquiry, when anybody affected by it may give evidence of the manlier in which they will be affected. Clause 20 sets up a Committee to advise in matters connected with roads. There are to be five representatives of highway authorities and five representatives of road users, who will give advice to the Minister generally upon all matters connected with roads. In Clause 21 there is a general Advisory Panel of experts representing all the services that will be affected by this Bill—trading and labour interests and local authorities. The Minister is to consult a Committee of this Panel before exercising any of the powers conferred upon him by Clause 3 (1) (b)—that is to say, before taking possession of any undertaking against the will of the owners of the undertaking, or before starting any new transport services himself. So much, my Lords, for those three Committees.
Then I would like to call your Lordships' attention to Clause 4, which provides a safeguard for statutory harbour and dock companies. This clause says that the Minister shall not take possession, without their consent, of any of these statutory undertakings; but he may give orders to them for improvements and extensions to their docks which he considers to be in the national interest. The owners of the undertaking, however, if they consider that such orders are seriously injurious to their interests, may appeal, in the case of England and Ireland, to the Lord Chief Justice, and in the case of Scotland to the Lord President of the Court of Session. If the Lord Chief Justice or the Lord President

865
considers they have made out a prima facie case of serious injury, he may appoint an arbitrator to go into the matter to decide between them and the Minister.
Lastly, I want to say one word about Clause 8, which is a compensation clause. This clause provides for a revision at the end of the period of two years of all the undertakings on the basis of their revenue-earning capacity. If at the time this revision is made it is found that their, value on this basis has either increased or diminished by the action of the Minister, by the exercising of powers given to him in this Bill during the two years—then the owners are either to pay for the increased value so created, or will be compensated for the diminished value by such sum as the Railway and Canal Commissioners may determine.
Without going into details which can be better dealt with in Committee, such are the main provisions of the Bill. The fundamental principle running through the whole Bill, the principle which I ask your Lordships to accept to-day, is the necessity for the establishment of co-ordination and unified control, not merely of competing systems in one service, but of all the services engaged in transport matters in the country generally, so that during the next two years one aim, and one aim only, will be pursued by the Ministry—namely, the improvement of every branch of transport so as to secure the carrying of all goods from their source to their destination by the most direct, the most economical, and the most efficient means. This purpose can only be carried out if all the powers asked for in this Bill remain intact.
I have seen it argued in the Press that these powers are too wide—that they place too great a responsibility upon one Department. "Let the Minister confine himself to the railways," we are told. "He is a railway expert. Let him see what he can do with railways, about which he knows something, and then, if he is successful, it will be time enough for him to come to Parliament and ask for power to control other undertakings as well." That is the nature of the argument, and I have no doubt it will be made to your Lordships in this House. That argument, however, ignores the whole point and purpose of the Bill, which is not to improve the railway system, but to improve the whole transport system of the country. Not only can that purpose
866
not be carried out without the powers we ask for, but even the limited object of the improvement of the railways, with which our critics appear to be satisfied, cannot be carried out if the Minister is confined to the railways alone.
Let me explain how inter-dependent these various services are one upon the other, and what waste of energy and money occurs at the present moment by the competition which exists between them. Take first the case of railways and docks. More than half the total traffic of the railways of this country passes through a port either by way of export or import. Sixty-one per cent. of the total freight traffic consists of coal, and one-third of this coal traffic passes through a port to be shipped either coastwise or to some foreign country. It will be seen how important is the provision at the docks of the latest and most up-to-date appliances for dealing with railway wagons, and also how important it is for smooth working to ensure the closest possible co-operation between the railways and the dock companies. That co-operation to-day only exists in docks which are railway-owned. Where the docks and the railways are under separate management it is impossible for the dock companies to know all that is necessary in order to deal with this shipment traffic. But in the non-railway-owned docks the appliances in general use can only deal with comparatively small wagons—wagons, that is to say, carrying from 8 tons to 12 tons of coal. There would be a great advantage and a great economy if the size of the wagons could be increased. Using the same wheel base there would be a great improvement in the paying load. But to improve the appliances is not to the direct advantage of the dock companies, and, therefore, the improved appliances are not provided and the wasteful system continues. I could multiply instances to show how inter-dependent the various services are on each other and how impossible it is to secure economy or improvement without co-operation between them, but I do not want to waste the time of the House by giving further illustrations. All I want to emphasise at this moment is that the policy of the Government is not to improve any one particular service, but to provide that each form of transportation secures, and is able to deal with, the traffic best suited for its particular equipment.

867
If any of your Lordships think that the pursuit of this policy, and the enforcement of it, will necessitate placing upon one Minister too large powers and that this Bill is unprecedented in that respect—and I have seen it stated in the Press, and, I believe, argued in the House of Commons, that in no country in the world are powers equal to these given in this Bill entrusted to any one Government Department—it may interest your Lordships to know that precisely the powers which are given to the new Ministry under the Bill are to-day being exercised by a Government Department in France. The Minister of Public Works in France is now also Minister for Transportation. This has taken place since the war and as a result of the same experience which faces us. To the Ministry of Public Works has been given the control of railways, docks, canals, roads and electricity. That Minister will have the same powers as are asked for in this Bill and he will pursue precisely the same policy. During the war we have learned much from France in the sphere of military operations. We have experienced the same difficulties. We have endeavoured to overcome them together. During the war we have watched each other, we have helped each other, we have learned from each other. Surely now that the war is over there is no less cause than there was then for each country to learn what it can from the other. We have the same difficulties to face. We have to deal with them in the same way and, if your Lordships feel that there is anything unprecedented in the demands we are making on Parliament, let me remind your Lordships that this Bill has its exact counterpart with our Allies in France to-day.
Now I come to the Motion which has been placed on the Order Paper by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Buckmaster). The noble and learned Lord asks your Lordships to make your acceptance of this Bill conditional upon three things—first, upon a statement by the Government of their policy with regard to the nationalisation of railways; secondly, upon our providing information with regard to the financial obligations imposed by the Bill; and, thirdly, upon an explanation of the measures proposed to meet those obligations. My answer to the first part of the noble and learned Lord's Motion is that the policy of the Government to-day is embodied in this Bill. I have already explained to your Lordships that the
868
present situation cannot continue. Efficient distribution is absolutely necessary, but neither increased production nor efficient reconstruction of industry is possible without the co-ordination of our distributing system. All the transport undertakings at the present time are unable to give the service which is required of them. They must be improved, but, without unification such as we ask for, this improvement cannot take place. The State is committed already to a subsidy of £60,000,000 to the railways for this year and the increase in the price of coal (which I understand will come into operation to-day) will add another £5,000,000 a year to the railway bill. In addition to that there is the subsidy to the canals and the cost of roads to which I have already alluded.
Many people argue—and this argument is constantly forced on the Government—that in order that the State may reap some advantage from this huge State contribution, we should nationalise these undertakings and institute direct State management. I believe there are also many who hold that to do that would certainly add to the expense of administration—that State administration would be much more expensive than company administration. Those who oppose the policy of nationalisation have not, so far as I can judge, put forward any other alternative which the Government could accept for dealing with the situation. The decision of the Government is to be found in the provisions of this Bill. In our opinion this Bill is an alternative to nationalisation, and, moreover, it is the only alternative to nationalisation at the present moment. This Bill does not seek to substitute State management for private management. We do not say that in our opinion the State can manage more efficiently or more economically a railway, or a canal, or a dock, than can a railway or a canal company. What we do say in this Bill is that the State requires, in return for the financial assistance which it gives to these undertakings, that the companies shall subordinate their private and local interests to the transport interests of the country generally. In the Bill we provide machinery to enable them to do this. We give power to secure co-operation and to effect economy in these various services.
Therefore, if the noble and learned Lord asks me what our policy is to-day in the matter of nationalising the railways, my answer is that our policy is contained in this Bill. If, however, he wants to know what

869
our policy on the question of nationalisation will be in two years' time, then I think he is making rather an unreasonable request. We hope in those two years, partly by an increase of rates and partly by economies in working, to place these services once more on a paying footing. I cannot say, no one can say, what the result of this experiment may be. It will be for the Government and for the Parliament of that time to determine what kind of arrangement shall permanently take the place of this temporary provision. All I can say, and this I do say to your Lordships, is that during the next two years the powers contained in this Bill, if your Lordships pass it into law, will be honestly and impartially exercised by the new Ministry fore the improvement of all services, and without any bias one way or the other in favour, or against, any future solution for the treatment of the question.
I come now to the other part of the noble and learned Lord's Motion—the financial obligations imposed by the Bill. The noble and learned Lord wants to know to what expenditure we shall be committed if we pass this Bill. In the first place, let me remind your Lordships that the Bill itself does not commit us to any expenditure beyond what Parliament may sanction in any year. It is obvious, of course, but I do not think it is always understood, that the cost of the administration of the Bill will be set forth in the annual Estimates. The cost of purchasing privately-owned railway wagons must be submitted to Parliament and provided by Parliament in a Resolution authorising the terms and conditions of purchase. Again, any new service which the Minister may start, or any advance which he may make to existing services, must obtain special Parliamentary authority if the expenditure exceeds £500,000 in one case, or £1,000,000 in the other. But all other expenditure, whether it is above or below these limits, which may be undertaken by the Ministry must be submitted to Parliament in the ordinary way in the annual Estimates, and receive Parliamentary sanction before the money can be spent. I think that is obvious, but it is not always remembered.
But apart from this fact the terms of the Motion implies, I think, a mistaken conception of the policy and objects of the Bill. It seems to me to suggest that this Bill is only a new form of Government extravagance, and asks for some estimate of the
870
amount which may be spent. If I thought that this Bill only afforded new opportunities for a Government Department to spend money, to dispense Government patronage, to undertake vast new services, however desirable or necessary, I should not be standing at this Table and recommending it to your Lordships. I do defend this Bill conscientiously and enthusiastically only because, in my opinion, the provisions of the Bill will not only enable the Minister to improve our services, but will enable him (and I can see no other way of doing it) to effect considerable economies in the working of these services to-day, and by that means to diminish very considerably the financial burden which otherwise must fall upon this country during the next two years, either as tax payers if the present system continues, or as traffic users if the whole cost of the present State subsidy were to be transferred on to traffic users in the way of increased rates and charges.
The opportunities for spending money in this Bill are apparent, but the opportunities for saving it are not quite so obvious, and therefore, very briefly, I would like to touch upon the economies which will become possible if the powers asked for in this Bill are retained intact. Take, first of all, the acquisition of privately-owned wagons. During the war the "common user." of wagons owned by different railway companies has already effected am enormous saving in empty wagon mileage. I am told that in the case of one company alone the saving has been 34 per cent. or 35 million of empty wagon miles. That is by instituting the "common user" of wagons owned by different companies. That will go on under this Bill, but the saving will be enormously increased if you can bring into that "common user" the wagons at present owned by private individuals. Privately-owned railway wagons are 50 per cent. of the total wagons in the country to-day, and if you can bring in that number it is estimated the saving will be £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 per year in shunting alone. There is also the question of the provision of larger wagons to which I have referred, and which can only be undertaken with the co-operation of the dock companies. That will increase the paying load of the trains and effect considerable economies in the length of sidings. There are the other possibilities of standardising plant and appliances, avoidance of delay and unnecessary detention of wagons, the climina

871
tion of useless competitive services. All these are economies, but they can only be effected if you have unified control.
Your Lordships perhaps may think that this is a mere idle dream, that we may hope to do these things, but even if we succeed the effect will be counter-balanced by the increased charges which the administration of the Bill will create. I would, therefore, like to defer your Lordships on this point to what was said in the House of Commons by General Sir Hunter Weston, who had experience of the effect of precisely this system when carried out by the same people in the sphere of our Armies in France. He said—
"One of the fears most generally expressed is that the Ministry of Ways and Communications will be very extravagant, and in support of this the statement is made that the administration of the Director-General of Transport in France had no thought of economy."
Then he said this, and these are the words to which I ask your attention—
"It is perhaps difficult for any one not conversant with the facts to appreciate the fallacy of this statement. It is true that the necessity for rapid action made a large immediate outlay necessary. But this outlay repaid itself even in pounds, shillings and pence before the end of the War, and the saving effected by it in men's lives was incalculable."
He goes on to give instances how those savings were effected. I will not read it, but your Lordships will find it in Hansard.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will the noble Earl give the date?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: On the Third Reading of the Bill, July 10. I quote these words to show that we are not basing these expectations on mere hopes, but that they are built on the sure foundation of actual experience of what was none under this system recently in France. I have only one word to say in conclusion with regard to another of my opponents who last week had a Motion on the Paper to reject this Bill. Lord Montague's Motion has disappeared from the Paper, and I understand he has now gone into partnership with the noble and learned Lord. But since his grounds of objection are different from those of Lord Buckmaster I would like to say one word about them. The noble Lord is interested in roads. He is a member of the Road Board, and I understand he objects to the transfer of the powers of that Board to the new Ministry. The noble Lord has expressed his views recently very freely
872
in the public Press, and therefore I am able to gather from his articles the nature of his objections. The burden of the noble Lord's argument in these articles is somewhat as follows: the roads and railways are necessarily competing services; the new Ministry will be dominated by a railway interest and therefore the interest of the road users must necessarily suffer; this Ministry will be under the control of a great super-Boss, whose lust for power will compel him to get the roads of this country into his clutches, and when he has got them there lie will strangle them in order that the railways may be made to pay. That is the burden of the articles which the noble Lord has contributed to the Press.
It is all very shocking to those who only know this Bill through the speeches or articles of the noble Lord, but I venture to say it is a most fantastic conception of the policy of the Government or the provisions of the Bill. I have already pointed out to your Lordships the kind of inaccuracies which have been stated, with regard to this Bill, about roads, and based upon such inaccurate statements the noble Lord has pleaded that the roads should be taken out of this Bill. He will no doubt urge the same course upon your Lordships this afternoon. If he is successful he will create exactly the sort of mischief which he fears at the present time. Just imagine what the position of the roads would be if they were left under the control of the Road Board, which has no Minister to represent it in Parliament, and all the other transport interests were placed under the control of this super-Boss. There would be a competition in which the roads would have no chance whatever.
For the purpose of argument I will assume for a monent that the picture which has drawn of the character and objects of the Minister is accurate. How would he act if the noble Lord secures what he wants?—if he is deprived of all responsibility in respect of the repair or upkeep of roads. If he finds, as he will at this moment, that his railway system is congested, he can authorise the companies to start a service of motor omnibuses to relieve it, he can use the roads as much as he pleases, and inflict any amount of damage upon them, and put the local authorities to enormous expense, and yet he would have no power to contribute anything towards the cost of repairs. My Lords, the position at this moment is not so much a question of putting fresh traffic upon the railways as of easing

873
the traffic and getting rid of the present congestion. What would be the position if the Minister were called upon, as probably he will be, by some public Department or local authority to give a new service—perhaps for the improvement of housing or of agriculture. The Minister might know that the service could best be rendered by making a new road. He might feel that the traffic was of a seasonal character, best dealt with by a road, but having no powers over roads at all he would be compelled to lay down a light railway, and thus be forced to an extravagant, unwise and uneconomical arrangement, because he has no power of dealing with the problem in the best way.
My Lords, this talk about roads and railways, about competing services and rival interests, is very small, very petty, when we consider the magnitude of the issues involved. We have been thinking for too long in terms of roads and railways, and it is that which has brought us to the present position. If we are to survive, and if we are to recover from the position in which we have been placed by the war, we must accustom ourselves to think in terms of movement. Everything that moves or can carry, either upon the roads, the rail or by water, must be brought in and made to contribute to the solution of the difficulty. The country is to-day exhausted after four years of war. What it needs is food. Not merely food to eat but food for manufactures in the nature of raw material, plant and labour. Again, the country is impoverished. What it wants is wealth. Wealth means the products of industries, and these in turn have got to be conveyed by the quickest way to all the markets of the world. All this -means movement, and that is the need of the moment—the most efficient., rapid and constant movement—and it is because this Bill will go a long way to supply that that I recommend it in all sincerity and with perfect confidence to the favourable consideration of your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
LORD BUCKMASTER had given notice, on the Order for the Second. Reading being read, to move to resolve—
That this House declines to proceed with the Second Reading of this Bill until the Government has stated its
874
policy with regard to the nationalisation of the railways, and has furnished further information with regard to the extent of the financial obligations imposed by the Bill and the measures it is proposed to adopt by which those obligations can be met.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if the success of this measure depended solely upon the skill and lucidity with which the noble Earl has explained its terms, its popularity would be assured, but in fact there are difficult and ugly questions that lie behind this proposal which no amount of persuasion can take away. In truth the whole structure of this Bill rests upon disputed territory. It is an attempt to place not merely existing transport, but the entire development of the transport industry of this country, for a period of two years at least, under Government control. It is not merely that it is an attempt to enable the Government, by the further continuance of its control over the railways, to extricate itself from the loss and difficulties which that control has occasioned, but it is co enable the Govern-merit, and the Government alone, to direct during the continuance of this measure every additional means that may be devised for the purpose of improving the transport, of this country.
I think the fundamental fallacy that underlay the whole of the noble Earl's argument was this, that he assumed that unity of control was in itself a sufficient explanation and justification of this measure; but, my Lords, the whole thing depends upon by whom that unity of control is to be exercised. In fact, why I say this Bill rests upon disputed territory is that it is impossible to escape from the conclusion, that the passage of this measure is the concession of one of the most important outposts in the struggle that is bound to take place between private and national ownership of the means of wealth. 'That is a struggle upon which we have got to make up our minds, and the sooner we face it the better. I do not agree with the noble Earl when he says that during the limited period for which this Bill operates it does not provide for nationalisation. It provides for nationalisation in everything except in the one thing of paying for the undertakings which are taken over. What greater powers could be possessed, if these railways were absolutely owned by the State, than the power which is given by

875
Clause 3, subsection 1 (c), which enacts that "the directors and other persons concerned with the management, and officers and servants of any undertaking" are to obey "the directions of the Minister … in relation to any undertaking or part or plant thereof of which possession is re-tamed or taken" in certain respects which together cover the whole area of management. There will be nothing upon which independent action can be exercised, if this measure be passed, in connection with any one of the undertakings which the Government control. Apart from the mere question of the payment for the undertaking that is taken over during the period of this Bill, nationalisation is complete.
But it is not merely that. The Government have power to direct all further extensions, and they have power of the most extensive character to establish and work transport services by land and water, and acquire land, etc. I gather that that is the power which is not limited by the two years to which the noble Earl refers. The noble Earl pointed out that there were two parts of the Bill, one of which was temporary and the other permanent, but he did not explain, what I was anxious to hear, what the permanent part was. I imagine that it is under Section 9. The Government have established permanently transport services by land and water, and I imagine that they have established there for the purpose of knitting them into the whole system of railways which they are going to control. How, after the lapse of two years, are you going to disentangle them? How will it be possible for the Ministry to continue to work the transport services under Section 9 without also having the power of continuing to work the other transport services that they have obtained under the earlier section of the Bill?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: May I explain. Any service started during this two years will of course be continued after that period ceases, but there is provision that no new service may be commenced without the authority of Parliament after two years.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That is exactly what I am saying. It is the next two years when this development of the transport service is most essential, and you are going to introduce into what he says ought to be one whole and co-ordinated system of transport a series of new lines and new services which, at the expiration of the
876
two years, are permanently to remain in the hands of the Government for the Government to work, and it is assumed that you can hand over the balance back again to the individuals from whom they have been acquired. I submit it is impossible. I submit that this Bill in its effect and operation is a step along the road towards nationalisation of the whole of the transport services in this country. I cannot accept what the noble Earl says that the whole policy is contained in this Bill, and we must wait for two years to see what their policy will be. It is not I submit open to the Government to take that view, because a responsible Minister of the Crown at the time of the election said in plain language that the policy of the Government was to nationalise the railways, and although on a former debate I asked three times as to whether or not that statement was made with the authority of the Government, up to this time I have never received an answer. But the time has surely come when that answer has to be given, when we should know whether that statement was an utterly irresponsible one which had no authority whatever behind it, or whether it did in fact express the complete and considered policy of His Majesty's Government. This is to my mind the outpost in the whole controversy between nationalisation and individual ownership. It is a point upon which it is essential that we should make up our minds and act.
I saw in a paper yesterday that the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, bad expressed himself in terms that he regarded this scheme of nationalisation as part of a class war. I trust the noble Duke will forgive me if I say that I regret the expression. To make such a statement is to my mind at once to confuse the real issue, and to taint the justice of the decision of this House. It is not a question as between class interest. It is a question which involves the clash of economic theories, and the question is whether the economic theory of individual ownership is to hold its ground against the theory of national ownership which is being so ardently urged. Both policies I believe seek the same end. I am opposed to nationalisation because I believe nationalisation will prove nothing but a curse to the poorer people of this country. I believe it will diminish the one thing that is essential if the condition of industrial people is to be maintained and even improved. It will diminish the production of the commodities

877
necessary for the support of life, on the abundant development of which alone we Call make the condition of the lot of the people of this country easier than it has been before.
Our objection as between individual and national ownership is upon these grounds: I and people who think with me believe that no success can be obtained in industries except by incessant and unsparing effort, and in order that it may be achieved men cannot work—I am not speaking of people engaged in industry; I mean the people at the head—limited hours, and they cannot be content with limited salaries. The real incentive to effort is the spur of ambition, the hope of reward, the fear of failure. And it is because these are lacking in Government control that sooner or later every Government Department that undertakes any great industry—though it be manned by men of great intelligence and Men whose integrity is higher than that of any civil servant in the world—becomes the home of waste and the grave of enterprise. Therefore I think we are entitled to know something more than the noble Earl has told us with regard to this question of nationalisation. We want to know whether the Government is at this time seriously contemplating that they are going to cut loose, at the end of this Bill, the new branches and services that they develop, and hand back the others to the people from whom they have taken them, and continue to work under Government control this mutilated and amputated fraction of a great whole?
That leads me—for I do not propose at this time to examine in detail the measures of this Bill—to the second question in the Motion that I have put down in my name. We surely ought to know to what it is that this Bill is going to commit us. It is going to commit this country to the expenditure that is required for such alteration and such extension as the head of this Department may believe to be necessary for the purpose of properly developing the transport industry. The limit of that no man can fix. I have seen it stated at £60,000,000. It is perfectly true that there are these limits imposed, that individual efforts cannot exceed £500,000 or £1,000,000 without the sanction of Parliament. But when that expenditure has been incurred and a Minister comes down to the House of Commons and says, "I have already begun this; it is absolutely
878
essential we must carry it on," he will use exactly the same argument that the noble Earl has been using here to-day, and saying that further money must be provided or the money already spent will be irretrievably lost. It is quite plain that the limit imposed will soon be exceeded, and that we shall find that we are face to face with an expenditure far greater than that which we contemplated.
The noble Earl has asked what is the alternative policy, and has said that we must produce one. I do not conceive that we are bound to produce any alternative policy at all, but I here is an alternative, and that is that tae Government should continue the control that already exists of the undertakings that are in their hands until they have cleared them up. And, when they say that in the course of that control we have incurred heavy liabilities, that in itself is no reason why they should have powers to obtain further control in order to minimise the loss which they have already incurred en those undertakings that are under their power.
The final part of the Motion which stanch, in my name is, I think, by far the most serious. I want to know if this measure is going to cost us £20,000,000, £30,000,000, £40,000,000 or £50,000,000, and—whatever it may be—how the Government proposes to raise the money. It is a matter of immense consequence, and I trust your Lordships will allow me to lay before you what appears to me at this time to be the true financial position of this country. There is no longer any reason why people should hesitate to speak about it. I have always thought that skeletons are only terrifying objects when you hide them in cupboards, and if you bring them out into the open day they cease to horrify. And if anything that I say is wrong no one would be better pleased than myself to have it corrected, but, if the view that I take of our present financial position be right, it is then incumbent upon the Government without delay to take steps to regulate our expenditure so that it does not exceed the amount that, with every reasonable and just expectation, we may hope to realise from the revenue of this country.
Let us deal for a moment with the expenditure to which we are bound—and I am only going to deal with main items and big things. There is no doubt that the interest on our Debt at the present moment,

879
as provided for by the Budget itself, is £376,000,000. I do not know whether that includes the interest on the loans which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has raised and proposes to raise during these twelve months, but I do not think I shall be exceeding the mark if I say that, when you have established a sinking fund and have raised the money that is necessary under this year's Budget, £400,000,000 a year will be the amount that we shall be compelled to provide in order to cover the interest and the sinking fund on the standing and irreducible charges to which we are committed.
Let us now turn to the next expenditure. I believe that every member of your Lordships' House will agree with me that next after that, and before anything else, comes the pensions which we have to provide for the wives and families of the men who have sacrificed themselves in our defence during the war. It is entered in the Budget at £70,000,000. I think myself that will prove to be inadequate. I do not believe that we shall be able to discharge the duty we owe for that sum. Because it is incumbent upon us to see that no man who has been crippled or suffered in this struggle can ever hereafter be brought before us a reproach owing to the neglect of the nation to secure him against the difficulties and disadvantages in which he will stand. I do not think £70,000,000 will be adequate, but I will take £70,000,000 as the figure.
There is, then, £35,000,000 for education, which cannot possibly be reduced. There follows on that £17,000,000 for old-age pensions, and £13,000,000 for industrial insurance—and no one of these figures can be reduced. I think your Lordships will find that this amounts to £143,000,000 on the Civil List. And I have hardly begun to touch expenditure yet. Added on to that you have to face this, that the Housing Bill, which provides for the erection of one million houses, must be considered as a Bill under which we shall incur an annual liability of not less than £20,000,000 a year. I have put it at the lowest figure, but I am quite satisfied that, taking them all round, each house that is built under this scheme will cost the State an annual expenditure of £20—that is, the difference bet weep the amount that you will have to pay on the money for building each house and the amount that you will be able to obtain from the person who occupies it. I
880
think that is an under-estimate. I say nothing about the essential need of it; it it absolutely essential that we should take steps without delay to re-house our people; but we are going to incur an expenditure of £20,000,000 a for the purpose. That makes £163,000,000 on your Civil List. The present loss on the railways, the noble Earl tells us, is £60,000,000 a year. It. may be more, but at any rate there is an obligation of £50,000,000 that we have got to meet. That would make roughly £210,000,000.
I have not touched the expenses of any single one of the innumerable Government Departments, except Education, and it is impossible to estimate what their expenses will run up to. They are all lumped together in the Budget under a lump sum. I suppose, if you take the total expenditure, knowing how these Ministries multiply and how difficult it is to get rid of the ones whose functions have been fulfilled, it would not be excessive to take £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 for that, thus making £250,000,000 as the amount of your Civil Estimates which are irreducible—that is to say, an estimate which is not merely with us to-day, not merely the temporary legacy of the war, but the permanent burden that we have to meet. That is £650,000,000.
And now there remains the Army, the Navy and the Air Service. I cannot credit the statement that has been made in the papers that an American general has assured a Committee of Congress of the United States that there has been an arrangement that we shall keep up our forces at four times the established strength that they were before the war. I cannot credit that; it seems to me to be beyond belief. It ought at least to be denied, for it has been made apparently with authority. I disregard it. Our expenditure on our Forces before the war altogether amounted' to very nearly £100,000,000. Will any one say that our irreducible minimum can be put at less than £150,000,000 when everything is cut down? £150,000,000 added to the figures I have given will make a total net immovable figure of £800,000,000 a year that we will have to face.
And how are we going to meet it? The indirect taxation at the present rate is £237,000,000 a year. I doubt if any one will think that you can increase that, because, if you add to the prices, you will reduce the returns, and £237,000 000 a

881
year may be regarded as the fixed figure. Then conies £12,000,000 or so for stamps. You may take the amount of the two at £250,000,000. That leaves £550,000,000 which has to be raised annually by direct taxation. I do not ere how you distribute it is between excess profits tax and super-tax and income-tax (probably the excess profits tax will go) £550,000,000 has got to be produced. At the present; time 1d. in the £ income-tax produces £5,000,000 a year, and you will therefore have to have an income-tax, to meet that figure or its equivalent., of 9s. 2d. in tire £.
And that assumes that our industries remain thriving and flourishing—that the returns will remain elastic and high. It is only on that basis that 1d. in the £ produces your £5,000,000, and I think a person would be sanguine who would suggest that in tire near future it is going to produce more. Therefore at the present time if our finance were on a sound footing that would be the amount that would have to be levied in some form or another on the income of this country to meet the expenditure which I have mentioned and which does not touch anything under this Bill, nor any of the undertakings to which the Government appears to be committed.
Then it may be said, "But this is a concern for which we shall have to borrow; capital expenditure is necessary, therefore it permissible to borrow it on capital account." Are you going to borrow the money? We have just had a very large Loan extensively advertised. I cannot say that the forms of the advertisements appealed to me. It did not seem to me that it was quite consistent with the dignity of this country to have placards on Government buildings, facing the members of the two Houses of 'Parliament, imploring to buy Victory Loan and "to follow Sam Butcher." It does not appear to me to show any great confidence in the resources of this country to advertise our loans with bands and banners, and all the, as I think, humiliating machinery of modern advertisement. But it was all used, and what is the result? £530,000,000 new money has been obtained, but that is £530,000,000 of the face value of the Loan subscribed for. If you reduce it by the 15 per cent. you will get £150,000,000. Of that it is easy to compute that the banks provided £100,000,000, and I have heard competent authorities say—though I myself do not profess to be able
882
to test this figure—that the loans made by banks to customers to enable them to subscribe amount to nearly £100,000,000. No man can call that new money; that is simply transferring a liability from one pocket to another.
That leaves £230,000,000, or whatever it may be, as the new money raised by this loan. Do you think that in those circumstances you are going to be able to avail yourselves of the great resources of this country whenever you need for the purpose of financing these schemes? What is the explanation of why more money was not provided? I think tire explanation is perfectly plain; it is t hat no one in industry knows where he stands. People in industry have no idea as to what the next step is that the Government will take; they do not know where they stand with regard to Labour; they do not know where they stand with regard to Government control. The consequence is that at a moment when above everything else we want boldness of decision and enterprise in industry, industry halts and hesitates because it is uncertain as to what may be the next blow which will be dealt it. The old system of Party Government had many defects, but it had the outstanding merit that from the moment a Government was sent into power people in industry knew where they were. They might not like the policy of the Government, but at least they knew what it was, and, within certain limits, what was going to be done and how to accommodate and to adjust themselves accordingly. But at the present time no one knows where he stands. The people never know what the next measure to going to be, and they never know the extent to which a measure like this is going to interrupt and to cut across the old paths of business along which their industry has been conducted.
I saw it stated the other day that the Prime Minister had said that this war had taught him that economic laws could be violated with impunity. I will suggest to your Lordships three economic laws which have been violated, and you will know whether or not they have been violated with impunity. The first great economic law is—it is very obvious—that if you inflate your currency you inflate prices; if you add to the burden of your debt you adversely affect foreign exchanges; and the result of these two operations is to produce social and industrial unrest. I would like to know which of those economic

883
laws has been falsified by the circumstances as we know them to-day. Social and industrial unrest is round us wherever we turn. One of the reasons I believe to be that, as the Government has not stated in plain and unmistakable language what its policy is with regard to the nationalisation of the railways and with regard to the nationalisation of the mines, people engaged in those industries—mistakenly as I think—believe that they can obtain their desire by continual agitation and disturbance. If the Government policy were once made plain, either on the one side or on the other, people would know where they stood, and we should be able to reason this matter out and see what was the right and just conclusion to which to come.
I must say that the prospect I see around me does not fill me with great confidence or pleasure. You have merely to look at the newspapers every day to see that old estates, associated with the same family sometimes for many many years and lit up with their own history, are being broken to pieces under the auctioneer's hammer. You find that personal heirlooms, which though they are private property none the less have always been regarded by us all with national pride, are filling the salerooms and freighting all vessels on their outward voyages. Sometimes one thinks that it is not merely that the old order is passing away, it seems that it has already passed and that we are moving in the vortex rings of a new world. I am often accused of pessimism, but I am no pessimist. I believe that, given courage and resolute economy and some chance of introducing into our industrial life some of the glorious comradeship which we all knew in the war, it might vet be possible to rebuild this broken world in a better form than the world that has passed away. The true pessimists are not people who, like myself, are anxious to know what are the true limits of our financial capacities and how we are going to meet the burdens that are being put upon us; they are the people who will mortgage the future without knowing how the debt is going to be redeemed, who think that economic laws can be violated with impunity, and who think that the difficulty of to-day may be avoided without regard to the question of how much greater the difficulty may be in a few days to come.
I believe that in regard to this Bill, and in regard to all Bills that come before your
884
Lordships involving public expenditure, a very solemn responsibility is placed upon this House. We no longer have the power to deal with the Budget, but it rests with us so far as is possible to keep public finance under control by considering the extent to which we are pledging, I beg your Lordships to understand, not ourselves, not the members of this House but the people of this country, by such obligations as are placed upon them by this Bill. The importance of discharging that duty cannot, I think, be too strongly emphasised; because, unless some step is taken quickly to reduce both public and private extravagance, bankruptcy lies before this country, and behind bankruptcy treads revolution with swift, impatient feet.
Moved to resolve, That this House declines to proceed with the Second Reading of this Bill until the Government has stated its policy with regard to the nationalisation of the railways, and has furnished further information with regard to the extent of the financial obligations imposed by the Bill and the measures it is proposed to adopt by which these obligations can be met.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I am prepared to agree to the adjournment of this debate until Wednesday. I should like to move that the adjourned debate be taken first on Wednesday, in order to enable us to pursue the discussion throughout the greater part of that day. As regards the progress of the Bill, I hope if we sit at three o'clock on Wednesday, assuming the Motion I have made to be carried, we should then resume this discussion at that hour, and that noble Lords would be able to give us the Second Reading of the Bill in the course of that afternoon. It is for them to say whether they prefer to give it to us before dinner or after dinner, but I hope it will be a general understanding that we obtain the Second Reading on that date. I shall then ask your Lordships to take the Committee stage on Monday.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, so far as the resumed debate on Wednesday is concerned, I share the hope that it may be found possible to conclude the debate on the Second Reading on that day,

885
although I think your Lordships would all agree that it is but a short time to give to the discussion of matters of vast importance such as those which have just been dwelt upon by my noble and learned friend behind me. If, however, it is the general sense of the House that the debate can be concluded then, I should not think of raising objections.
As regards the taking of the Committee on Monday next, I think the noble Earl will agree that this is rather a short interval between the Second Reading and the Committee for a measure of this great importance. I do riot know how far it is the desire of noble Lords in all parts of the House to put down Amendments upon this very large and complicated Bill, but it may be taken for granted that some Amendments of serious moment will be moved, assuming the Bill to be carried on Second Reading, and if noble Lords could be given a little more time it would probably be welcome to your Lordships generally. I am not, however, in a position to speak for anything like the whole House on this particular point of Amendments, and therefore, I can merely appeal to the noble Earl to give a day or two more if he can.
LORD STRACHIE: Before the Leader of the House replies, may I ask the noble Earl, as I have a Motion on Wednesday in which the agriculturists of this country take great interest, whether when he puts down the Transport Bill for Monday in Committee, he also means to move the suspension of the Standing Order so as to give precedence to the Committee stage as well, or shall I be able to have my Motion on that day as the first Order?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: It is a little difficult to answer that question across the floor of the House. I should have endeavoured to see my noble friend behind the Chair had I been fortunate enough to find him, to ask his courtesy in postponing his Motion on Wednesday. I only made my Motion just now, because it is the last moment at which it can be made. I should not like to answer definitely with regard to Monday, but I will endeavour to suit the convenience of the noble Lord to the best of my ability.
As regards the appeal made by the Leader of the Opposition, may I say that I should be only too glad to secure to your Lordships' House a longer interval between the Second Reading and the Committee.
886
But really is the matter of as much importance as the noble Marquess appears to argue? After all, the material point is not the date at which the Second Reading is given to a Bill; the material point is the date at which the Bill is in the possession of the House. It does not seem to me to matter very much whether the Second Reading is taken to-night, to-morrow, or Wednesday, providing there is an interval in which noble Lords can be making up their minds as to the Amendments they desire to move—that is, the period from when the Bill is put into their hands to the period at which they are to take the Committee stage. As the Bill has been in print a day or two, I think your Lordships will be able in the week between now and Monday next to make Your arrangements in order to commence the Committee stage on that date.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl has dealt with the matter with so much courtesy that I feel we ought to try to do what we can to support him. I am very glad that he consented to allow the debate to stand over from now until Wednesday. I think, speaking for myself, that the arrangement under which he proposes to conclude the discussion on Wednesday is not unreasonable in the circumstances of the case, although, as the noble Marquess behind me has said it, does not give very much time for the Second Reading of the biggest Bill of this session, and probably the biggest Bill of the last twenty or thirty years.
When, however, the Bill reaches the Committee stage all we can do is to see whether we can manage to comply with the wish of the Leader of the House. He says it does not very much matter when the Committee stage is fixed after the Second Reading. I suppose he suggests that if noble Lords have made up their minds early in the proceedings on the Second Reading they will not alter them at all afterwards. I think my noble friend does not give much weight to the discussions on Second Reading in your Lordships' House. He seems to think that Amendments moved in Committee will be just the same whatever the course of the Second Reading. The eloquence of my noble friend and his colleagues may be such as to induce his friends not to move Amendments, or to move them rather differently. It is not possible to consider what Amendments will be moved in Committee until the Second Reading is con

887
cluded. Those are reasons which make it less easy than it would otherwise be to comply with my noble friend's request. It may be possible to take the Committee stage on Monday, but I doubt whether your Lordships will find it convenient to deal with so important a measure in Committee so soon after the Second Reading. We will, however, do what we can.
On Question, debate adjourned until Wednesday, and to have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day.

INTESTATE MOVEABLE SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order).
CITY OF LONDON POLICE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of July 17.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
London County Council (Money).
Birmingham Corporation.
Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders.
Commons Regulations (Coity Wallia) Provisional Order.
And also the Certificates that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders.
Gas and Water Provisional Order.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Lords following be proposed to the House as the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, viz.:

M. Linlithgow;

L. Kintore (E. Kintore);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

BOURNEMOUTH GAS AND WATER BILL.
The Kings consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
BRITISH AND CONTINENTAL BANK BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
STRETFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
The CHAIRMAN Of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 3rd instant and Tuesday last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS.
Petition for Bill.
Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.