Sitting of 28 July 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Rates) Bill [Lords]
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
Tramway Provisional Orders Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Falmouth Docks Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Pallin's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Stoney's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with out Amendment.
Nuneaton Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be road the third time.
Birmingham Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords], Clowes Settled Estates Bill [Lords] Leeds Corporation Bill,
[Lords], Pembroke Gas Bill [Lords], West Hartlepool Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    LONG-TERM CREDIT FACILITIES.
    Mr. GIDEON MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet concluded any arrangements for providing long-term credit facilities in European countries which are not in a position to pay at present by means of exports for essential imports; whether he is aware of the urgency of this question if the United Kingdom is to retain its good will in those countries and to foster its export trade; and whether he will state what stops it is proposed to take?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): Yes, Sir. I am fully aware of the urgency of re establishing British export trade to the countries which my lion. Friend has in mind. A scheme has bean prepared in consultation with banking and trading interests under which the Government will set up an office to provide sterling credits in approved class where it is found impossible to obtain sufficient facilities through the ordinary business channels. It is hoped that certain representatives of those interests which have already been consulted will be willing to assist the office in an advisory capacity. Full particulars of the scheme will be made public as soon as certain outstanding points of detail have been settled.
    Mr. MURRAY: Could the right hon. Gentleman say up to what extent it is proposed to assist this office; what amount of money is it proposed to set aside for the purpose?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Does my hon. Friend mean the amount, of money that will be actually lost, or money used from time to time?
    Mr. MURRAY: I mean the money that will be guaranteed—in the shape of a guarantee; for I suppose the scheme will take the form of a guarantee?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Not a State guarantee in the ordinary sense, but actually accepting the business which the banks, on account of political risks, cannot deal with?
    Captain W. BENN: Will the Estimate be laid before Parliament?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I think I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we shall not be able to compete in the export trade unless we can decrease the cost of production by increased production?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, Sir; I am very well aware of it.
    Mr. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the outstanding points to which he has referred are likely to be settled?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Yes; I had hoped that they would have been settled last week, hut there are still a couple of points out standing which, I hope, will be settled to-day or to-morrow, or, at all events, by Wednesday.
    Mr. MURRAY: If I put a question down for Thursday, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me an answer?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I hope so; but of course, the actual details of the scheme are far too long to give by way of question and answer here. Certainly the whole scheme will be considered.

    IMPORTS.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade under what Statute or Statutes embargoes are placed on imports other than munitions of war.
    Sir A. GEDDES: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I made to a similar question by the right hon. Member for South Molton on the 19th May, and of which I am sending him a copy.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is it the ease that in certain circumstances the prohibi-
    1786
    tions are being disregarded, and the Board of Trade are not instituting proceedings against offenders; and, if that is) so, does the Board of Trade think the provisions are ultra vires?
    Sir A. GEDDES: T have no knowledge of any disregard of the prohibitions; if my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular facts in mind and will communicate them to me I shall be grateful.
    Captain BENN: To what date beyond 1st September will the prohibitions be continued?
    Sir A. GEDDES: As the House; is aware, the interim policy on which we are working is limited in time to 1st September. Be fore any change is made there will be a statement in the House.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Sir JAMES CORYasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to declare the Government trade policy?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): As I stated on Wednesday last in reply to a supplementary question (arising out of a question by my hon. Friend the Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow), I hope that it will be possible to make a statement before the Recess.
    Mr. BETTERTON(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Hoard of Trade if he is aware that the purchasing of goods abroad for importation after 1st September is being checked by the fact that importers are afraid of more severe restrictions on imports, and if he is prepared to make some definite announcement as to the rate of importation that will be permitted after 1st September.
    Sir A. GEDDES: I am not yet in a position to state what import policy will be in operation after 1st September, but I am prepared now to give assurance (hat if restrictions are still in existence the permissible rate of importation of Articles now restricted will be no less between 1st September and the end of the year than it is at the present time.
    Mr. BETTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly bear in mind that those engaged in trade cannot postpone their

    1787
    operations until other people make up their minds. They cannot proceed only from day to day, as the Government appears to do.
    Sir A. GEDDES: The reply I just gave appears to me to help those who desire to make up their minds what their action is to be in the way of ordering goods in the next few weeks. I have stated that the amount allowed to be imported will be no less between 1st September and the end of the year than it is at present.
    Captain W. BENN: What is the reason for postponing the announcement of policy?
    Sir A. GEDDES: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better put that question to the Leader of the House.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Is it proposed to set up another advisory council to advise the Hoard of Trade as regards importations?
    Sir A. GEDDES: No Sir.
    Mr. TERRELL: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to reply that the Board of Trade will act entirely on their own responsibility and not consult; manufacturers and those who are interested in this question?
    Sir A. GEDDES: No. The hon. Member asked me whether we were going to set up another advisory body. I replied in the negative.
    Mr. TERRELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to reappoint the Council which has recently advised him in these matters, and which I understand is being dissolved?
    Sir A. GEDDES: No, we have an advisory body in connection with the Board of Trade but, as I have said in reply to more than one question to-day, it is anticipated that a definite announcement of trade policy will be made before the House rises.
    Mr. KILEY: Is the right hon. Gentle man prepared to announce whom the advisory committee consists of, so that the public may know?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I shall be quite pre pared to announce them. They have been announced more than once.
    Mr. CLYNES: Is any person on that advisory board qualified to advise on the effect of restriction on unemployment
    Sir A. GEDDES: That is a very wide subject, and it would be very difficult to define what qualifications a person should have to be able to give complete advice on that. There are several people on the Advisory Board who can give partial advice, but whether they cover the whole ground between them or not I am not in a position to say.
    Mr. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of consulting the electorate before they define their trade policy?

  RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

    CLEARING HOUSE SCHEME.
    Mr. RAPERasked the President of the Board of Trade (l) whether he is aware that the London Traffic Branch of the Board of Trade was established to examine into and report upon schemes for the betterment of London s traffic conditions; whether Mr. Gattie submitted his scheme to the then President of the Board of Trade and, on the recommendation of Sir William Preece, was sent to Sir Herbert Jekyll, chief of the London Traffic Branch of the Board of Trade; whether Sir Herbert Jekyll refused to examine into and report upon the said scheme; whether, at, the suggestion of Mr. Sydney Buxton (now Lord Buxton), President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Gattie again submitted his scheme to Sir William Mar wood, chief of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, whether Sir William Mar wood refused to examine into and report upon the said scheme;
    (2) whether, in view of the dissatisfaction which exists in wide commercial and scientific circles on account of the way in which the Gattie goods clearing house scheme has been dealt with by public Departments and various Select Committees during the past twelve years, and the important benefit to the community which will result if the claims of its promoters are substantiated, he will consider the urgent desirability of the Government, bringing to the notice of the Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry recently appointed the necessity of the utmost publicity being given to the Committee's pro-

    1789
    ceedings, and of Mr. Gattie being given facilities to call witnesses and, further, for the latter to be examined by counsel, in order to ensure the Gattie scheme receiving fair treatment on this occasion?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I do not think that any useful purpose whatever can be served by adverting to the past history of Mr. Gatties communications with the Board of Trade. The hon. Member's suggestions as to publicity and the procedure of the Committee of Inquiry have been conveyed to the chairman.
    Mr. RAPER: In view of the unsatisfactory reply of my right hon. Friend, I beg to give notice that I shall refer to the matter on the Adjournment of the House to-day.

    MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY (MANSFIELD WORKMEN).
    Mr. ATKEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Midland Railway Company have refused to issue to the workmen employed on the night shift by Messrs. Harwood, Cash and Company, Limited, of Mans field, Notts, weekly tickets from Notting ham to Mansfield, and that this refusal entails hardship upon these men, who are all demobilised soldiers living in Notting ham, and for whom no housing accommodation is available at Mansfield; and whether, seeing that, for day workers tickets are issued available to travel from Nottingham in the morning and returning in the evening, and in view of the fact that the refusal to issue weekly tickets not only presses hardly on the men affected, but prevents others being employed, the Railway Executive Committee propose to take any action to secure facilities for these workmen?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I am in communication with the railway company in this matter, and I will let the hon. Gentleman know the result.

    FLEET REVIEW IN THAMES.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any excursion trains were run to South end by the Midland Railway Company during the time the Fleet were in the Thames; and, if ho, will he state how many trains were supplied and what fares were charged to passengers?
    Sir A. GEDDES: The Midland Railway Company inform me that no excursion, trains were run on the occasion referred to, but that the ordinary trains were duplicated as necessary. Ordinary fares were charged.

    RACE MEETING TRAFFIC.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade what principal extra trains are provided for stations available for race meetings; whether the matter is decided by the Railway Executive Committee or by the particular railway company concerned; and, if the latter, whether they have to obtain the consent of the Railway Executive Committee or of the Government before they are permitted to supply the extra trains?
    Sir A. GEDDES: The matter is one for the individual companies, who, in providing extra trains for any purpose, have regard to other public requirements. The consent of the Railway Executive Committee is not required.

    MANCHESTER GOODS STATIONS (CONGESTION).
    Mr. HAILWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Manchester goods stations are congested with goods awaiting delivery, while teams belonging to local team owners are idle; and whether the Rail way Executive Committee will take steps to ensure that these available teams are used to assist in relieving the congestion?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I am fully aware of the circumstances in question, but I am making inquiries.
    Mr. BRIGGS: Will the right hon. Gentleman at the same time inquire why the goods are collected from the ware houses twice a week instead of daily? The warehouses are stored with goods.
    Mr. SUGDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give a reply immediately—this week?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I cannot, of course, give any undertaking as to that; there may be complicated investigations to make, but a reply shall be given as soon as possible. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, I am fully aware of the difficulties existing in Manchester, but it would do no good to transfer the congestion from the ware houses to the railway companies.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    MILLING TRADE.
    Mr. HURDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the scarcity of hay and other feeding-stuffs and whether, in order to increase the supplies of offals for next winter's feed and promote home employment in the milling trade, he will instruct the Wheat Com mission to increase the proportion of whole-grain imported and decrease that of flour?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): I have been asked to reply, and would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot on the 17th instant.

    SUGAR.
    SIR A. FELLasked how much sugar was imported into the United Kingdom in the year 1918; and how much of this was the produce of sugar cane, how much the produce of beetroot, and how much of palm or maize or other substances?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the statement referred to:
    The total quantities of sugar and glucose registered as imported into the United Kingdom during the year 1918 were as follows:

    Cwts.

    Refined

    431,027

    Unrefined Beet

    153,836

    Cane and other sorts

    25,528,146

    Total of sugar

    26,113,009

    Glucose:

    Solid

    208,038

    Liquid

    169,583

    It is not possible from the information at present available to say how much of the refined sugar imported was derived from beetroots and how much from sugar cane, or other sources.
    The "other sorts" of unrefined sugar consist mainly of maple sugar.
    Invert sugars, etc., are recorded as glucose.
    Sir A. FELL: Is it anticipated that there will be an increase in the production of beetroot sugar?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I do not quite follow what my hon. Friend means. Does he mean over last year or over pre-war years?
    Sir A. FELL: Yes, I think there is an. increase over last year, but we are still a long way below pre-war years.

    DRIED FRUIT.
    Sir ALFRED YEOasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the Dried Food Controller is by profession a barrister; that his advisory committee consists of members of the Dried Fruit Association, and that 50 per cent, of them are members of one and the same firm; that any advice given by large operators is vised and considered by this advisory committee; and that the advisory committee recommended, and such recommendation was acted upon, Greek gentlemen to act for the British Government to buy Greek currants, and that one of these buyers had his brother in Greece acting as a selling contractor?
    Mr. McCURDY:: The Assistant Secretary in charge of the Provisions and Miscellaneous Foods Division of the Ministry is a barrister who has rendered excellent administrative service during the War. The officer responsible, for the direct ad ministration of dried fruit supplies was a gentleman with wide experience of the trade. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. No firm is represented on this committee by more than one member. All suggestions are duly weighed from whatever quarter they may proceed. In 1917 a Commission consisting of four gentlemen was sent to Greece to purchase currants on behalf of the Minister of Food. The British Consul at Patras was appointed an additional member before the Commission reached Greece. One member of this Commission was a Greek subject, the remaining four being British subjects. A brother of the Greek subject, to whom T have referred, is a currant shipper in Greece, but the member of the Commission had no interest in the firm.
    Sir A. YEO: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the arrangements carried out as mentioned in this question mean £12 to £14 per ton to the consumer, which would be saved if they had people in the business who understood it?
    Mr. McCURDY: No, T am not aware of that. I should be glad to make inquiries,

    1793
    if my hon. Friend would furnish me with any information to substantiate the statement made in his question.
    Sir A. YEO: You can find that information in the City of London to-day in five minutes.
    Major HOWARD: Would the lion. Gentleman see that in future, in order to save misunderstanding, these committees sit in public and have their proceedings reported?
    Mr. McCURDY: No, Sir. I do not think it would be possible for me or any Minister to give an undertaking that the multifarious Departmental Committees constantly sitting from day to day to ad- vise Ministers upon matters, which are really minor matters, should be given publicity.
    Major HOWARD: Are we to under- stand that this hole-and-corner business, which was necessary during the War in order that information should not be conveyed to the enemy, is to continue during peace?

    JAM.
    Sir A. FELLasked the Minister of Food if the quality of jam made in this country is to be improved this year; if jam made from particular fruits without the admixture of vegetable or other substances is to be sold; and if the very good supplies of cherries, raspberries, goose- berries, and currants are now being made in to jam?
    Mr. McCURDY: It is proposed to eliminate from the schedule of varieties of jams certain mixtures, the manufacture of which was necessary last year owing to the failure of the fruit crop. The fruits referred to in the last part of the question are being bought so readily by the public for immediate consumption that the quantities being used for jam manufacture are below the average.
    Colonel YATE: Can the hon. Gentleman say of what those mixtures consisted?
    Mr. McCURDY: I should like notice of that.

  COAL SUPPLIES.

    GERMANY (REPORT ON NATIONALISATION).
    Major E. WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the report
    1794
    recently presented by a commission appointed in Germany to inquire into nationalisation of the coal-mining industry: whether copies of this report are available; and, if not, whether he will take steps to obtain it with a view to laying it as a Parliamentary Paper?
    Sir A. GEDDES: A translation of the majority and minority reports of the German Socialisation Commission was published in the Economic Supplement to the Review of the Foreign Press, dated the 26th March last, which may be purchased from the usual agents for the sale of Government publications.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Would my right hon. Gentleman send a copy of it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman whose question this is?
    Sir A. GEDDES: With pleasure.

    NEW PROPOSALS TO MINERS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the extra cost of getting coal involved in the new proposals to the miners was included in the recently imposed addition of 6s. per ton; and, if not, whether any further increase of price is contemplated?
    Sir A. GEDDES: The new proposals referred to are presumably those, relating to the adjustment of miners' piece-work rates. These rates will be increased by an amount which on the average will be that necessary to correspond to a 10 per cent, reduction in output. Tin's amount was taken into consideration in the recent addition of 6s. per ton to the price of coal.

    SIR ARTHUR DUCKHAM'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
    Brigadier-General COCKERILLasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government is giving or will give very careful consideration to the recommendations made by Sir Arthur Duckham in his Report of the 20th June, 1919, printed as No. 4 in Command Paper No. 210, as fulfilling the reasonable aspirations of labour, safeguarding the interests of the community, and so affording a preferable alternative to the nationalisation of the coal industry?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I have been asked to answer this question. Sir Arthur Duck-ham's proposals are receiving most careful consideration, as are the other

    1795
    proposals put forward in connection with the future of the coal-mining industry by other members of the Commission.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Is there any truth in the report that the Government have adopted the policy of nationalisation?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I need only refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Leader of the House a few minutes ago.

    REDUCED OUTPUT AND SHORTER HOURS.
    Brigadier-General COCKERILLasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is aware that on the 4th July, 1919, the President of the Board of Trade estimated that the reduction of output in the coal industry due to the reduction of working hours recommended by Mr. Justice San-key's Commission might well be more than 10 per cent.; and whether that estimate is accepted by His Majesty's Government;
    (2) whether it is the considered view of His Majesty's Government that whatever else may lead to a shortage in the output of coal the reduction of hours proposed in the Coal Mines Bill cannot, have that effect?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I have been asked to answer these questions. The Government have accepted Mr. Justice San keys estimate of a decrease in output of 10 per cent, in view of the reduction in hours. It is impossible to say at this date what the actual reduction will be.

    NATIONALISATION OF MINIS (REFERENDUM).
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government would be prepared to consider the taking of a referendum upon the subject of the nationalisation of coal?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that my hon. Friend's proposal is practicable.

    GERMANY (AMERICAN IMPORTS).
    Mr. RAPERasked the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that the United States of America are advancing money to Germany at certain rates of interest to enable the Germans to pay for sup plies of food and other materials which are being shipped to Germany from the United States?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): So far as I am aware, the United States Government has
    1796
    made no advances to Germany. I have no knowledge as to negotiations which may have taken place for private credits in the United States to finance exports to Germany.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to announce the policy of the Government in regard to the question of the nationalsation of the mining industry?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add any thing to what I have already said on this subject
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Have the Government, in fact, made up its mind on a policy on this question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As a matter of fact, when we have made up our mind we shall announce it to the House.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to announce it in plenty of time before the Recess to give the House an opportunity of discussing it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In the answer 1 previously gave I certainly contemplated there would be a discussion when our decision was announced.

  MINERS' STRIKE.

    STATEMENT BY MR. BONAR LAW.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the Leader of the House give us the latest information with regard to the coal settlement?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In Yorkshire there is practically no change. There has not been a resumption of work. No more pits are likely to be flooded within the next twenty-four hours, but five are in danger of flooding within the next few days if action is not taken. As regards other districts, I am glad to say in Lancashire and Cheshire miners are back to work through out the coalfield this morning. In Not tinghamshire the same is true with the exception of some pits in the Worksop area, which are under the Yorkshire Union. In Derbyshire the Miners' Council on Saturday accepted the Government agreement, and I am informed that work has with a few exceptions, been resumed. In the other coalfields the situation is normal except in Staffordshire, where the Cannock Chase miners are still out, owing to the action of the surfacemen.
    Mr. HOGGE: Has the right hon. Gentle men seen the rumour in the papers about the difficulty of the coal-owners and the miners' representatives getting into touch and is there any truth in that?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope not. There will be nothing to prevent a meeting between the miners and the men to carry out the agreement made by the Government on Friday.
    Captain O'GRADY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the report in the Press this morning that my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) indicates that this is a roundabout process? Someone has to take the step, either the Government or the employers or the miners' as sociation in Yorkshire. Having regard to these circumstances, will the Government themselves endeavour to bring about negotiations between the mine-owners and the Yorkshire miners?
    MR. BONAR LAW: Certainly. We should not allow any technical questions to interefere with trying to get back to work, but it must be obvious to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that having made an agreement with the Miners' Federation, we thought we had settled the dispute.
    Captain O'GRADY: Will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the fact that the miners in Yorkshire declare that the employers have broken off negotiations? The employers themselves, I think, disagree with that. Having regard to these circumstances, does not the right hon. Gentleman think some steps ought to be taken to bring the two bodies together to effect a settlement and a resumption of work?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked the question I had myself discussed this with my right hon. Friend, and we shall certainly do what we can not to allow the stoppage to continue for want of the people getting into touch.
    Lord R. CECIL: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of making a clear and impartial statement exactly what is the quarrel between the men and the mine-owners in Yorkshire?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is very complicated. I do not think it is a dispute which could be stated clearly in a few sentences, but I think now everyone understands it.

  PILOTAGE CERTIFICATES(ALIENS).
  Mr. MURCHISONasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether the Government will undertake to cancel all pilotage certificates held by aliens before August, 1914, for navigating rivers or harbours in this country and not to grant any further such certificates to aliens?
  Sir A. GEDDES: I am unable to give such an undertaking, having regard to the provisions of Section 24 of the Pilotage Act, 1913, and to our international relations with friendly countries. The number of such certificates now in force is very small—namely, twenty-four out of a total of some 2,500.
  Mr. MURCHISON: Is the right, hon. Gentleman aware that a very strong feeling exists in the minds of the officers of the Mercantile Marine on this subject?
  Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, I am well aware of that; but it is not possible to deal with these niceties as though they were of no account. We have entered into certain arrangements and agreements so far as they affect the men who already hold certificates, and they must be completed. But, as my hon. Friend doubtless knows, powers exist in regard to the issue of new certificates.
  Mr. STEWART: Arc these, powers being given now to alien pilots?
  Sir A. GEDDES: My hon. Friend knows, under the last Pilotage Act, power is vested in the Board of Trade and the Admiralty in regard to the issue of any new certificates.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY).
  Mr. CHADWICKasked in which countries does the law compel, now or at a future date, the equipment of the wire less telegraphy on trading vessels; and what is the lowest tonnage to which the law applies in each of these countries.?
  Sir A. GEDDES: Laws are in force in the United States and in the Argentine Republic requiring all merchant vessels carrying fifty or more persons to be fitted with wireless, irrespective of their tonnage. A similar requirement is contained in the International Convention on

  1799
  Safety of Life at Sea, and will be enforced in due course by the countries which have ratified that Convention, namely, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Sweden.
  Mr. CHADWICK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the law on this subject as it exists in Spain, Greece, and France?
  Sir A. GEDDES: No, Sir; I am not sure that I know the exact law in the countries to which my hon. Friend refers. We have information about the number carried, and our own position with regard to that.
  Mr. CHADWICK: Will the right hon. Gentleman postpone the consideration of the Report stage of the Wireless Telegraphy Bill until his Department has obtained information as to the law in other countries, and will he lay before the House a full statement of what other countries are doing in this respect?
  Sir A. GEDDES: If my hon. Friend will give me notice I will answer his question.

  HIGHLAND WATER-POWER.
  Dr. MURRAYasked whether the Government is demanding a royalty in connection with Highland water-power; and, if so, what authority the Government has for making the demand?
  Sir A. GEDDES: I presume that the hon. Member has in mind the case of the British Aluminium Company (Lochaber Water Power) Bill of last Session, in respect of which the Board of Trade agreed with the promoters that a royalty of two shillings per annum on the horse power developed should be paid to the State. A requirement of this character accorded with the usual practice of foreign countries in which concessions are granted on the development and utilisation for industrial purposes of the power latent in natural supplies.

  SLESWIG (EVACUATION).
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the evacuation of Sleswig by Ger man troops and officials as far as the
  1800
  Eider and the Schlei is not provided for in the Treaty of Peace with Germany, although this boundary was expressly mentioned in Section (xii) of the Allied reply to the German observations on the conditions of Peace (Cmd. 258)?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The evacuation as far as the Eider-Schlei line could not be demanded since Article 109 of the Treaty does not provide for it, the extent of the plebiscite zone having been modified at the last moment in accordance with the wishes of the Danish Government. The reply to the German observations had been drafted before this decision had been taken.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Did the Danish Government wish to waive the original condition not only with regard to a plebiscite but also with regard to evacuation? Is it not the case that there is a strong feeling that evacuation ought to lake place to a point further south than the plebiscite in order to prevent un due German influence in those areas?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. Gentle man will see that the alteration has taken place entirely in accordance with the wishes of the Danish Government.

  RUSSIA.

    GENERALS KOLTCHAK AND DENIKIN (FINANCIAL SUPPORT).
    Mr. RAPERasked whether or not 320,000,000 roubles was paid in gold by the Bolsheviks to Germany under the Brest-Litovsk Treaty; whether this gold was subsequently deposited in the Bank of France for account of the Allies; and if, now that General Koltchak has been recognised by the Allies, a certain amount of this money will be placed at the disposal of Generals Koltchak and Denikin to enable them to purchase necessary supplies?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Since my hon. Friend asked a question on this subject on 16th July, I have made inquiries in Paris, and I am now in a position to answer the first and second parts of the present question in the affirmative. It is incorrect to describe Admiral Koltchaks Government

    1801
    as having been formally recognised by the Allies, and the answer to the third part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. RAPER: Is it not a fact that General Koltchak is recognised by the Allies?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. Friend knows that the word "recognition" has a certain technical meaning. I cannot go into that matter now.

    BRITISH FORCES IN NORTH RUSSIA.
    Sir DONALD MACLEAasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement with regard to the position of the British forces in North Russia.?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that the subject is to be raised in Debate to-morrow, and that will be a better opportunity than the answer to a question for a statement on the part of the Government.
    Captain W. BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman wee that an Estimate of our expenses in Russia is issued in time for the Debate tomorrow?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is quite impossible for such a statement to be prepared.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the Secretary for War start the Debate to-morrow?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I thought I would first hear some of the criticisms.
    Mr. HOGGE: If the Prime Minister says to-morrow affords a better opportunity of making the statement, can we have it before the Debate commences?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The policy of the Government has already been very clearly stated on the subject.
    Lord R. CECIL: Cannot some information as to the amount of assistance given to General Denikin be afforded to the House before it meets to-morrow?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it would be possible. My Noble Friend will know that the House has already been in-formed of the exact scope of what we arc doing in Russia. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Yes, it has, but any further details that can be given shall be supplied to-morrow. I trust that, so far as North Russia is concerned, the House will extend the same indulgence to the military operations there as it has done in other cases where operations have been in progress.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Bullitt and his companions have gone on another mission to Bolshevik Russia?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have more that once stated that we have nothing to do with these men, and know nothing about them.
    Captain W. BENN: If not by to-morrow, can we later on have some estimate of the cost of our operations in Russia?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon, Friend has, I think, promised it, but to extract the accounts is a matter of very considerable difficulty.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two Americans mentioned have nothing to do with the United States Government?

  BLACKPOLE CARTRIDGE FACTORY (DISCHARGES).
  Mr. J. DAVISONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he is aware of the numerous discharges taking place at the Government cartridge factory, No. 3, Blackpole; whether he is aware that many of the men employed at this factory came from other districts and settled down in Worcester with their families, and that the lack of any information as to the future of the factory and the possibility of re-employment is causing inconvenience; and whether it is the intention to close the factory down entirely or whether there is any prospect of re-engaging the discharged men on other work?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): It is proposed that this factory should be retained, for the present, under Government control. In view of the large stocks in the possession of the military authorities. I am afraid there is no likelihood that manufacture will be resumed in this factory in the near future. It is probable that the factory will be need, for storage, in which case 1 fear the number of employés cannot be large.

  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (CORDITE FIRE).
  Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry

  1803
  of Munitions whether he can make any statement concerning the cordite fire which took place at Woolwich Arsenal on Wednesday last?
  Mr. HOPE: The fire in question occurred during the breaking down of unserviceable small arms ammunition. During the operation of extracting the cordite one of the cartridges caught fire. It is surmised that some of the cap composition had broken loose and had got into the cartridge case, and that friction caused by the extraction of the cordite ignited it. The flame spread to other cartridges and caused a fire. I greatly regret that one girl worker, who ran from the room when the fire broke out into an adjacent cubicle, collapsed, and died of shock, and that a woman work-taker was very seriously burned. I am glad to say that I am in formed she is slightly better and there are faint hopes of recovery. This is the first instance that has occurred of any ignition of the charge, though the operation of breaking down small arms ammunition has been going on since 1917.

  DISCHARGED SERVICE MEN. (TRAILING).
  Colonel DU PREasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, as the necessary expenditure was sanctioned on 9th July by the Treasury, he will hasten the removal of the allotted huts from Clivedon, Tap low, to High Wycombe, where they are required to provide class-rooms for training discharged and disabled sailors arid soldiers?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): Immediately my Department was informed by the Ministry of Labour, on the 11th July, that Treasury approval had been obtained, the necessary preliminaries for putting the work out to contract were put in hand. Arrangements have been made with the contractor to commence the work to-day.

  CARRIAGE SHELTER (PALACE YARD).
  Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENNasked what alterations he proposes making in the Members carriage shelter; and where owner-driven cars are to be placed during the alterations?
  Sir ALFRED MOND: It is proposed to convert the centre of the three bays in the Members' carriage shelter into a cab mans shelter in order to abolish the existing unsightly shelter. The remaining two bays will still be available for Members' oars during the alterations.
  Sir SHIRLEY BENN: Before allowing outsiders who have no connection with the House to use portions of these buildings, will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain the feelings of hon. Members?
  Sir A. MOND: It is a very difficult thing to find out what are the feelings of hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I have known the time when there was a long agitation for doing away with the cabman's shelter. I have consulted a number of hon. Members, and they agree with the proposal that I am carrying out as the one which meets the convenience of most hon. Members.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHS: Does not this removal involve Members booking places on the new site which has been given in place of the old one?
  Sir A. MOND: Arrangements will have to be made.
  Sir N. GRIFFITHS: Has this decision been taken on the advice of my right hon. Friend or on the advice of his subordinates?
  Sir A. MOND: On the advice given to me by my technical advisers which 1 have gone into with them.

  ROYAL NAVY (VACCINATION REGULATIONS).
  Mr. J. DAVISONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Stoker P. O. Arthur Simmons and other men serving on His Majesty's steamship "Culypos" in the Black Sea have been confined to the ship for three months because of their refusal to be vaccinated; whether lie is aware that Simmons has already been vaccinated three times whilst in the Navy; whether this punishment is in accordance with the Regulations; and whether he will have inquiry made into the matter?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The Admiralty has no information as to the particular case quoted, but the circumstances related in the question are in accordance with the Regulations, which provide that persons who decline revaccination were not to land in ports where there is danger of contracting small-pox. A virulent type of small-pox is endemic in the Black Sea. The confinement to the ship in such cases is not a punishment but a necessary precaution to protect both those who decline revaccination and their shipmates.

  ARMY RECRUITS (PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
  Major FARQUHARSONasked the Pensions Minister if it is the case that all the scientific data and documents collected by the Ministry of National Service in regard to the physical condition of recruits for His Majesty's Army have now passed into the possession and custody of his Department; and, if so, will he forthwith transfer these documents to the Ministry of Health?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): The whole of the medical and statistical staff of the Ministry of National Service were transferred to the Ministry of Pensions on 1st April last. Part of that staff had been for some time engaged on the work of collating and analysing the scientific data and documents to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, and it was considered advisable that they should bring the work with them and complete it. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has throughout approved of this course of action. It is hoped that the results of this work will be published in the autumn. In the meantime any information is at the service of the Ministry of Health.

  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (WAR BONUS).
  Major PRESCOTTasked the Minister of Health whether the Metropolitan Water Board have disregarded the suggestion of the Local Government Board as to the granting of war bonus and as to the submission of differences to arbitration
  1806
  and that dissatisfaction prevails amongst the higher officals of the Water Board as the result of this action; and whether he proposes to take any stops for the purpose of securing that the matter shall be referred to arbitration?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): My Department has only just been made aware of the matter referred to in the question. I am in communication with the Metropolitan Water Board with regard to it, and will acquaint the hon. Member of the result.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (MEDICAL BENEFIT).
  Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Minister of Health the number of invalided seamen, marines, and soldiers entitled to medical benefit under the National Insurance Acts in England, Scotland, and Wales, respectively?
  Dr. ADDISON: In September, 1917, special arrangements were made as to the provision of medical benefit for men in valided from war services; the approximate number of men admitted to this benefit under those arrangements is 318,000, being 270,000 in England, 28,000 in Scotland, 20,000 in Wales. But there is an additional number of such men who, having commenced to be eligible for medical benefit before September, 1.917, are not included in these figures; the number of these is not known, as they are merged in the civil population.

  HOUSING.

    RECREATION GROUNDS.
    Mr. SUGDENasked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes Lo take, to obtain the opinion and suggestions from local authorities as to proper provision for outdoor recreation for the people to be incorporated in the housing schemes and for the formation of athletic clubs to put such suggestions into practical effect?
    Dr. ADDISON: It is open to local authorities under Section II. of the Housing Act, 1903, to provide and maintain recreation grounds which will serve a beneficial purpose in connection with the requirements of the persons for whom dwelling accommodation is provided.
    Every care is being taken in considering the lay-out schemes of authorities in con-

    1807
    nection with new housing proposals to secure an adequate provision of open spaces to which, with the hon. Member I attach great importance.

  DENTAL TREATMENT.
  Mr. SUGDENasked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to prevent dental caries in children under school attendance age, children in attendance at school, and adults, respectively; and, in view of the prevalence of dental caries, as revealed by recruit examinations, in adult males, whether he will issue instructions to local authorities to institute inquiries and forward recommendations thereon for its elimination?
  Dr. ADDISON: Adequate provision of dental treatment for the whole population, as suggested in the hon. Member's question, can only properly be produced as an integral part of that complete scheme of national health services which will be amongst the earliest matters to be considered by the Ministry with the advice of the Consultative Councils. A prime necessity, however, must be certain improvements in the existing arrangements for dentistry suggested in the Export of the Departmental Committee which will require legislation in certain respects. In the meantime, the provision of dental treatment for mothers and children is being developed by several local authorities under the regulations of the Ministry of Health and by help of its Grants; in several school clinics by aid of (he Board of Education; and in some areas in connection with health insurance. The importance of the matter is emphasised in all suitable communications from the Ministry to local bodies.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (PROHIBITION).
  Mr. SIMMasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a number of American citizens have arrived in this country for the purpose of assisting an agitation in favour of prohibition of the liquor traffic; and, seeing that an acute difference of opinion exists upon this matter among His Majesty's subjects, whether it is proposed to take steps to prohibit propaganda being carried on in this country by persons who are not British citizens?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I have been asked to answer this question. I have no exact information as to the first part of the question, and I do not think that the course suggested in the second part can be adopted.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable feeling in America against this campaign, inasmuch as there are thousands of Americans looking forward to visiting this country for the special purpose of quenching their thirst?

  FOREIGN EXCHANGE (GREAT BRITAIN AND AMERICA).
  Mr. BIRDasked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the depreciation in the rate of exchange between Great Britain and the United States of America and the consequent burden of increase, in the real cost arising there from, to the industrial classes of this country in the supplies of their food at present only obtainable from America; what policy the Government intend to adopt to meet this situation; and whether, in particular, for the guidance of manufacturers, he will give a pledge that the present restrictions upon imports will not be relaxed, especially as to motor vehicles and motor cycles, until the ex changes have become more normal, thus checking the adverse balance of imports over exports?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the matter is engaging my constant attention. I would point out to my lion. Friend, however, that the Government can do little to rectify exchange except by borrowing Large amounts in the United States. This course would provide a temporary remedy only, and I am not prepared to adopt it. Improvement must depend ultimately on economy of consumption and stimulation of production in this country, and (pending readjustment of conditions) on the negotiations of private credits in the United States to finance our necessary imports.
  As regards the last part of the question, the Leader of the House said in reply to the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. G. Murray) on Wednesday, 243rd July, that he-hoped that an announcement of the Government's trade policy after the 1st Sep-

  1809
  tember would be made before the Recess, and I would suggest that my hon. Friend should await that statement.
  Mr. BIRD: Is my hon. Friend aware that the American Chamber of Commerce in London- have announced that there will be an importation of 5,000 motor vehicles of all descriptions of American manufacture with in the next few months, and that the American Chamber of Commerce have applied for an increase in the licence of the rations for boots and shoes of American make in this country, and, with that in view, will he give instructions that the mystic box to which the President of the Board of Trade referred shall be opened forthwith?
  Mr. KILEY: Before that question is answered, may I ask if the President of the Board of Trade is aware that it is almost impossible to obtain a low-priced motor-car in this country at the present time?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I will convey the gist of these supplementary questions to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL SITUATION.

    PROPAGANDA WORK.
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether a Government Bureau of Information is still in existence; if it is intended to use it in making known to the mass of the population the economic and industrial danger with which the country is faced; and if he will consider the advisability of such propaganda work being undertaken by persons and bodies not connected with any Government Department?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I have been asked to reply. This answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part of the question, accordingly, does not arise. In regard to the last part of the question, it is for such persons and bodies as the hon. and gallant Member mentioned to decide for themselves as to the necessity and expediency for such propaganda, and it is hardly necessary to say that the Government would welcome all help from such bodies in expounding to the country the facts of the economic and industrial situation.

  PEACE TREATY.

    TRADE WITH GERMANY.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether trade is permitted with Germany, and, if so, under what conditions; if it is intended to appoint British Consuls and Vice-Consuls to the principal German towns and cities; if so, when this will be done; and whether German Consuls and Vice-Consuls will be permitted in this country?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Trade is permitted with Germany subject to the terms of the General Licence of the Board of Trade published in the "London Gazette" on the 15th instant. The reestablishment of Consular posts in Ger many is being dealt with, and Consular officers will proceed on the resumption of diplomatic relations between the two countries, which relations will be established when the Treaty of Peace has been ratified by Germany and three of the principal Allied and Associated Governments.
    The appointment of German Consular officers to reside in the United Kingdom would seem to be a natural consequence of the resumption of diplomatic rotations between the two countries, and is so regarded by His Majesty's Government.

    MILK SUPPLY (GERMANY).
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister whether he has official information to the effect that the, supply of milk in Germany is insufficient to supply the needs of invalids and young children there; whether the cession, under the Treaty, of 140,000 head of milch Cows will seriously increase this insufficiency; and whether, in these circumstances, His Majesty's Government will use their influence with the Governments of France and Belgium to postpone this cession?
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Would the right hon. Gentleman also tell us how many Belgian and French children have suffered and are suffering owing to the invasion of Belgian and French towns by the Germans?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Supplies of fresh milk are unfortunately scarce in many parts of Europe-, including Belgium, Northern France, and Germany. Efforts

    1811
    have been made to supplement these sup plies by the importation of condensed milk, and it is hoped that arrivals of feeding-stuffs will ease the situation during the coming winter.

    The cession of 140,000 head of milch cows was demanded in partial replacement of milch cows requisitioned by Germany from Belgium and Northern France. I understand that the fulfilment of this Clause of the Peace Treaty is not automatic, but depends upon the findings of the Reparation Commission, which will consider all material facts.

  WAR CABINET (EASTERN COM MITTEE).
  Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Prime Minister whether there is in existence an Eastern Committee of the War Cabinet; and its composition and terms of reference?
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether there is an Eastern Committee of the Cabinet or of the War Cabinet; who are the members on it; for what purpose was this Committee formed; and when will there be a statement made describing its activities, with an opportunity for discussion of such activities?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There was an Eastern Committee of the Cabinet, but it was dissolved after the Armistice, and its duties have since been carried on by Inter departmental Conferences presided over by the Acting Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

  ARMIES OF OCCUPATION.

    EGYPT (COST OF DEFENCE).
    Sir A. FELLasked the Prime Minister if the cost of the Army of Occupation in Egypt is being defrayed by the Egyptian Government; and if payment of the cost of the defence of that country will be demanded of Turkey as one of the conditions of Peace?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The whole cost of the Army of Occupation in Egypt is borne by this country, subject, as in peace, to a contribution by the Egyptian Govern-
    1812
    ment of £150,000 per annum. As regards the last part of the question, as I have stated before, I cannot give details of this kind in answer to questions.
    Sir A. FELL: Docs the right lion. Gentleman think that the defence of Egypt, which we saved from ruin, is satisfactorily paid by a contribution of £150,000?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That, is rather a complicated question, which I do not think can be dealt with by way of question and answer.

    MESOPOTAMIA.
    Sir A. FELLasked the Prime Minister if the cost of the Army of Occupation | of Mesopotamia is being paid by Turkey, by India, or by this country; and if the payment of the whole cost of this expedition is to be demanded of Turkey as one of the conditions of Peace?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The whole cost of the Army of Occupation in Mesopotamia is borne by this country, subject to a contribution from India representing the normal cost of certain Indian units which are included in the Army of Occupation. As regard the last part of the question, it is not possible to give any details as to the Treaty of Peace with Turkey.

    RHINE.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that gratuities arc not allowable alter the 3rd August next to officers and men serving in the Army of Occupation, he will cause payment to be made of the amounts due up to that date as soon as possible and not hold ii over until the expiration of their service?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): War gratuities become payable on 4th August, and will be paid with the least possible delay. I hope it will be generally recognised that, owing to the very large numbers concerned the process of payment will necessarily occupy some time.
    Lieut.-Colonel HILDERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction among the people of Belgium regarding the choice of Rotterdam instead of Antwerp as the base of supply for the British Army of the Rhine; and whether, in the circumstances, ho can see his way to change the base to

    1813
    Antwerp in view of the importance of helping Belgium in her economic reconstruction?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My right has Friend has asked me to answer this question. The present tonnage carried through Rotterdam on behalf of the War Department is not more than 900 tons per month, but the policy is to concentrate the bulk of the traffic upon Antwerp, in the pro portion of three to one.
    Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: Is there any reason why Antwerp should not be entirely used instead of Rotterdam, and are not the facilities at Antwerp greater than at Rotterdam?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The whole process of supplying the Rhine Army is a very complicated and technical matter, and I cannot see what inducement the military authorities have but to choose the most easy and convenient method of victualling the Army. That, I gather, is that it should be three-quarters through Antwerp and one quarter through Rotterdam.
    Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: Should we not assist those who have fought alongside of us rather than neutrals, however friendly they may have been?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think there is a great deal to be said for that. There is also a great deal to be said for victualling the Army by the best means, having regard to the expense involved.

  DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR REFORMS.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce the date on which the Report of the Cave Committee on Diplomatic and Consular Reforms will be circulated for the information of this House?
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOAREasked the Prime Minister whether the Report of Lord Cave's Committee on Overseas Trade has been considered by the Cabinet; if so, whether the Cabinet has agreed to its recommendations; and what steps they have decided to take to put them into immediate effect?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government have approved the recommendations contained in this Report, which is being laid upon the Table of this House.

  CURRENCY (DEFLATION).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister what steps it is proposed to take to deflate the currency in view of the adverse effect the present in flation of the currency is having on trade, industry, and conditions of life in this country; and, it the Government have no settled policy with regard to this matter, will he consider setting up a Select Committee to deal with the question and advise the Government on it?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The Government fully recognise the necessity for checking the further expansion, and bringing about a gradual contraction, in the currency note issue, and a beginning has already been made in this direction by means of the recent Funding Loan, as is shown by the currency note returns for the last two weeks. My right hon. Friend anticipates that the effect of the Loan and of the policy which he proposes to follow in regard to the remainder of the floating debt will result in further and substantial progress in the same direction in the near future. He docs not think there would be any advantage in the appointment of a Select committe The principles on which the matter must be dealt with are. I think, generally understood and agreed, and the questions for decision are how and when and to what extent the necessary measures should be applied, regard being had to the conditions of credit, trade, and industry, from time to time. The responsibility for deciding on the action to be taken from day to day must necessarily rest with the Government.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Will the hon. Gentleman convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the information that there is a considerable difference of opinion amongst experts as to what bearing the increase in the currency has upon the in crease of prices and other topics of that kind? Does he not think an inquiry by a highly skilled small Commission would be desirable to ascertain the, real facts of the case?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I will certainly represent my Noble Friend's view to my right

  1815
  hon. Friend, but I would remind the Noble Lord that there are differences of opinion amongst experts.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    COLOUR SERVICE FOR CIVIL PENSIONS.
    Colonel BURNasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Torquay Division; and will he give a day for the discussion of this matter?
    ["That in the opinion of this House, men serving in his majesty's Forces who, at the expiration of their Colour service, are appointed to the Civil Service, should be allowed to count towards their civil pension the period during which they have served in the Army or Navy."]
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it will be possible to grant an opportunity for this discussion before the Recess.
    Colonel BURN: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the importance of this to the men concerned, and will he give the earliest possible day for the discussion?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government did consider this matter and gave their decision in April last. It must be obvious to my hon. and gallant Friend that if the House is to rise at a reasonable time there must be a limit to new subjects for discussion.

    WIDOW'S GRATUITY.
    Mr. SITCHasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Rifleman M. J. Taplin, No. 3359, 8th Battalion Rifle Brigade, was killed in action on 20th September, 1916; that his widow has applied For a gratuity and was informed on the 3lst May last in respect of the gratuity that, owing to the magnitude, of the work to be done therewith, the distribution of the gratuity to legatees or next-of-kin of deceased soldiers will, of necessity, take a considerable time; and whether he is now prepared to say when this case can be dealt with?
    Mr. FORSTER: I must refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 8th July to the hon. Member for Holborn. It is hoped to reach the case before very long.

  IRELAND

    GOVERNMENT POLICY (DEBATE).
    Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Prime Minister whether, if he is satisfied that there is a general desire among Members of the House that a day should be given before tha Adjournment for discussion on Irish policy, he will accede to the same?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government have always endeavoured to meet the wishes of the House, but if the House is to rise at a reasonable period it will be difficult to rind time for any discussions which have not already been arranged for.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable desire in all parts of the House for a discussion on this subject?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am quite aware of that, and if it were not a question of time I would certainly have no objection, but it must be obvious to the House it is impossible for the Government to formulate their policy before the Recess, and therefore I would deprecate a discussion.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: If it can be shown that a clear majority of the Members of the House are willing to sit a day longer in order to have a discussion will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision? May I further point out that the question, does not ask for a statement of Government policy, but for an opportunity for the new House of Commons to discuss this subject for the first time?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite realise that the House may desire a discussion without a statement of policy on the part of the Government, but I am not sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree there would be much advantage for a discussion if the Government were unable to take any part in it.
    Sir S. HOARE: But if there is a general desire among Members for a discussion will the right hon. Gentleman give the opportunity?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That must depend on the extent of the general desire.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Are we to take it the Government has not made up its mind on its policy? Is it giving consideration to some policy?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I must say at once, in view of the pressure of other questions, it is absolutely impossible for the Government, to formulate any policy by the Recess if it is to take place at a reasonable time.

    ERECTION OF CENOTAPH (DUBLIN).
    Sir M. DOCKRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will consider the desirability of erecting in Dublin a replica of the cenotaph in Whitehall, or other 'suitable memorial, to the Irishmen who died in the Great War?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRE LAND (Mr. Denis Henry): The form of memorial is under consideration.
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is it probable that it will be erected soon?
    Mr. HENRY: I hope so.
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: Because it took some time before any memorial was erected to the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, and eventually it was done out of private funds.

    GREYSTONES HARBOUR.
    Sir M. DOCKRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that a number of able-bodied men are un employed in Greystones and arc drawing the out-of-work donation; that many of those who were fishermen before the War are now demobilised soldiers; that the county council of Wicklow in 1901 ratified the, action taken in 1897 by the grand jury of Wicklow repudiating responsibility for the upkeep of Greystones Harbour; and whether he will take, steps to have the harbour made available for fishing craft?
    Mr. HENRY: I am informed that there are no able-bodied men at Greystones un employed, and that the only men there who are drawing the unemployment money are eight ex-soldiers, none of whom were fishermen before joining the Army. I am aware that the county council of Wicklow repudiate responsibility for the. Up keep of Greystones Harbour, but as that responsibility attaches (o them by virtue of the Grand Jury Act of 1853, their attitude does not alter the legal position.
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is the hon. Gentle man aware that within a radius of seven miles of Greystones, and including Grey, there are fifty men receiving unemployment money, and that when the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty

    1818
    was Chief Secretary for Ireland he got £20,000 for the adjoining harbour of Wick low, which was not in such a bad condition as Greystones?

  TRANSPORT FACILITIES, MORAYSHIRE.
  Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he has received representations addressed to the Ministry of Reconstruction, from the I parish of Dallas and from the county council of Morayshire, in regard to an improvement in the means of transport from this district; if he is aware that Dallas is eight miles distant from the nearest station and market; and whether he will consider the giving of a grant, to improve the means of communication?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The consideration of this matter must await the setting up of the Ministry of Ways and Communications.

  DECEASED SOLDIER'S ESTATE.
  Mr. STURROCKasked the Secretary of State for War whether the estate of the late Acting-Corporal Henry Gardiner Milne, M.M., No. 24718, 1st Battalion Royal Scots Fusiliers, amounted to £27 19s. Id.; whether Mrs. A. A. Milne, Russell Street, Dundee, his widow, received £9 6s. 5d., and the remaining sum of £18 12s. 8d. was invested in the Orphans' Savings Bank at 2½per cent, compound interest; on behalf of her child Agnes Christie, now three years of age, until she is twenty one; whether he is aware that Mrs. Milne is a highly respect able woman who has to go to work to support herself and child owing to her pension being insufficient; whether Mrs. Milne has been asked to appear before a parade of troops to be presented with the Military Medal and bar won by her husband; and what steps were taken to ascertain the best interests of the child before investing the residue of the late soldier's estate?
  Mr. FORSTER: The procedure is in accordance with the general rule. The money belongs to the child. If it can be shown that it is to the child's interest that a portion of the money be issued at once the question will be considered on receipt of the necessary information.
  Mr. STURROCK: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman has ample power under the Regimental Debts Act, 1893, to distribute these estates; and will he inform the House what procedure is followed before a decision is arrived at as to whether a certain proportion of the money will be held up on behalf of the children?
  Mr. FORSTER: In these matters we have to proceed according to law. I am always very glad to take as wide a view of this question as is possible. If my hon. Friend or anyone who knows the mother to whom the question refers satisfies me that it is in the interest of the child to make some payment to the mother instead of holding it up for the child, T shall be glad to do it.
  Mr. STURROCK: Is it not a fact that great delay takes place in the distribution of these estates on account of the fact that the War Office insists upon dividing the estates up partly in the interest of the mother and partly in the interest of the children; and will the right hon. Gentle man consider a representation in favour of the distribution of small estates in their entirety to the mother?
  Mr. FORSTER: I should be very glad to do that if it were possible, but I am afraid I cannot make a general rule to that effect.

  INJURY PAY (WOMEN'S LEGION, ARMY SERVICE CORPS).
  Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for War whether ho is aware that Miss Evelyn Bramwell had her arm broken by a back-fire when driving a motor at Birmingham on 30i.li October, 1918, for the Women's Legion, Army Ser vice Corps, and that Miss Bramwell has received no compensation and cannot get any reply to letters addressed on her behalf to the War Office; whether she is now receiving no pay of any sort although her broken arm has admittedly reduced her efficiency to a very great extent; and whether he will give the matter his sym pathetic consideration and cause inquiries to be made?
  Mr. FORSTER: Injury pay was paid to Miss Bramwell from 1st November, 1918, the day following the accident, until 30th April, 1919. A further medical examination is being arranged, and on re-
  1820
  ceipt of the report the case will be considered for an award of compensation. No letter on her behalf can be traced in I the War Office except the official letter I on the case from the Southern Command, which has been attended to.

  OFFICERS (RESIGNATION AND RETIREMENT).
  Major FARQUHARSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether any officer of His Majesty's Army or the Royal Air Force has been called upon to resign or retire without an adverse report having been made previously by the officer under whom he was directly serving; and I whether such adverse report must be read to and initialled by the officer called upon to resign or retire?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: An officer may be called upon to retire or resign his com mission if he has been the subject of an adverse report. Steps are always taken to ascertain that an adverse report has been initialled by, or communicated to, the officer reported on. An officer may however, at any time be called upon to j retire or resign his commission under Article 527 of the Royal Warrant for Pay, etc., should the circumstances of the case, in the opinion of the. Army or Air Council, require it.

  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
  Major NEWMANasked the Minister J of Labour whether the taxpayer is liable to provide out-of-work duration for those who are temporarily out of work owing to the refusal of other workers to remain at their employment; and, if so, what is the present amount per week of the donation?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Robert Home): The general rule is that a work man thrown out of work by a trade dispute at the premises where he is employed is disqualified for the receipt of donation, even if he himself be not a party to the dispute. But the disqualification does not apply to workpeople whose work has temporarily ceased owing to a trade dispute elsewhere. In this respect the rules governing out-of-work donation follow the statutory provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts in relation to the payment of unemployment benefit.

  1821
  The amount of donation made during the last four weeks is as follows:

  For the week ended

  Total payments

  26th Jun

  …

  …

  £823,657

  3rd July

  …

  …

  819,846

  10th July

  …

  …

  739,208

  17th July

  …

  …

  647,168

  I have not yet received the return covering the period of the coal strike in York shire.
  Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the chief Secretary for Ireland whether the recruiting clerks in Ireland are eligible for the out of work donation; whether this question is still being considered by the Ministry of Labour; and whether he is aware that these men were disbanded at the Armistice without any compensation, so that their position is one of great hard ship.
  Sir R. HORNE: I have been asked to reply to this question. It has been decided, after careful consideration, that there is not sufficient ground for extending out of-work donation to the persons referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.
  Lieut. - Commander KEN WORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several very respectable men are in great distress in Ireland owing to the refusal of this donation, and, if he cannot see his way to grant the out-of-work donation, will he consider some compensation being paid to them in view of the hardships'?
  Sir R. HORNE: It may be that there arc several respectable people in Ireland suffering at the present time, but I am afraid that that does not arise out of the question.

  MEN IN UNIFORM (UNESTABLISHED).
  Major FARQUHARSONasked the Secretary of State for War if there is any instance of an individual, either officer or man, in the Army or Royal Air Force, having been called upon to wear His Majesty's uniform, and who, while wearing it, was not embodied or held upon the establishment or personnel of these forces?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: So far as I am aware there is no such case.

  ARMY CANTEEN PROFITS.
  Mr. COWANasked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any sum of money available as a recreation fund for soldiers; whether ho has received an application on behalf of the Scottish Churches' Huts for a grant from such fund; and, if so, what reply has been given?
  Mr. FORSTER: The benefits to the soldier, for the provision of which canteen profits accumulated during the War may be utilised, include recreational requirements. Application has been received on behalf of the Scottish Churches' Huts for a grant. It will be dealt with by the appropriate authority without delay.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    MEN ENLISTED BEFORE 1916 (INDIA).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for War whether any men who enlisted before 1916 are still in India; if so, whether any of them are employed in any of the operations on the North-West Frontier; and whether the time has arrived to repatriate all men with more than two years' service in the Near or Mid East?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; owing to the temporary suspension of demobilisation in India, there are men who joined before 1916 still in that country, arid some of these men arc probably employed in the field Army. With regard to the last-part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Memorandum published on the 17th instant, which explains how we hope to release the, remainder of the forces if conditions permit.

  MUSICAL AND ARTISTIC RECREATION.
  Mr. SUGDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call a conference of representatives from the Musicians' Union, theatre and cinema proprietors, the musical colleges, and universities of Great Britain arid Ireland to consider the creation of a State Department especially to deal with the musical and artistic recreation of the people?
  Mr. SHORTT: The answer is in the negative.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the Leader of the House tell us what business he proposes to take on Wednesday?
Mr. BONAR LAW: We propose to take the remaining stages of the Bills on the Paper and any Bills which may come down from another place.
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's fitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (sittings of the House). (Mr. Bonar Law.)

STANDING COMMITTEES (PROCEDURE).
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I want to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a matter where difference of practice has arisen in Standing Committees. For some years past certain Chairmen of Standing Committees have followed the practice ob served in Select Committees of allowing Members to refer to one another by name. Lately, however, on several Standing Committees that practice has been objected to, and lion, and learned and gallant Members have had to refer to each other by those forms of circumlocution which are followed in this House. For the sake of uniformity, I beg to ask for your ruling?
Mr. SPEAKER: The lion, and gallant Member gave me notice a few days ago that he desired to ask this question. I have, therefore, taken steps to ascertain what has been the practice in the past. As Jar as I am able to ascertain, the practice seems to have varied according to the idiosyncrasies of the Chairman. I gather that until recently the general practice has followed the system which obtains in this House of calling hon. Members by their constituencies. Latterly, I think the prevailing practice has rather been that of referring to hon. Members by name. Now that the debates in the Standing Committees are officially reported, they assume rather a more formal character. The de bates in Select Committee, if there are Any, are of an informal character, and here fore it is quite natural that in Select Committee Members should refer to each other by name. I think that, in view of the fact that the Standing Committees now consist of about seventy members, and that they follow the practice in almost all details of the procedure of this House, the
1824
better course would be in that respect also to follow the procedure of the House. I do not wish in anything I am saying to fetter the discretion of the Chairmen of the Standing Committees. It is very desirable that the authority of the Chair men in those Committees should be fully maintained, and I would not like anything that I have said to interfere with it. I have no authority or power to press my views upon the Chairmen of Standing Committees, and I do not wish to fetter them in any course which they may think desirable.
Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: May we take it that the Government are not to under stand from anything you have said that the Grand Committee system which they have initiated has been a success?
Mr. SPEAKER: We are not talking about their success, so that the observation of the hon. and gallant Member does not seem to be quite relevant.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
David Matthews, Esquire, for the Thorough of Swansea (East Division).
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES)
  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. George Roberts; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. McCurdy.

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Sir Samuel Roberts further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D (added in respect of the Police Bill): Lieut.-Commander Chilcott and Captain O'Grady; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Police Bill): Colonel Sir James Remnant and Mr. John Jones.
  SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D (added in respect of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill): Colonel Leslie Wilson; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill): Sir Auckland Geddes.
  SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee D: Mr. Munro.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

PENSIONS.
Special Report of the Select Committee brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 149.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): I beg to move
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  4.0 p.m.
  It is very urgent now that we are looking forward to restarting trade to have certain new powers and certain improvements in out- patent law. This Bill is brought before the House in order to get sanction for particular points which we think necessary. Clause 2 institutes quite a, new form of patent protection. It is proposed that we should have in future a class of patents which are different from anything we have had before, in so far as licence to work the patent and manufacture the patented article is a matter of right. If the patentee at any time after the sealing of a patent so requests, the patent can be endorsed with the words "Licences of right," and it may be worked at a later stage. It is hoped that in that way the poor inventor who has a difficulty in getting capital to work a valuable invention will be able to get his invention taken up and worked, and at the same time to have his own interests looked after. It is a matter of great importance that we should have such a class of patent. In connection with Clause 1, we have a series of provisions which it is hoped will have the effect of controlling in the interests of the public the monopoly which the granting of a patent gives. In order that we may end the device whereby foreign inventors were able to secure and obtain protection in this country, and then not really to manufacture it in this country on a commercial scale, we may have various alternatives for dealing with the difficulties created. The foreign inventor, having got his patent into a state of commercial production in a foreign country, it may well pay him financially to run the risk of having the patent protection in this country cancelled, because, as a result of its commercial establishment and protection in a foreign country, he may be in a position to prevent, or at all events to seriously discourage, capital being put into the working of the invention here. And it has been found in the past that the protection given to foreign inventors has been useful by them to stimulate industry abroad
  1842
  and to limit industry in this country. Under the powers suggested in Clause 1 of the Bill it will be possible, by one of the alternatives, to deal with this by endorsing the patent "Licences as of right," and there are other ways of dealing with it. We have under Clause 6 of the Bill a very important provision with regard to the duration of the protection which the patent confers. At present the duration of protection is four teen years. We propose that the protection should be extended to sixteen years. During the War it has been quite impossible to get many patents worked, and, if the period be not extended, inventors, at the end of fourteen years, will have lost some years which might have been fruitful to them if it had not been for the War.
  Captain O'GRADY: Why not make it "five" instead of "two"?
  Sir A. GEDDES: But it is not thought that the automatic extension should cover the whole period which may have been lost, because we are here affecting, or will affect a permanent alteration in the duration of the protection. There fore, we have got to consider not only the interests of the inventor, but also the interests of the community at large, and after careful consideration, what we have decided to recommend to the House is an automatic extension of two years of the existing period, and we also have in the Bill certain provisions which will enable on cause shown further extension to be obtained by those who have suffered. By the combination of these two methods we hope to meet the difficulty and also to give a greater encouragement to the inventor, while at the same time we hope to safeguard the point of view of the community. In every stage of a Bill of this kind we are sailing between two difficulties. We have, on the one hand, the fear that we may discourage invention and, on the other hand, the fear that by giving too great protection to the inventor we may do injury to the community. So all through we are dealing with the question of balance, and that is the solution which, on balance, we believe to be the best. In Clause 8 of the Bill we have certain provisions as to which it has been very difficult to arrive at a just and a fair decision. We have there the question of the right of the Crown to use patent inventions.
  Broadly, the principle of the Bill is. to improve the position of the inventor so far as it is right that that position should be

  1843
  improved and to make it easier for the man without capital who is an inventor to secure the fruits of his invention for himself and to remove him from the position in which so many poor inventors have found themselves of having to part with their rights in the invention at far below their real value in order that the invention might be worked at all. That is provided for in Clause 2. In Clause 1, which is a long Clause, we have a whole series of arrangements by which we hope to prevent the abuse of patents whereby in the case of certain foreign-owned patents the mere fact that this country gave protection to the patent-owner was utilised by unscrupulous competitors to do damage to the country from which they have received this benefit. I think that we have dealt effectively with that in Clause 1 of the Bill. Among the minor and yet not unimportant provisions of the Bill we have in Clause 18 a whole series of provisions for dealing with patent agents. In fact, if this Clause becomes law it will transform the calling of patent-agents really into a profession. It is very necessary that these experts should be placed in a recognised position, because of the very important and valuable work which they have to do. Those are the main provisions of the Bill, which embodies a large mass of detail that will require very careful study; but we believe that, taken as a whole, this Bill, if it becomes law, will effect very substantial improvements in the law of this country with regard to patents and also extend a much needed encouragement to inventors.
  Mr. WALLACE: 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."
  This is a most complicated and highly technical Bill, and 1 shall attempt no detailed examination of it now. I take it that its object is to amend and strengthen the Act of 1907. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to Clause 1. There is one paragraph of it which says:
  "(2)The monopoly rights under a patent should be deemed to have been abused in any of the following circumstance?:
  (e)If any trade or industry in the United Kingdom, or any person or class of persons engaged therein, is unfairly prejudiced by the conditions attached by the patentee, whether before or after the passing of this Act, to the purchase, hire, or use of the patented article, or to the using or working of the patented process."
  1844
  I am specially interested in something of this kind, especially regarding the boot and shoe machinery trade. The Act of 1907 was intended to deal very effectively with the abuse and monopoly which then existed and exists still in the boot and shoe machinery trade of this country. The effect of that Act was totally destroyed by a most ingenious Amendment which was introduced into the Act at a late stage of its passage through this House. It may not be generally known that the boot and shoe machinery trade in this country is held as a monopoly to the extent of 85 per cent. by an English company, whose headquarters are at Leicester —the British United Shoe Machinery Company—and it is well to point out that though this company is registered in Leicester it is really an American company in disguise. Nearly the whole of the common stock, and certainly the balance of the voting power of the English company is held in America, and the American company controls the whole policy of the English company, and it is not without interest to the House, and certainly it is quite germane to the subject of this Bill, if I direct attention to this American company, which is called the United Shoe Machinery Company, incorporated under the laws of New Jersey. The history of that company is really one of the most wonderful business romances in a very romantic country. In about twelve years it succeeded in eliminating all other competitions in the United States. It bought up every possible patent device in boot and shoe machinery, and in the same short period of twelve years it managed to amass profits to the extent of $50,000,000 It is very important to remember that it is this company which is controlling the operations of the English company and directing its whole policy. The result of the operations of this company in America has been that at the present time the United Shoe Machinery Company of New-Jersey controls 98 per cent. of the whole trade in America. It imposes a royalty on every pair of boots manufactured in America, and the same policy is being pursued here.
  How does the English company conduct its business? If a boot manufacturer in this country wishes to buy boot and shoe machinery, the first discovery he makes is that he cannot buy it from the British United Shoe Machinery Company. In any other business outside boot and shoe machinery the procedure is perfectly-

  1845
  simple. If I wish to buy machinery to-day I select three or four reputable machinery manufacturers, send them specifications, and receive quotations on a competitive basis. That is not the case in the boot and shoe machinery trade. You cannot buy from the English United Company; you can only lease, and lease only on very onerous terms. Take the case of a firm which wishes to instal one of the British United Machinery Company's machines, say, for example, a stitching machine. That is leased on certain conditions over a term of years, but at the same time the man who leases it must sign an agreement binding himself that win-never any other machines in his place run out he will on no account buy from any other firm except the British United Shoe Machinery Company. Then if in the course of a year or two he has bought one or two other machines the leases are all running out at different times, and he discovers that once within the meshes of this company there is absolutely no escape from them. That is an intolerable position for a great British industry, and I consider that it is necessary for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade not only to express the pious hope which he has expressed in Clause 1, paragraph (e), but to embody the sentiment in Clause 1, paragraph (e), to which I have referred in define legislation in order to protect a great trade.
  In this lease to which I have referred there are many vexatious and complicated clauses. The lease runs to about 10,000 words, and although it may look very innocent the document has been described by some of the Law Officers of the United States as being the cleverest lease which has ever been devised by the wit of man. If my right hon. Friend really has at heart the interests of this country he must not allow himself to be left behind by the United States Government in the way in which they are dealing with the monopoly over there. To give some idea of how they regard this matter in the United States I will mention that the Law Officers there in a Report made this observation:
  "The United Company is not merely a formidable competitor; it is absolute monarch of the industry. No competitor can exist unless for its own pleasure or policy it withholds its destroying hand."
  That is a very strong statement, but it is not an over-statement of the position in America. At the present time in this country door after door is being closed to
  1846
  British manufacturers. Considering the strong position in which the company is, holding as it does so many patent rights and devices of all kinds, the area for British machinery manufacturers is so limited, that it can be only a very short time, unless the President of the Board of Trade takes some action, before the whole of the trade of this country will be gripped in this vice which now has got such a strong strangle-hold upon the trade in America. This matter has been dealt with by a Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Trade—by my right hon. Friend's predecessor I think. That Committee made a long Report on the subject. One paragraph reads as follows:
  "We are of opinion that agreements restraining the liberty of the individual to buy or use the machines of other makers should be declared illegal, and any attempt by promise of bones or imposition of penalty to arrive at such a monopoly should equally be illegal."
  I commend that Report to the very careful attention of the President of the Board of Trade. The feeling in the trade itself is very bitter indeed, because of the humiliating position imposed upon it by these tying leases. The London Boot and Shoe Manufacturers' Association have expressed themselves very strongly about it time and again. At a meeting held a few months ago they passed the following resolution unanimously:
  "The time is now opportune for the Federation to obtain an amendment to the Patent and Designs Act of 1907 by which the conditions generally known as the linking-up Clauses of machinery leases shall be rendered illegal under any circumstances as being a restraint to trade and contrary to public policy."
  I understand that one or two other hon. Members may allude to other parts of these leases, but I would point this out: The present Prime Minister, when the 1907 Bill was before this House, expressed himself as being wishful to see that that Bill, when it came into operation, should deal directly with the interest of the boot and shoe machinery trade. That was very cleverly evaded. I sincerely hope that if this Bill ever becomes law my right hon. Friend will see that a. great industry of this sort receives the protection which it has a perfect right to expect from His Majesty's Government. The boot and shoe manufacturers cannot possibly help themselves now, unless by Parliamentary interference. They are in the meshes of the coil. I ought to point out that the American Government has already taken steps in an attempt to abolish the monopoly on the other side of the

  1847
  Atlantic. I hope that when America frees herself we ourselves shall not remain bound. I think I have said enough to let the House know something of the real position of the boot and shoe machinery trade, and the danger of permitting this ever-growing monopoly to extend its borders. The danger is that if it be allowed to go on unchecked this leasing system for machinery may go far beyond the confines of the boot and shoe machinery trade, and it is my opinion that, in the interests of freedom of trade and from the point of view of encouraging legitimate competition, and also from the point of view of stimulating British inventions, my right hon. Friend will very seriously consider the effect of the limitations forced on the boot and shoe machinery trade.
  Sir EDGAR JONES: 1 bog to second the Amendment.
  Having had a good deal to do with this question during three years of the War, I must express not only my disappointment, but my astonishment that the President of the Board of Trade has not provided for this very serious matter in this Bill. I am quite certain that my disappointment will be shared by all those men in the War Office who had to struggle against this thing when we were providing boots for the Army. I think I can safely tell the right hon. Gentleman that the commercial and industrial sections of his own Department will be seriously disappointed too. I am quite certain that if he goes back from this Debate and consults his own commercial and industrial branches he will find that the view taken here to-day is not considered to be exaggerated. Really, I must press seriously upon the President that, although this is a thin House, this is by no means a trifling matter, and that it is really an obligation on him to deal with it now in this Bill. The failure to secure in the 1907 Act the provision that was attempted in this House was a very serious thing for this country in the struggle of the War, and I feel it is my duty to tell hon. Members frankly what were the serious consequences we were faced with as a result of that failure, in the hope that the President will be convinced that we cannot face a similar risk in future. The position was this. Let honour be given where honour is due. This is one of the most efficient engineering concerns in the world. There is no
  1848
  doubt about it. Their methods of production, their works, their machinery, the skill of their workmen, and the character of their management, have made them, undoubtedly, about the finest engineering works in this country. Secondly, one is bound to say this—and it is what makes the monopoly so dangerous—not only are they very efficient as an engineering concern, but they have been, on the whole, a very tactful company. They have been walking very gingerly in this country during the whole period, because they know very well they arc living in a glass house. They have not been making exorbitant profits, and they have not been creating any serious conditions from the point of view of finance. My reason for pressing the importance of dealing with this matter now is based upon the, general question of public policy, and is by no means an attack upon an individual company. What happened during the War was this. We discovered, in the terrible rush at the beginning to get the shells made, an enormous difficulty in getting the gauges both for the shells and for the guns. As is well known, if it had not been for the assistance of workpeople in some other country there was no telling when we should have got either the guns or the shells. We found that this company in Leicester was one of the companies, because of the skill of its work people and its machinery, best suited for the purpose of providing us with these gauges, and it devolved upon me to endeavour to bring this company back from its normal occupation to the work of turning out these gauges. I am very sorry to say that I was up against two things. To one allusion has already been made—the fact that this company was in the hands and really under been control of an American monopoly, which America had been trying to fight for many years.
  Quite frankly and plainly we met with this kind of threat: "All right, if you press us too hard, and if you impose upon us this concentration for the provision of a very essential thing for the War, the American people will do this and the American people will do that, and you will be in this condition and the other." One was always met by those responsible for raising the output of boots for our Armies with something like this statement. "For goodness sake, even if you want these things and the urgency is great, we cannot afford to offend this company." That is the position which the Government of this country

  1849
  had to face when the great crisis was upon us. It dared not even offend this one company, because it was absolutely in the company's hands. Therefore it was that at conference after conference one had to compromise. It is true that on investigation we were entirely in their hands. If that is proved I am sure that the House of Commons will take the view that this country can never remain in that position, that we cannot again go into a similar crisis and allow ourselves to be in the hands of one concern. What has the War done for this company to aggravate this state of things? It is an amazing story, but the thing is on record. An hon. Member has referred to the ingenious method by which this company is able, through leases, to tie up every bootmaker who takes a contract from them. That applies not only to machinery but to other things. If you once lease a certain machine you have to undertake always to buy your wire for the stitching of your boots from this company, and as all that wire comes from America and is made only in America hon. Members will realise how these wheels within wheels have set up in this country a monopoly that is too powerful even for the Government, with all the powers that D.O.R.A. gave it.
  It became necessary at one stage late in the War to provide all the boots for the rebooting of the Russian army It was one of the biggest things done by the War Office, and the officers who undertook it are to be complimented. In order to provide those boots it became necessary to call to the aid of the Government practically every person in the country who could make boots, to bring in for the first time a large number of women, and for the first time in the history of the trade to put on night shifts as well as day shifts. The Government was therefore in this position. It practically compelled bootmakers all over the place to take machines from this company. They had to put their machines in so that they might train labour and increase output. The Government, therefore, practically forced every bootmaker to do this because they had all the leather, and if the bootmakers did not do it their occupation was gone. What have we done by that? The Government under the duress of the War tied up practically every bootmaker in the country for ever and ever to this monoply unless the President of the Board of Trade does something to deal with it in a drastic way,
  1850
  and to declare the whole thing absolutely illegal and against the interests of the country. Having done that, and having tied up all these people not only to take no machines from anybody else, but even to take a spare part from anybody else, and to take all the wire they required from the same people, would anybody think that the President of the Board of Trade would have come down here and done nothing really to deal with the situation. I must say I feel so strongly about this, and I could say much more if time permitted, and believe so strongly that it is absolutely impossible that such a state of things can be tolerated in the country, that if the President cannot promise to do anything to relieve the position I shall personally feel it necessary to take a very strong line on this Bill.
  Sir CROYDON MARKS: I think I have never heard the Mover of the rejection of a Bill and the Seconder make stronger speeches in favour of the Bill in question than those two hon. Gentlemen have just made. Those speeches show that they cannot possibly have read this Bill, for the Bill sets out very effectively, very strongly, very definitely, and very clearly to remedy the very abuses that they have been speaking of, and to remedy them in a way which Americans or no one else can possibly get rid of. The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) referred to Clause 8 of the Bill as though that were the one which dealt with the licence. He said that it was unfair to have Clause 8 dealing with licences and not to deal with the matter in a drastic way. Clause 8 has nothing whatever to do with the licence so far as the individual is concerned.
  Mr. WALLACE: I never mentioned Clause 8 at all.
  Sir C. MARKS: Clause 8 was referred to.
  Mr. WALLACE: No; Clause 1.
  Sir C. MARKS: I withdraw. Clause 8 is a Clause which deals only with licences to the Crown, and has nothing whatever to do with licences to the individual. It is Clause 1 of the Bill which deals with the very abuses which have been complained of, and that shows that the hon. Members cannot have studied the Bill. Clause 1 (e) provides that
  "If any trade or industry in the United Kingdom or any person or class of persons engaged therein is unfairly prejudiced by the conditions-attached by the patentee, whether before or after

  1851
  the passing of this Act, to the purchase, hire or use of the patented article, or to the using or working of the patented process—"

  that is deemed to be an abuse of the monopoly rights, and that licence comes to an end. The very conditions which have caused so much trouble and the difficulties with which we were dealing in the 1907 Bill, and which we thought we were then about to remedy by means of a very cumbrous piece of organisation and procedure, giving the Controller power to revoke the patent, are now dealt with in this Clause. By that procedure there have been since 1907 only twenty-three such patents revoked, due, as has been suggested, to the way in which these Americans and other people have managed by licences to make people agree to keep out of the Act. They have imposed terms that the people evidently were willing at the time to accept, and having accepted those onerous terms and unfair terms they very naturally afterwards complained about an oppression they could not get out of, because there was the licence which they entered into willingly. As a result the people who did so suffered badly, and the whole country suffered also, because they entered into licences into which they ought never to have entered, and which they could have got out of if they had taken the proper steps to do so. This first Clause is designed absolutely to make it impossible for any such condition to be imposed in another licence, and it also nullifies every licence that now exists with those conditions in it. That being to, to ask that this Bill should be read this day three months while the abuses are so strong and so serious in their effects on British trade rather goes to suggest that the hon. Members have been reading the complaints sent to them, as to every one of us, and have not read the Bill carefully, as it is a Bill which is designed to meet and remedy those very complaints. The Bill undoubtedly by Clause 1 sets up a new position for British industry. It prevents altogether hereafter any person who has a patent from using that patent in a way which abuses the monopoly which the Crown has given. The granting of the patent is a bargain on the part of the Crown on the one hand and the inventor on the other. The inventor in his specification describes how he proposes to carry out a new process so that the country itself can have the benefit of it. The Crown then says, "We will give you
  1852
  protection for fourteen years on certain conditions, and at the end of that time you shall have built up a new industry." That is the theory of patents, but, unfortunately, the theory has worked out more strongly to the advantage of people abroad in many cases than it has for the people at home. The 1907 Act was intended to remedy that, but did not remedy it. This Bill will so remedy it, and I am perfectly certain the more hon. Members study its provisions, the more they will see that the very difficulties which are now complained of are met in a very clear and easily ascertained way.
  There are other features connected with this Bill. There are other industries besides the shoe-making machinery industry that have to be considered, and the Bill very rightly takes note that all industries depend on invention. They also take note of this fact, that during the beginning of a man's protection there are certain years of experimental working. At the present time, after four years, a person can go to the Patent Office and ask that a patent may be revoked because it is not being worked. That Clause was intended to help, but it does not help. Under the new Clause a person has not to move in a Court at all, and has only to approach the Patent Office, and if he fulfils the conditions can immediately get relief. There is a period of extension granted to the inventor during which he may develop his invention. The Bill which is now before the House is the cheapest Patent Bill in the whole world for any inventor. There is no country in the whole world that can offer for £5, as this Bill does, a period of six years' protection without any other fee having to be paid. That which is proposed to be granted under this Bill for £6 would cost in France £28, Germany £40, Holland, the country with the most recent patent law, £32, and America £7 7s. Therefore we are going ahead of all the countries in the world by that which is now proposed, and we are improving industry by making it cheap for inventors to obtain protection. Not only are we improving industry, but we are lengthening the life of the patents and giving every patent now in existence two years' extra life without any increased fee. The Government might very well have asked patentees to pay something extra for that two years additional. While that is being done there are other advantages con-

  1853
  nected with the Bill, which, in my opinion, make it a forward step and must tend to the advantage of British industry. The Bill eliminates the possibility of those leases and tying-up conditions which monopolists have hitherto been able to impose, and makes the poor inventor quite safe with regard to his invention not being taken away from him because he cannot afford to work it. It is provided in the Bill that, if a patentee at the beginning feel she cannot work his invention or has not money enough to do so, all that he has to do is to ask the Controller at the Patent Office to endorse the patent with the words "Licences of right," and with those words endorsed he will only have to pay one-half the fees anyone else would pay, and any person seeing that specification can then go to the inventor and ask for a licence, because by his specification he invites everyone to do so, and he can never get into trouble by the fact that he does not work the patent. That is a new condition which does not exist in any other law in the world, and it must make for the betterment of industry. Therefore I am surprised at the attitude adopted towards a Bill which is the most democratic measure ever proposed for the control and encouragement of inventions, and which does away with the abuses complained of very effectively. The Bill is one which, with the remedies it contains and the advantages it confers, that we ought to pass as quickly as possible. We ought to get rid of all those licences the hon. Gentleman complained about. You cannot get rid of them now, because they were entered into by willing people. If they were insane enough or foolish enough or, perhaps, helpless enough to put their hands to an agreement by which they undertook not to do certain things and always to buy from certain people, it is not much use to come whining now when they ought to have stood out, as they might have stood out, and broken the thing before. They need whine no longer; they need only ask hon. Members to press the Government to get through this Bill. The moment it is through, every licence of the kind referred to is nullified.
  There are other matters in the Bill which one can only discuss in Committee. During the War the, patentees have had to pay taxes for five years and have not been able to work their inventions. I consider that the Government, in taking the five ears' taxes and now giving only two years
  1854
  for them, have not quite done the right thing. All patentees have been paying five years' renewal fees, and now the Government extend all the patents which happen to exist, taking no notice of those that have lapsed during the time and that ought to have an increase of life given to them. In Committee, I hope the attention of the Government may be directed to that point, and, if so, one of the strongest objections which many feel towards the Bill in one of its details will be removed. The more we can encourage invention, the more we develop British industry, and the more we develop British industry the easier is going to be the manufacturing problem. We must have more mechanical devices for labour saving, and labour-saving devices come chiefly from workmen, who cannot afford to develop the inventions This Bill enables a workman for a fee of £5 to get a patent for six years, and no country in the world offers such facilities. That being so, I hope the hon. Members, when they restudy Clause 1 and the other Clauses in the Bill which go towards remedying these defects, will see that they have made a great mistake in asking that this Bill should be postponed for one minute, much less for three months. T strongly support the Bill, and I am certain that every engineering firm, every manufacturing firm, every chamber of commerce, and all the industries of this country would, if they could, speak in this House in favour of the Bill. So great is the value of inventions that in the Peace Treaty there are five clauses devoted to the particular benefit and safeguarding of inventors who have had troubles during the War. I consider this Bill does not go far enough, in that it does not give sufficient extension of time to those who have been very severely hit during the War by paying their taxes and getting nothing in return. I reserve to myself in Committee the right to move an Amendment in this respect, whilst strongly supporting and congratulating the Government upon bringing in a Bill which will remove the vary objections which the two hon. Members have had in mind in moving its rejection.
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: The hon. Member who has just sat down suggested that we were wrong in putting down this Motion for rejection on the ground that it would prevent something which would be an undeniable advantage to British industry. There is no desire whatever on the part of

  1855
  those who have moved the rejection of the Bill to impede its progress. What we are concerned with is to make absolutely certain that this Bill will meet a very difficult and trying circumstance of the highest importance to industry in this country. In the second place, the hon. Member indicated that the Sub-section of Clause 1 clearly met all that had been indicated by hon. Members who have previously spoken and that under that Sub-section there was full protection against what is practically a trust influence, and a very large trust influence, in British industry at this hour. If that is the view of the hon. Member, it is very remarkable indeed that practically all the boot manufacturers do not consider Unit the position is safeguarded by this Clause, and that opinion is also held by all the representatives of organised labour in this industry with whom I have been able to get into consultation. This Clause, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) pointed out, appears to confer large powers. I shall be delighted if in practice that proves to be the case, but we can never forget that under the four or five lines of Sub-section (e) of Clause 1 we are dealing with one of the largest trusts not only in the United States but also in this country, and if that is going to be met by the plain and simple terms of this Sub-section, I think many of us will be more than surprised. Our contention is that the Bill must be strengthened and developed, and that there must be no doubt whatever, as the result of Committee proceedings on the Bill, that it meets the set of circumstances which I shall briefly try to describe. The hon. Member who last sat down seemed to indicate that there was more or loss freedom in the signing of these leases, but, according to the history of the development of this trust in this country, there is practically no such thing as freedom under these leases and in the signing of them at all. There are two leases, a free or optional lease, and what we can call for practical purposes this afternoon a tied lease. If you examine the so-called free or optional lease, you must remember that the trust has made enormous progress, and that under that so-called free lease extra or higher charges are immediately imposed, and if they are not imposed in that form a royalty or some extra payment falls upon the lessee. In a position of that kind there is really no choice for the applicant at all, and he
  1856
  must accept the tied lease with all that the tied lease involves if he is going to make a start in the industry at all.
  What are the heads of this tied lease? In the first place, it provides for the exclusive use of this particular machine or set of machines. That practically rule out all competing machines, however well developed, however scientific they might be, however better adapted perhaps for the particular purpose that the industry has in view. Secondly, if there is extra work and additional machines are required, the lessee is absolutely tied to take the same machines from this same company and to carry on the continuity, so to speak, as regards machinery in his business. In the third place, there is the prohibitive clause, which amounts to this in practice, that they are not allowed to place on these machines any boots or any part of the work which up to that point has been completed on other machines. That is one of the developments of the trust in this country. They want to get right down through the grades of machines to the very bedrock in the raw material. It is control, domination, trust power, from beginning to end of this industry, and that is what makes us suspicious, and I think rightly suspicious, of the too broad, or generous, or what I might almost call with out offence pious terms of this Sub-section. In the fourth place, there is a very harsh and unjust provision in this lease of ten thousand words to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline has referred. If the lease is broken as it applies to or covers any one machine in the industry- there is a right to abandon all the other leases on the part of the company, and the net effect of that in practice would be to- cause the absolute stoppage of the business of the man who had happened to fall into the toils of this great company. There cannot be any difference of opinion about that. He loses every thing beneath the roof of his factory as far as that machinery is concerned. In the fifth and sixth places, he is called upon to work this machine to its full capacity, and he must keep it running at full strength. He. is not at liberty to turn work on to other machinery and to give it a rest or anything like that. It gets a preference as regards use, and is in a strong and dominating position. In the last place, he is also liable to a return, charge of a very heavy character if ho gives up the lease and returns the machinery.

  1857
  These conditions are almost incredible in industry in this country. We have been familiar not only with legal but also with popular and public arguments regarding the evils of restraint on trade, but where could we get a more complete code of absolute restraint on trade than is represented in these six Clauses which I have just described? Fortunately, we are in possession of two public documents of the highest value dealing with this problem, and it is mainly because we possess these documents that I have all the more heart and faith in pressing this view upon the right hon. Gentleman opposite. First of all, there was the Report of the inquiry of the Board of Trade into the position of engineering in this country after the War, and they devoted one of the most interesting passages in their Report to the growth of this trust domination in the supply of machinery for the industry which is now under discussion. They pointed out that there were certain advantages, which I think we shall all readily concede. There was a kind of benevolent despotism, so to speak. The trust was powerful, but after all it tried to give the best conditions and the easiest terms to the men who took up its machinery, but even after that admission had been made the fact remained that in the opinion of this Committee, surveying the engineering trade of this country, it was highly dangerous and should be illegal to restrain anyone from buying or using machines of other makers. That was their considered view after full investigation of the circumstances. Beyond that Report, we have a much more interesting and much more important document in the Report of the Committee of the Ministry of Reconstruction on Trusts. Let us be perfectly fair and reasonable in our arguments. It is quite true that in the near future this country may or will be called upon to embark upon anti-trust legislation. We shall probably pro-fit by the experience of the United States in that connection, and we shall avoid, I hope, a very great deal of the weakness and the hesitation which were true of the United States' attempts to deal with the trusts within their own borders. This Committee pointed out that there are certain advantages attaching to trust operations, and in this particular industry they concede at least three points which are not without their value in this Debate.
  5.0 P.M.>
  Very often the existence of this company enables the small man to start by providing machinery on terms of lease
  1858
  where, in other circumstances, he would not have had an opportunity of beginning. In the second place, the efficiency of their organisation is absolutely undeniable. It was conceded by my hon. Friend he Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) that they have their staff of trained operators, and they can give expert advice with regard to that machinery. They can put a wealth of experience readily and immediately at the disposal of the small manufacturer and so on, and that does a very great deal, as most reports have indicated, to reconcile him to the trust domination under which he is compelled to pass his days. Beyond these two advantages, there is what is really not an advantage at all, and reference was made to this by ray hon. Friend opposite. He said that these people do voluntarily and willingly enter into these agreements, and that they had a way out of these agreements if they so desired. I presume he had in mind the way out under the system of making application to the Board of Trade for arbitration, but the Report of the Committee on Trusts on that particular head was that the cost of arbitration was so prohibitive that, in point of fact, it afforded no real protection to the people we have in mind. The costs are prohibitive either by way of initial charge or arbitration, or under any heading we like to take. I think most hon. Members will concede that that protection is fictitious, and not in any sense a reality.
  What are the disadvantages? In the first place, as regards this machinery, there is an absence of complete economic freedom for the man in the toils of this trust. There can be no doubt whatever that it is foreign to the whole tradition of the industry of this country to tie up men in the manner I have described. That is not our desire, because that must penalise invention. It must confer a real hardship on many men who would use capital to advantage, and must lead to a great loss to the community. There is a second disadvantage. Most of us are under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that when we pass beyond this sphere our responsibility and duties, and certainly our burdens, are at an end. Not so with this particular undertaking in the shoe industry. This is transferred to the heirs and executors who continue the business —the men to whom this machinery has gone—so that it involves a domination, or a form of compulsion, not only for the

  1859
  man himself, but actually for those who follow him as well. A state of affairs like that is contrary, I submit, to law or business, and, one would think, to elementary decency in these things. In the third place, the conclusion of the Committee was that it is exceedingly doubtful as to whether there was any advantage to industry in this country under these conditions. They weighed up the economies of the Trust; they weighed up the immediate and other advantages to the lessee. They set the disadvantages against these advantages, and they came to the conclusion that this was a most pernicious and unhealthy influence in British industry.
  The only point which I would press in a final sentence is this, that we on these benches concerned with the future of labour view this problem with very grave concern. We are very anxious to assist the Government, with all the means at our disposal, to provide legislation which is going to minister to the best in the commerce and industry of this country. But we do suggest most strongly that on every Bill which comes before this House it is our duty to fight this trust influence with all the ability at our command. Unless we take steps under the Bill now under discussion we shall lose a great opportunity. The domination is real. Manufacturers and labour in this particular industry are united along the lines of the views I have tried to express. We do not press, perhaps, our Motion for rejection, but we do urge, in all fairness, that this Bill must be strengthened to deal with that trust influence. Otherwise, I think even the right hon. Gentleman himself would consider that it would largely fail to attain the object it has in view.
  Sir W. PEARCE: I think the House will be glad to hear that hon. Members do not intend to press their Motion for the rejection of this Bill. They have made a very strong case, and if Clause 1 does not meet the case, perhaps the Government may be prepared to agree to Amendments in Committee. But there is no provision, so far as I can see, to meet what has happened during the War. During the War any application for a patent has been obliged to carry nationality, and there have been a good many restrictions which provided that everybody should know on whose behalf protection or a patent was required. I am not at all sure
  1860
  something of the same sort is not necessary in this Bill, and I can see nothing of the kind to meet what has been instituted during the War. I do, therefore, venture to suggest to the Minister that it is well worth while considering whether something of this kind should not be put in. I welcome the Bill as a great improvement on the Bill which was drafted in 1917. I am sure the Government have been wise in extending the term limiting the duration of patents from fourteen to sixteen years. They have not gone as far as industry and science desire, but they have gone some way. Not only during the War has it not been possible to work a patent, but during the present time it is difficult to get any plant to put a patent into operation, and therefore I am quite sure the Government have been wise in granting this extension. Clause 11 is a great improvement, speaking for the chemical industry. The Clause, as now drafted, depends upon process rather than the actual substance itself, and in that, I think, the Government have taker; the right view. There is also a provision which stipulates that for food substances the royalty charged shall not be large, and that the Comptroller, before granting the licence, shall take into account the public requirements for food. I notice that no difference has been made in the Court of Appeal. I know that scientific industry would be very glad to see a different Court of Appeal. They would like a special Court with technical knowledge. It has been pressed upon the Government on many occasions, and I should like again to suggest to them, that, when the Bill gets into Committee, they might be prepared to listen to suggestions of this kind. But in many respects the Bill is a great improvement. It is a great addition to the law of 1907, and a great improvement on the Government's first attempt in 1917, and, speaking for myself, I have great pleasure in welcoming the introduction of this Bill, and I am glad to hear that the rejection is not going to be pressed.
  Mr. J. F. GREEN: I merely want, as representing a constituency which is very specially affected by the trust to which so many references have been made this afternoon, to endorse what has been said by my hon. Friends with regard to the evils of this trust. One hon. Member thinks that these evils are provided against in the Bill as it stands. If that is the case, it is a somewhat remarkable circumstance that places like Leicester and North-

  1861
  ampton, the great centres of the shoe industry, do not consider that is the case, and I can hardly think the manufacturers of those towns are so ignorant that they would not be able to understand this Bill if it really did provide against these evils. None of us who have supported this Motion for the rejection of the Bill, which, as has already been stated, will not be pressed, have any hostility to the Bill as it stands, except that we do not think it goes far enough in this direction, and I hope the learned Solicitor-General, who, I believe, will reply on behalf of the Government, will be able to give us some assurance that if the Bill is not sufficiently strong at present, something will be done in Committee to strengthen it, in order that the great evil of this trust may be put an end to. I want to emphasise again what has been said as to the Report of the Committee on Trusts which was appointed by the Government, in which it was said that the position at present is that 80 per cent, of the shoe factories of this country are tied houses, as regards their machinery, to one machinery firm, and, for all practical purposes, they are tied in perpetuity. I think we shall be agreed that that is a most mischievous state of things, and grossly unfair to these manufacturers, and I feel certain the Government will, if necessary, strengthen this Bill in order that this great evil may be dealt with.
  Major LLOYD-GREAME: I feel sure the general opinion of this House will be in favour of this Bill, and that any criticism will go in the direction of trying on this occasion, and in Committee, to make this the most efficient Bill possible. I should be sorry if the Debate were to be too much concentrated on what may be the very considerable evils of one particular set of patents, and the way those patents can be used and developed, and that consideration should not be given to some of the wider aspects governing the bulk of patents throughout the various kinds of industries. Of course, in considering any Patent Bill, what one has got to do is to strike the balance of convenience. You have got on the one side to protect your patents sufficiently to induce patentees and inventors in this country to stay here to develop their inventions, and, as far as possible, to induce the bringing of patents from other countries to be developed here. We have a very great field in that way by drawing from our Colonies and Dominions. On the other hand, you
  1862
  have, of course, got to secure that the widest advantage is enabled to be taken of any inventions that there are. In that connection I would rather suggest to the Government that the wise course in dealing with these patents, and in dealing with patents that have not been worked, is, if possible, not to go for revocation, but to go for compulsory licence, because the circumstances are present to my mind of one case—and I expect there have been many like it—in which a patent was not being worked to the full in this country, and, as a matter of fact, was not being worked because the particular industry was then more or less in its infancy, and development was not going as quickly as could be expected. Application was made for, the revocation of the patent, not by someone who wanted to work it in this country, but by an importer who wanted to get it revoked in this country and import German manufactured goods. I would suggest to the Government the possibility of considering whether it is not better to forgo the power of revocation, and to make as strict as ever you like the powers as to compulsory licence, in order that wherever the patent is going to be developed hero you may fully develop it, but safeguard it from the danger of men who do not want to develop it here, but to import from another country.
  There is another point which has been mentioned, and which I should like to see considered—that is the question of the desirability of a moratorium in respect of the war period. Patents really divide themselves into two classes here. Some patents have no doubt been developed in connection with war material; but there have been many in key industries which have not been developed. Take, for instance, the electrical industry. I believe many patents, and much scientific research, were put aside by electrical undertakings for the period of the War, while they turned over their plant to the much simpler and the more direct war work. I think in those cases we might follow the example, I believe, of Belgium, where a moratorium has been granted for the whole period of the War. I should also like the Government to consider whether it is not convenient, on the whole, to grant the War period as the period of a moratorium. One is always chary of making any appeal to the Government to give further State assistance where it is a case of financial aid, but in the present case one is not making any appeal for anything in the

  1863
  nature of a direct money grant. I hope, therefore, that what I have put forward will be considered.
  There are just two other points, one is in respect to the power which is taken— quite rightly—in Clause 8 and in a later Clause, I think, that the Crown is to have full power, notwithstanding that a patent is subsequently taken out, of working any invention which has been the product of a person working in one of the Goverment Departments. The words used here are
  "Provided further, that where an invention which is the subject of any patent has, before the date of the patent, been duly recorded in a document by, or tried by or on behalf of, any Government Department…"
  This is a provision with which no one will quarrel, but I am not quite sure what is meant by "duly recorded in a document." We can foresee what may happen, and unless the matter is made quite clear a number of unfortunate altercations may arise between Government Departments and the patentees, or would-be patentees, as to whether it is a fact that the invention has been discovered in a Government Department. If the record is merely a record filed and put away in a Government Department, it may give rise to considerable difficulty. I understand the discovery of an invention by anyone in the service of the Crown belongs to the Crown. Would it not be possible to give notice, to avoid subsequent disputes in matters of this kind, for the patent to be taken out by the inventor as the nominee of or trustee for the Crown? No dispute could then arise as to whether or not this invention had in fact been previously discovered by anyone in the service of the Crown.
  The final point relates to a question of time. I understand it is proposed that the provisional term should be nine months, and afterwards there should be six months, between the filing of the final specification and the scaling. That time may be too short. Of course, one wants to get the greatest possible expedition. In America you may have five years' delay between the application and the time the final decision has been given. In some cases, particularly where the inventor is resident in the Dominions, it is reasonable to give a longer period than six months between the final specification and the sealing. I hope that in all the proceedings on the Bill the House will consider the
  1864
  whole question of the general balance of convenience, and realise, as I am sure the House does, that this Bill goes much, beyond any question of removing abuses, and that it has a more constructive side than that, namely, to stimulate invention.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir E. Pollock): My right hon. Friend, in. moving the Second Reading of this Bill, told the House that the Bill was one which, was distinctly an intricate Bill. I think the discussion proves that he was right. As has been pointed out, the main points dealt with under the Bill—quite apart from the small changes of the Act of 1907 —real changes made in this Bill—are, first of all, an extension of the patent up to-sixteen years. I understand from the discussion, that this is not accounted sufficiently long to overcome the misfortunes under which patent and patentee have, been placed owing to the War. It is said they have had to make the payment of fees, during the period of five years, and now secure only a two years' addition. May I point out that the two years is really a-very valuable addition to the fourteen years which would be granted? I think it would be an increase of rather more than sixteen years. In some other countries the period has been for a long time, and, it is suggested, patentees in this country-have been placed at a disadvantage. In Italy, for instance, the period is eighteen years. In France, fifteeen. In the United States of America, seventeen. All these, parties count their issue of revocation, not. from the issue of the particular date of application, as is the case in this country; and the result of that is that in order to put patentees in this country on an equivalent basis quite clearly some extension is necessary; and we have chosen the period of sixteen years. It will be remembered that in the Clause which deals with it there is the-power of granting an extension of five years for normal cases, five years taking the place of seven years—and for ten years in exceptional cases—these taking the place of fourteen years at present in the Act of 1907. Therefore, if you take it on the one hand that the public loses nothing because you take a definite period of sixteen years with a possible extension of time, on the other hand the patentee gets the advantage of the twenty-one years, and that is no more than the duration of the patent the public has to put up with, for at

  1865
  present the patentee gets his seventeen years, plus an addition, and he can get, in addition, another seven years, making it twenty-four. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon also referred to the need for an extension of time between the date of the application and the date of the sealing. Hitherto the time has been six months. It is now proposed to extend it to nine months, as it has been found that asking for a complete specification in the course of six months is, perhaps, placing an unfair burden upon the patentees. If my hon. Friend can show that nine months is still too short, I am sure that the matter is one which can be adequately discussed and a proper judgment pronounced upon it in Committee. It is a matter which, as has been pointed out, must be considered in Committee. I turn to the other observations which have been made, and I think that really they are not observations with which I need to deal. I am not at all discarding some of the suggestions made, because I think it may be valuable that their consideration should be in Committee; but I do not desire to detain the House by dealing with all these things now, Hon. Members will not, therefore, think that I have overlooked them. My purpose is rather to shorten the observations I have to make here. These criticisms can be dealt with efficiently and better in Committee than on the floor of the House.

  The suggestion has been made, if I do not do an injustice to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, when he moved the rejection of the Bill— for I gather he founded his Motion, which ho was perfectly entitled to put down, on the fact that it would give the House the opportunity for and freedom for debate, in order to see whether the Bill is framed on right lines—he, I say, based his rejection of the Bill on the ground that Clause 1 (a) was inadequate, or did not deal with the difficulties under which, he said, certain classes of manufacturers were placed at the present time. Of course, the Clause to which he was referring is Section (38) of the Act of 1907, with which we are all familiar. If I am correctly informed, it was passed as a middle course between two conflicting opinions, or, perhaps, I might say between two conflicting interests. The hon. Gentleman presented a very strong case showing that that Section does not give adequate protection, or, at any rate, free-
  1866
  dom to those persons engaged in either purchasing or hiring certain classes of machinery. He will not expect me to ex press any opinion at all upon the facts or materials which have been laid before the House. Indeed, it would not be right for me to express such an opinion. The position was strongly affirmed by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, and reinforced by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil and the hon. Member for Edinburgh. All three Members would, I feel quite sure, respect my feeling that I should maintain a deep reserve upon those matters which, obviously, are matters in which there must be another side. It is my misfortune, being a lawyer, to assume, or to have an uneasy feeling, that there must be another side—
  Mr. CAUTLEY: The hon. and learned Gentleman will not find it in the Report of the Committee on Trusts.
  Sir E. POLLOCK: May I point out that the words in this first Clause of the Bill propose that there should be a power, not of revocation, but of the time which is to enable a licence, as of right, to be granted in cases in which the privilege which was granted under patent has been abused—primarily the conditions of Section (27) of the 1907 Act intended for one particular purpose? These were in order to secure that the patentee should not manufacture… … entirely abroad, and that he should become compelled to manufacture, in a large measure over here, to the advantage of our industry and our labour here. Clause 27 of the Act of 1907 deals with articles manufactured exclusively or mainly outside the United Kingdom. When this came to be interpreted it was held that under the word "mainly" you had to consider the relation between profits made abroad and profits made in the United Kingdom, and as it is very difficult and in most cases impossible to ascertain what are the profits made abroad it was impossible to satisfy that word "mainly," and consequently Clause 27 has not been as effective as was intended. Hence under Clause 1 of this Bill we propose a new Section for Clause 27 of the Act of 1907. Hon. Members will find that a number of cases of abuse are indicated, many referring to the abuse of not adequately making the invention within the United Kingdom. Sub-section (e) of Clause 1 provides that

  1867
  "If any trade or industry in the United Kingdom, or any person or class of persons engaged therein, is unfairly prejudiced by the conditions attached by the patentee, whether before or after the passing of this Act, to the purchase, hire, or use of the patented article, or to the using or working of the patented process—"
  he can apply to the Comptroller, who can use the powers granted to him under this Section. In other words, if a case is made out where such conditions are attached as make them unfair, then the Comptroller's powers come in after both sides have been heard.
  Sir EDGAR JONES: The Committee on trusts having been made, would the Comptroller take action under this Clause and cancel all the licences throughout?
  Sir E. POLLOCK: Certainly not, and I should be very sorry that any such provision should be inserted in the Bill. If I understand the case that is made, and I do not think I misunderstood the point at all, it is that there are important cases where restraint of trade can be proved—indeed, the hon. Member for Merthyr himself rather argued that it has been proved. Assuming cases had been proved, so far as I follow the argument, it is quite unnecessary to a patented article. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Graham) rather indicated that this restraint of trade which is suggested really had very little relation to patented articles, and he said that he hoped that when a man passes to another place he may be free of the contract he had made, but at the same time he pointed out that this was a liability that lay upon the man and by heirs and executors, and he said it was an entanglement which lasted for a long time. May I point out that the patent only lasts fourteen years?
  Sir E. JONES: There is always some email extra patent to a small part of the machine, so that the patent is germane to the whole thing.
  Sir E. POLLOCK: I quite see the sequence of the hon. Member's argument, but whether it is valid or not, perhaps I may be allowed a little more time to consider the point before I decide one way or the other. If hon. Members are right, their point is a restraint of trade which has developed over a very long period of time and not the ordinary and normal period of a patent, whether it be fourteen or sixteen years. That is a matter which must be dealt with, not under a Patents
  1868
  Bill, but under a measure dealing with trusts, and I understand that the Bill is in actual preparation and my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Geddes) assures me that it is his intention to introduce a Bill relating to that matter in the autumn. I think that really covers a large portion of the serious nature of the complaint made, namely, that freedom is taken away, that men are tied up and that the necessity is shown for what is called anti-trust legislation.
  I will now come to the narrow confines of the Patents and Designs Bill. Under Clause 1, paragraph (e), we give an opportunity for those persons who have been injured to come and have their cases heard, and a conclusion can be come to by the Comptroller, and if he decides that there is a restraint and an unfair burden is being imposed upon the users of this machinery he has the power to endorse the patent with the words, "Licences of right." Within the proper limits of the Patents Bill, I think we have gone as far as we ought to go. The other matters on which hon. Members feel strongly must be dealt with by an anti-trust Bill which will be introduced in proper course. With regard to all these questions, whether paragraph (e) of Sub-section (1) is strong enough or requires safeguards, are matters for the Committee, and they are questions which can be adequately dealt with in Committee. I trust the House will now accord a Second Reading to this Bill which is designed to remedy the difficulties which have been found to exist in the working of the 1907 Patents Act
  Mr. WALLACE: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put. and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  TRADE MARKS BILL.
  Order for Second Heading read.
  Sir A. GEDDES: 1 beg to move,
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  I need not detain the House very long in-explaining the objects of this Bill. This measure naturally divides itself into three parts. The first part of the Bill proposes that we should have a class of trade marks rather different from that with which we have been familiar, but the intention is to have a list or a register of

  1869
  trade marks which have common law existence and can be protected in the form of actions known as a "passing off action." For that purpose we propose to have part B of the register, and it will be much easier for any individual who wishes to register such a mark to get it under that part. We suggest in Clause 2 that
  "Where any mark has for not less than two years been bonâ fide used in the United Kingdom upon or in connection with any goods (whether for sale in the United Kingdom or exportation abroad)—"
  the person claiming to be the proprietor of the mark may apply to the registrar to have it entered in Part B of the register. The second part is of very considerable practical importance. There is a great abuse at the present time in connection with the use of "marks." We have got, for example, the case of drugs. A very good example of this abuse is the use of the word "Aspirin." It is to deal with difficulties arising from the use of such names, which are absolutely blocking names upon other manufactures of the same chemical substance, that the Bill is brought before this House. It is not an ambitious measure, but a very modest one, but it will, I firmly believe, make a great improvement in our present powers and legislation governing the use and protection of trade marks.
  Colonel GRETTON: This Bill is of a very technical character, and it is the result of long negotiations with those concerned. The proposal to set up two classes of trade marks is a very questionable one. Our trade marks law is the most strict in the whole civilised world, and in some respects it would be an advantage to many traders in this country were they able to register in this country, and more especially for their trade abroad. I do not profess to be an expert authority on these matters, but to me, as a layman who has had some experience of trade marks, some of these proposals seem very questionable. This is a matter which wants the most careful investigation, but it seems to me that it is hardly a matter that is suitable for any prolonged debate on the floor of the House, and I do not intend to initiate one. It is a matter which can be properly investigated by the Committee. Such other criticisms as may be directed against the Bill are purely Committee points. We all agree that there is an abuse of the Trade Marks law, and whether this remedy is safe or
  1870
  whether the Bill will accomplish that which it is intended to do and prevent abuses particularly connected with certain patent chemical combinations without injuring other persons is a matter which the Committee may very properly investigate. We all agree that there are abuses which press hardly upon some persons, and those of us who have any knowledge of these matters would be very glad to see the abuses removed. We are therefore prepared to give such support in our power to the right hon. Gentleman who has brought forward this Bill. On the other hand, it must always be remembered that trade mark owners require some consideration. I hope that the Bill will receive careful examination by the Committee.
  Mr. FRANCE: I doubt very much if the House, in giving a Second Reading to this Bill, understands very much about it. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which excelled in brevity, did not dismiss one or two doubts and difficulties in my own mind with regard to the Bill. I quite agree that the questions which arise can best be dealt with in Committee, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why it is necessary to introduce the first part of the Bill at all. What is the object of making two classes of trade marks? It appears to me that anyone who has not taken the trouble to register a trade mark is having offered to him an opportunity of getting a certain advantage which he might have had if he had taken the trouble of applying for registration under the existing Act. That is a point about which I am not clear from the wording of the measure, and the right hon. Gentleman himself did not seem to be very clear that there was very much necessity for the first part of the Bill, if I may judge by inference, because he attached a good deal of importance to the second part as compared with the first part. I would like to know whether it is going to put certain people who have been rather careless, and who perhaps have been getting an advantage from their carelessness, into a position, perhaps not quite as good as those in Class A, but rather better than they would otherwise occupy. Is it not possible, while endeavouring to remedy something which is wrong in one direction, that some injustice may be done by some of the provisions in the second part of the Bill to firms who by enterprise, by continuous work, or by large sums of money spent in advertising have acquired a goodwill in a

  1871
  name which has become a household word? I quite agree that this is not an occasion; for long speeches or for going into details, but I wish to advance those general criticisms so that the points I have mentioned may be safeguarded in the Committee Stage.
  Mr. A. SHAW: I understand that this Bill divides the registration of trade marks into two, and the question is whether in Part B of the register it will be open to insert trade marks of a certain character. There are some trade marks well known to my right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General which formerly have been refused by the Registrar and by the Court, although they have actually become associated in the public mind with some particular article. They have been rejected by the Courts, because ab initio the words were not adapted to distinguishing the article. During a course of years the words have become so intimately associated in the public mind with the article that primâ facie there appears to be considerable hardship in making the distinguishing names that the proprietors have given to such articles open to their competitors and the whole world. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will be able to give us any guidance on that point. So long as the words are not misleading and have a real adaptation by usage they should be capable of being inserted in Part B.
  Sir E. POLLOCK: I understand that the purpose of Class B is to deal with the very cases to which my hon. Friend has referred. There are a number of cases in which there are marks which are quite good property and are in common use but which do not fulfil the precise requirements to enable them to be registered under the present Trade Marks Act. The purpose of Part B is to enable those marks to be registered. When we come, in Committee, to examine the various alterations and Amendments to be made to the present Trade Marks Act, I think the hon. Gentleman will find that is the object with which Part B has been introduced. A number of marks will then be able to find their way on to the register which are quite good property, and which really ought to be there.
  Mr. FRANCE: In what way would a possessor of a mark in Class B be inferior to one possessing a mark in Class A? What are the differences in privileges between Classes A and B?
  Sir E. POLLOCK: I do not think there will be any difference. Class B is a class which does not exist at present, and it will be by way of supplement rather than by way of distinction.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee

  GOVERNMENT OF THE SOUDAN LOAN BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I beg to move,
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The House is perhaps more fully informed as to the object of this Bill than it was when the question was discussed on the Financial Resolution. In point of fact, this is not a new question in the House of Commons. Hon. Members who are particularly interested in the matter, and some of the older Members of the House not particularly interested in it, will remember that on two separate occasions this question of the irrigation of the Soudan has been brought up on the floor of the House. In 1913 the Bill was introduced by the present Prime Minister, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in the following year an amending Bill was introduced, and, latterly, the project with which this Bill has to deal has been to some extent ventilated in the Press. With a view to more fully informing the House, two White Papers have been issued, one by the Treasury and the other by the Foreign Office. Those two documents are exceedingly clear and candid, and I hope hon. Members have found in them a full explanation of the objects of the Bill, and one that will obviate the necessity for my making a speech at any length this afternoon.
  6.0 P.M.
  The object of the Bill is to enable the Government of the Soudan to raise a loan of £6,000,000 for the purpose of the development of irrigation work in the Soudan together with certain railway construction. The House, of course, is not asked to find the capital sum involved It is merely asked to lend the still unimpaired prestige of British Government finance to the Government of the Soudan, so that

  1873
  that Government may be in a position to raise the loan on terms more advantageous than might otherwise be the case. If all goes well with this project, the British Exchequer will not be called upon to find a single penny. There is, however, a considerable difference between the proposal now before the House and that which formed the subject of the existing Act. The existing Act, it will be remembered, virtually became a dead letter, because the outbreak of the War prevented the loan, and it would never be possible to initiate a scheme of irrigation by borrowing on the part of this Soudan Government from the National Debt Commissioners. This proposal is avowedly a proposal to guarantee. The guarantee is asked not for £3,000,000 but for £6,000,000, and the reasons are simple. In the Soudan, as elsewhere, the War has immensely enhanced the cost of everything £of construction, of material, and of many other things. I say that here, as everywhere, such costs have been doubled, and in some respects more than doubled. Again, this is a more extensive scheme, because the area to be cultivated has been enlarged from 100,000 feddans to 300,000, it being considered by the Soudan Government and its advisers that the scheme would be established on a more substantial and more permanent basis if the area of land irrigated were so enlarged. As regards the finance of this scheme, one who represents at this box the Foreign Office can. I think, beat rest himself more largely on the Treasury than on any Foreign Office opinion. We have the approval of the Treasury of this scheme as of the other schemes in the past, and I feel disposed to say myself; —and I think the House will agree—that what is good enough for the Treasury is good enough for us. That least emotional of all Government Departments has not only scrutinised with its accustomed austerity the finances of this measure, but, as will be seen from the Bill and from the White Paper issued by the Treasury, retains at every stage a strong influence and a strong hold on the flotation of the loan and generally on the financial operations involved in the scheme.
  The main area concerned in this scheme is one of 300,000 feddans situated at the confluence of the White Nile and the Blue Nile. The House will be prepared to learn that it is not proposed to use these 300,000 acres every year for the production of cotton crops. In the Soudan, as else-
  1874
  where, there must be a rotation of crops, and I understand that each year one-third of this acreage will be under cotton, another third will be under leguminous crops, and the remaining third will lie fallow. The Soudan Government, in advancing this scheme, are not speculating in the air. For some years past they have been making experiments. They have had over 12,000 feddans under experimental cultivation, the results of which are chronicled in the White Paper, and these experiments promise immensely well for the success of the larger scheme. The second chief item is that of railway extension— the extension of the railway from Khartoum through Gezirah to El Obeid. This is, in reality, a repayment of loan. The Soudan Government had borrowed £800,000 from the National Bank of Egypt, and have been able to repay out of their own resources £100,000. The item in the White Paper of £700,000 represents the balance of the loan due to the National Bank of Egypt. There is a secondary scheme, that relating to Tokar. It is a minor item and the money is to be devoted, if the House will sanction the guarantee of this loan, to building a railway from Suakim to Tokar and the improvement of the existing irrigation works in that district.
  The House knows very well that this project has been subjected in some quarters to very drastic criticism. A very eminent former official of the Egyptian Government, Sir William Willcocks, has taken every opportunity to criticise this scheme, and he has, I think, distributed to Members of this House an important document which deserves, and so far as the Department I represent is concerned has received, the most careful consideration. But these charges against some members of the Government of Soudan go back for a considerable period. Some of them are of a most serious character. It is not for me, and nothing will tempt me to do it, to attack an eminent servant of the Crown who, in the past, has rendered great service, as has Sir William Willcocks. He has latterly, however, shown himself a little less careful of his own great reputation, and, what is equally important, of the reputation of other servants of the Crown, than might have been expected of a man of his distinguished antecedents. The attack which he made on this scheme and on the officers responsible for it was based on two grounds. One of those grounds is of a technical character. I

  1875
  cannot argue, nor do I suppose that any Member of this House would argue, with Sir William Willcocks on the technical point. I do not propose to offer to the House any observation on that part of his criticism. But he has made also grave charges of a personal character against public officials. Towards the end of last year the Foreign Office set up a Committee to inquire into these allegations. Hon. Members have not perhaps examined the Report of that Committee, although some copies of it have been in the Library for some days past. I would prefer I confess not to have been obliged to refer to this matter at all. But I must do so in support of the Bill, the Second Reading of which I am moving, and in elementary justice to those distinguished officials on whose advice the Government of Egypt and the Soudan, and indeed His Majesty's Government, have rested their confidence. The Foreign Office set up a Committee of Inquiry into the charges made by Sir William Willcocks and Colonel Kennedy, and the Committee consisted of the following gentlemen: Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice, Past President Institute of Civil Engineers; Sir John Benton, late Inspector-General of Irrigation, Government of India; Sir W. Garstin, late Adviser Egyptian Public Works; Sir Arthur L. Webb, late Adviser Egyptian Public Works; Prof. Cawthorne Unwin, past President Institute of Civil Engineers; and Colonel Lyons, late Director-General, Survey Department, Egypt, and Acting Director of Meteorological Office. I put it that it would be quite impossible for the Foreign Office or any other Department to have instituted a Committee containing names better calculated to inspire confidence in the British public or the public in Egypt or the Soudan. These gentlemen invited Sir William Willcocks to come before them and give evidence. But he declined the invitation. Colonel Kennedy did, however, give evidence before the Committee. I will not trouble the House with a lengthy examination of this question. I will explain that on the technical side the question as to whether the figures in relation to the water supply of Egypt were sufficient or not, but they were adopted.
  That is a question I am wholly incompetent to deal with. I will only read to the House two of the main findings of the Committee to which I referred. In regard to the allegations that the setting up
  1876
  of these irrigation works about Khartoum might or would deprive Egypt of an essential part of its water supply, that was discussed by the Committee, and on page-eleven of the Report they say:
  "We are therefore of opinion that there is no-justification for the statement that the scheme put forward will injure Egypt."
  As I say, on such a painful subject, the most eminent engineers of our time, some of them with lifelong experience in the highest degree of irrigation, have come to that conclusion, and we in the House of Commons, I venture to suggest, may well be satisfied. Then, again, as to the general charges of malfeasance against these officers of the Egyptian Government. On the last page of the Report we get what I call the general findings, and from them I will quote these words:
  "In conclusion we get the report that after carefully considering all the matters referred to us we are unanimously of opinion that there is no foundation for the charges brought by Sir William Willcock a and Colonel Kennedy, and further that they should never have been made. We feel bound to express our great regret that two past officials of the Egyptian and Soudan Government Services should have descended to the course of action they have thought fit to adopt in making these charges."
  The rest of the matter may be found in this extremely clear, candid, and able Report, copies of which are to be found in the Library of the House. The House will probably ask, How is this scheme to to be administered? The experimental operations of the Soudan Government have so far been conducted for them by a body known as the Soudan Plantations Syndicate, of which Mr. F. Eckstein, Lord Lovat, and Mr. A. Maclntyre are, I understand, the principal directors. This body has been conducting the experiments, and has acquired the necessary experience and a part—a nucleus, at least—of the necessary organisation. The scheme will be-worked out, as I understand, on some such lines as these—I will not go in detail into the matter, because, of course, some of the details are better suited to a debate in Committee than to a debate on Second Reading—roughly speaking, the Soudan Government will be responsible for the construction of the main irrigation works and for the provision of the necessary land. The syndicate will provide the miner irrigation works, buildings, ginning factores, offices, and the like. They will be, in fact, the factors or farm agents of the estate. They are to have a run of ten, or it may be fourteen, years, during which time they are to reimburse them-

  1877
  selves for their main expenditure, the cost of buildings, etc., being on revaluation repaid to them by the Soudan Government. Of the proceeds of the cotton, 40 per cent. will go to the native cultivators, 35 per cent. to the Soudan Government, and 25 per cent. to the syndicate. I should observe in this connection that from all the green crop, the leguminous crop which is to be grown every three years on 100,000 acres, the total proceeds are to be given to the native cultivators. I do not think the House will ask me to enlarge any further on this matter. The House has very full information in its hands or at its disposal, and there will be, of course, ample opportunities of entering into this matter in Committee.
  I would conclude by saying that this seems to me to be precisely that sort of project in which we, as a Great Power, can both prudently and legitimately engage. I go further, and say that it is such an enterprise as we must be always willing to undertake if we are to justify our lordship over undeveloped territories inhabited by peoples perhaps less advanced than our own. The House will pardon me if I say that throughout recent difficulties and troubles the people of the Soudan have proved themselves to be staunch and faithful Allies of the British Empire. Here there is no question of the alienation of native interests or the exploitation of native labour. If there is profit and advantage in this venture, the people of the Soudan will share in it to the full. On the other hand, they lose nothing that they now possess if the venture fails. I do not say that I ask for support of this Bill in the interests of the Soudan alone. Quite frankly, I am thinking as much of Lancashire and of that industry which, next after agriculture, is the most important industry in this country. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of Lancashire. The provision of the raw material for the staple industry of Lancashire must ever be a prime consideration of Members of this House. It is imperative that the cotton-growing areas should be enlarged, and it is almost as important that we should develop as fast as we can those areas within the British Empire, and so under our control, that are capable of growing cotton. This is especially true of those areas not to be found in all cotton-producing countries that are capable of producing fine cotton with long staple, for which the soil of Egypt and the Soudan
  1878
  is so well adapted. Until now, as I am informed, we have been dependent for nine-tenths of our supply of raw cotton on the United States of America. This trade in raw cotton has been profitable to them and to us, but who will say that our blind reliance on one main source of supply will always be justified? We cannot take risks with Lancashire. We should be negligent indeed if we refused any businesslike expedient for securing the prosperity of Lancashire's chief industry. It is because this Bill will promote the cultivation of cotton of an especially valuable quality, and will also tend to ensure continued success to a vital English industry, that I ask the House to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. ACLAND: As, when I had the honour to occupy the position which the hon. Gentleman now adorns I was responsible for the two existing Soudan Loan-Acts, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say a very few words. I am very glad that the Government is bringing forward this Bill, and I hope the House will regard it with approval and pass it. I very strongly agree with what has been said—that, when we take over, as we have done, a territory such as the Soudan, under a condominium between ourselves and Egypt, it is an obligation on us, if we can find a scheme which is going to be of great benefit in developing that territory, to lend our credit so that the scheme may be put through. From such experience and knowledge as I gained in going into this matter before the War, I can bear out what the hon. Gentleman has said—that this scheme of irrigating the Gezireh Plain or parts of it for the purpose of growing cotton is most promising from the point of view of Lancashire and cotton-users in general. There are no two opinions as to the gain there will be to the resources of the Empire in raw cotton when this scheme is successfully developed. It is a pity that we have not been able to make progress hitherto. I remember that after the two Bills were passed—Bills which are incorporated really in this Bill and therefore are now repealed—LordKitchener, before the War, came to London in order to raise part of the loan which was guaranteed under the existing Acts. The House may be interested to know that he came to inquire the terms on which he would be able to raise, I think it was, £1,000,000 for the purpose of beginning this irrigation scheme. He asked me, at

  1879
  the Foreign Office, to obtain for him the figure at which, if a loan was issued—I think it was a 4 per cent. loan—he could get his money. It was quite easy for a Treasury official to work out this, that if a loan was issued at that time on the Consolidated Fund he would get about £98 offered for each £100 of stock. I recall the simple-minded, direct way in which Lord Kitchener said, "Well, if Lloyd George can get £98 for a loan of his, of course, I shall be able to get £100 for a loan of mine." He went to his friends in the City, and in ten days' time returned to my room a sadder and a wiser man, having realised that there was precious little sentiment in business and that when it was a question of a mere million being issued for a special loan of this kind, as against the world-wide reputation and stability of Consols, he would have to put up with a little less than an the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to get for a loan on the Consolidated Fund. The War intervened, and I think no progress was made then. I can only say that I am glad the matter is now being taken up, and I hope it will be a success.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I desire, in the first place, to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs both for the White Papers and for the very full and frank statement he has given on this Bill this afternoon. I am particularly glad that he took his coat off and came, out into the open on the controversy which has been raging round this subject now for months, if not years, and definitely stated that His Majesty's Government accepted fully and without reserve the findings of the Nile Projects Committee, and that they had no hesitation in saying that the charges brought by Sir William Willcocks and Colonel Kennedy have been found, under impartial examination, to be without foundation, and to have been not only unnecessary but uncalled for. I say that because I have read most carefully the further charges of Sir William Willcocks on this scheme embodied in the recent book that was circulated to Members, of Parliament commenting on the findings of the Nile Projects Committee. Any impartial man who knows anything of Egypt or of the East, and who knows the persons concerned, will, after reading that book, agree with me that Sir William Willcocks has not behaved very fairly in the matter,
  1880
  that he has now no case, and that where he says that the Committee have passed over some of his charges in silence he will find on a little examination that they have been dealt with fully. It is very unfortunate that so distinguished an engineer as Sir William Willcocks should not only continue to criticise this most important scheme which we have under discussion this, afternoon, but should appear to be actuated by personal animus against the person holding the position of Adviser to the Public Works Department, Sir Murdock Macdonald. who is mainly responsible for advising both the Egyptian Government and His Majesty's Government to go on with this scheme. I was very glad to hear the representative of the Foreign Office this afternoon give unstinted support to Sir Murdock Macdonald and the officials working with him. He deserves it and needs it. As there are continual attacks made in the Press at the present moment, all inspired from the same source, it is time finality was put to it.
  Let me say one or two things about the scheme itself. I am perfectly confident that the House is safe in going on at once with the Blue Nile scheme—with the scheme for erecting a dam near Senaar for the utilisation of the water of the Blue Nile for the irrigation of cotton-growing land in the Soudan. I think we are safe in doing that, but in order to reassure public opinion in Egypt, in order that there may be no doubt about it, I hope that any subsidiary projects which may be necessitated as the result of the construction of the Blue Nile dam at Senaar may be published without delay. While I absolutely agree with all these technical points about evaporation and about figures, and I think Sir William Willcocks has been quite put out of court by the findings of the recent most responsible Committee, there is one criticism which he makes of a quite general character which has some substance, and that is that the projects of the Irrigation Department and of His Majesty's Government in these matters has not been given sufficiently early publicity. The great thing in a country like Egypt is to publish everything, and then it is most desirable that there should be no ground for rumours and suspicions that the adviser to the Irrigation Department, or any other Department, is anxious to avoid free criticism or publication of his plans. It is important that there should be free criticism of all the plans. I understand, in order to ensure against low

  1881
  Niles, which only happen once in many years, it may be necessary, as the result of this Blue Nile dam, to proceed at once with the construction of a new barrage in Egypt for the raising of the water that is available for Egypt. The Blue Nile scheme will leave quite enough water for Egypt. It will not take away water which will be urgently needed by Egypt in the critical months of Aprl, May, and June, before the flood comes. It may turn out, in a bad year, that the effect will be that though there will be a sufficient volume of water, especially in middle Egypt, which is becoming increasingly one of the most valuable cotton-growing lands—about 250 miles south of Cairo—you may require a new barrage in order to get your water at a higher level, because in Egypt it is not merely a question of the water available for irrigaton but the level you have it at is a. vital point, and I hope an early opportunity will be taken by the Government, and by the English advisers to the Egyptian Government, for the purpose of re-assuring public opinion in Egypt and in this country, of putting all their cards on the table in regard to this scheme.
  The line taken by Sir William Willcocks, and those who have inundated me with appeals in the last few weeks in opposition to the Bill, is that the commencement of the construct on of the Blue Nile dam, which we are sanctioning by this Bill, should ho held up pending an examination of the White Nile scheme as an alternative. I hope the House will not take that course, but will be content, after what it has heard from the Government and what it may hear in the Debate, to go on with the Blue Nile scheme. But that criticism exists and it has got to be met, and there are people outside the House who think that the White Nile scheme should be considered before we are deeply committed on the Blue Nile. The position is this: The Nile rises in Egypt at the beginning of July, and the cause of the rise, up till the time of the full flood in August, is the rise of the Blue Nile, which comes from "the mountains of Abyssinia. That is a very rapid and a temporary rise, and it conveys an enormous volume of water. But even so, taking it all the year round, the Blue Nile is not nearly as fundamentally important, both to Egypt and the Soudan, as the longer and the greater river, the White Nile, which has no such remarkably sudden rise, and therefore seems to a layman almost out of the picture. Yet it is
  1882
  on the maintenance and the perpetual addition, if we can get it, to the volume of the White Nile that the real prosperity of the country fundamentally depends.
  Sir William Willcocks criticises the Blue Nile scheme because he thinks more attention should be paid to a scheme of his in regard to this White Nile. The Government have promised, and are proposing, in connection with this Blue Nile scheme, a subsidiary scheme in connection with the White Nile in the neighbourhood of Khartoum. They are proposing a barrage about twenty-five miles from Khartoum, and that has been severely criticised by Sir William Willcocks—a very extraordinary proceeding on his part considering that he suggested not very long ago the construction of a barrage in a somewhat similar place. However, he has gone back on that now and he wants the whole of this part held up for the exploration of his scheme for the Upper White Nile in what is called the sudd region. In the sudd region there is, of course, a vast expanse of water that now goes to waste. It is now evaporated and eaten up by vast areas of vegetation. If they could be cleared, and if the water that collects and evaporates could be brought down the Nile, both Egypt and the Soudan would take another big leap forward. It would be a gigantic work. The construction of the Assouan dam would be a small thing to it. I think the House would be well advised to urge that, while going on with this Bill and the Blue Nile scheme, an impartial outside Commission should be set up forthwith to examine what can be done on the White Nile in addition to the Blue Nile and not as an alternative. It will be an insurance against the fears that, some people have of the scheme that we are sanctioning by this Bill. I have no fear that we arc doing anything dangerous, but some people have; and I hope that at the same time that we begin work on the Blue Nile scheme an impartial Commission will examine into the possibility of supplying more water from the sudd region and bringing it down to Egypt. The controversy will go on unless you have an absolutely impartial Commission to go into it. It seems to me that there is a vendetta on the part of Sir William Willcocks against someone in Egypt, and it would be absolutely fatal to entrust either Sir William Willcocks or the present officials in Egypt with the task of examining this sudd region without opening up a further great area of controversy which

  1883
  will all find its way down into the Lobbies of this House. So I hope, if any Commission is set up, the Government will get someone who has never been in. Egypt or had anything to do with Sir Murdock Macdonald or Sir William Willcocks to go and examine the all-important question of the sudd area.
  I hope in carrying out this scheme of the Blue Nile it will be done as far as possible not by a contractor but directly by the Public Works Department. It will be much better, in view of the further consideration that is to take place, to see that that Department carries out directly, with local labour and local knowledge, the construction of these important works. They can be trusted to do it, and I hope they will do it. I think I should give expression to the satisfaction; which we all feel that our Debate should have been witnessed by representatives from the country now under discussion who have played so loyal and magnificent a part in the War. There are no portions of His Majesty's Moslem subjects who have been more loyal or have done more for the United Empire that the Soudanese, and if it is only for the debt of gratitude we owe the people of that country, the House will be justified in doing what the Government urges it to do, namely, pledging the credit of the Empire in the development of their great country. Those of us who have seen any of it believe in its future and in the future of its people. They believe it may be a great help to civilisation and that its development is our duty as well as theirs, and I am very glad my hon. Friend (Mr. Harmsworth) is determined to press on with it. I do not think there will be many points to raise in Committee and I hope the Bill will soon be on the Statute Book.
  Captain SHAW: I welcome this Bill as I believe it will increase to a very large extent the amount of cotton produced under British auspices. It will also raise our prestige in the Soudan. It will increase the prosperity of the natives there and it will give them a. tangible instance of the benefits derived from British protection. By pledging British credit the Soudanese Government will be able to get cheaper money, and I am certain that is the desire of both this House and the country. I am also certain that neither this House nor the Government nor the country desire to provide cheap money in order to increase the profits of any international financial group. The Under-Secretary for
  1884
  Foreign Affairs has referred to a Soudanese syndicate. I understand that this company has made a provisional agreement with the Soudanese Government in which that Government is to provide 3,000,000 acres. The Soudanese Government are going to build the canals, to equip the land, and do everything needful and the company is merely, as I understand it from information at my disposal, to provide the administration and to provide and supervise the tenants for the land. As the Under-Secretary stated the Government of the Soudan are to take 35 per cent, of the gross cotton produced on the land cultivated, and the syndicate is to take 25 per cent., while the cultivators are only to get 40 per cent. of the total produce to meet the cost of seed, etc. Under this agreement it seems to me that the syndicate is to get far too big a, share of the proceeds of these developments, which can only be carried out by pledging British credit. I trust, therefore, that before the Government go further in this matter they will give the House an assurance that this agreement will be looked into so that we shall be able to feel that British credit has not been pledged in this instance simply to provide profits for a group of financiers.
  Major Earl WINTERTON: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Stafford, with whom I have been associated in this matter, in congratulating the Undersecretary, not only on his speech this afternoon, but on the very clear statement which is put forward in the White Paper. I think, also, that congratulations are due to the Government for having taken the second step—the first step having been the creation some years ago of the Uganda Railway—in what I hope will be many steps to develop, either by direct Imperial assistance or by Imperial guarantee, the vast potential riches of our huge African Empire. There is an old French proverb —I do not know whether I can quote it correctly or not—that a sack of wheat is worth a bag of gold. That means that it you can really produce you can get back the value of your gold. That is true of our African Empire to-day. If this House and this country is really prepared to put its hand to the plough and to develop the huge assets that exist in the mineral wealth and the fertile soil of our African Empire, indeed in the whole of our tropical Dependencies, for the next few years, we can go a long way towards paying the cost of the War. We have in the Soudan, as in so many other parts of our African

  1885
  territority, tremendous potential riches. The Under-Secretary has spoken of some of them this afternoon. From my own personal experience of that country, I can say that he has not overestimated the opportunities that lie open to us if we really develop the Soudan.
  To those of us who for years have advocated a policy of Imperial development, either by direct assistance or by guarantee, it was very pleasant this afternoon to hear the speech of the Under-Secretary and to realise that the Government are taking steps to carry out the Soudan irrigation policy which was foreshadowed in the 1910 Parliament but could not be carried out owing to the War. I should also like to say in this respect that I am very glad this money is to be spent in the Soudan, because I think there is no part of our territories which are a better example of what I may call our native dependence on Imperialism than the Soudan. The word "Imperialism," for various reasons, is used by many people as a sort of sneer, or almost as a term of abuse; but applied to what we have done as a nation in the Soudan during the last twenty years—and this Bill is only to carry out the policy which has already been laid down—we may claim that what we have done in the Soudan is something of which the nation may be very proud. We found a devastated, starved—one might almost say ruined— country, with a population so reduced that one would scarcely have thought that it could have been so reduced in so few years under the Mahdi and his followers and the Kalipha; but in little less than twenty years we have restored contentment and prosperity to a growing population, and there is more work than labour actually available in the Soudan. Here is a country which, as the Under-Secretary has so truly said, when practically all other countries were suffering from upheaval as a result of the War, has remained tranquil and prosperous throughout. It is for that reason alone that it is very pleasant that the policy of further developing the Soudan is being pursued by the Government. As to the strictures of Sir William Willcocks and Colonel Kennedy, I think the case has been fully answered by the Government in the White Paper and also by my hon. Friend's speech.
  I only rose to say a few words about a very interesting question which forms part of the charge which Sir William
  1886
  Willcocks makes as to how to deal with the sudd of the White Nile and as to the alternative for the White Nile as against the Blue Nile scheme. Generally I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, and I support him in the suggestion that an entirely impartal Commission should be sent out for the purpose of dealing with this sudd question and the White Nile. I can speak with perhaps even greater authority than my hon. Friend on this matter, because I have seen a great deal of the White Nile. I have seen the enormous storage of water which exists in those regions. I used a phrase in the Debate on the Financial Resolution which is unfortunately incorrectly reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I said it was the greatest water catchment area in the world, but, stored as it is in the sudd area, unfortunately, it benefits Egypt and the Soudan very little, because it eventually evaporates in the dry season. If the sudd could be properly dealt with, it would be of incalculable benefit. It is a question of the greatest importance, and some very wild charges have been made against the irrigation department. It is also an intricate question. I am convinced that if this sudd could be dealt with the amount of water available for Egypt and the Soudan would be perfectly enormous. For these reasons, I entirely support my hon. and gallant Friend in the suggestion that a Commission should be sent out to report upon this question, but to look upon it as an addition to, and not an alternative to, the Nile scheme. If we are going to wait while the Commission reports, and while further investigation is made, before we proceed with the Blue Nile scheme, the whole thing will be held up, and there has been far too much in connection with these development schemes of what is called jam yesterday, jam to-morrow, but never jam to-day, or what in the native vernacular is called by a term which means "to-morrow apricots," but they are never ripe. There has been too much of the "to-morrow apricots" about this scheme.
  It is most important at the present time, with our position in Egypt what it is, that it should be known that we are going to get to work on this scheme. I press upon the Government the need for further investigation as to the possibility of really dealing with this sudd question, for if it could be dealt with there would be quite sufficient water for Egypt and the Soudan. I hope that this is only one of further schemes for developing the potentialities

  1887
  of the Soudan. It has tremendous possibilities. It has an enormous acreage of rich, black, cotton soil, and it is of vital importance that we should develop this area, in view of the serious position in which we find ourselves, when nine-tenths of our cotton supply comes from countries not under the British flag. True, it comes mainly from a friendly country, America, but still a country which is not under the British flag. That our cotton supply should to the extent of nine-tenths come from countries not under the British flag is a most serious thing for the industries of this country, and it should be looked at from that point of view. It is, I believe, looked at from that point of view by the people in Lancashire and the cotton districts of this country who have studied the question. It is a most dangerous position, but that is not the only point at issue, although it is a material point. We have an increasing population in the Soudan, and undoubtedly under British rule the population will continue to increase, and employment will have to be found. There is no doubt that under this African development scheme, when it is eventually carried out, the guarantee of this loan, will immensely increase the prosperity of the country, and will bring contentment and prosperity to thousands of natives in the Soudan. That is a point which should not be lost sight of. The House should not think that there is in this scheme anything that could possibly exploit the natives or which can harm the interests of the natives. The facts are all the other way. It is of immense importance that we should be able to give employment which will be of benefit to the population and their descendants, and will at the same time increase the cotton-growing industry in the Soudan. If it is developed, as it has been developed in Egypt during the last generation—in fact, ever since we have been in Egypt—there will be each year more employment for the native population, who will be able to make better wages and arrive at a higher standard of living. It should be looked at from that point of view by those who cannot look at it purely from the Imperial point of view. I do not look at it simply from the Imperial point of view or the native point of view, but I look at it from both the Imperial and native point of view. I am glad that the Bill has been brought for-
  1888
  ward, and I hope it will be carried through with all due speed, and that we shall have begun the scheme before the year is out.
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir J. D. REES: The father of history has described Egypt as the gift of the Nile, the father of rivers. I am content to allow the distribution of the waters of the Nile to be carried out by the eminent engineers who have had it in hand, and who have it in hand at the present time. I do not quite understand some of the speeches which have been delivered. I gathered that there is no opposition to this Bill, and that everybody welcomes it. Therefore, I do not quite know why it is desirable to send out a Commission to settle a question between: dissentient engineers while the Government apparently, so far as present requirements are concerned, are satisfied to-be guided by the engineers who are at present their authorised advisers. However, if the Commission is to go out, I would agree with my Noble and gallant Friend that it should be unconnected with the project with which this Bill is immediately concerned. I rose to speak from the more commonplace point of view of one who is interested in the production of cotton. I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and the Government on the action they are taking. The production of long staple cotton, such as Egypt produces, is a very urgent need of commerce, and of the greatest trade which we have in this country after agriculture. The need for this cotton is increasing every year. It is doubtful whether the Government of India, which by making a barrage over the Indus might grow a great deal in Sind, will have the necessary funds after the War, and as the Government apparently see their way to provide the necessary funds for the development of not dissimilar land in respect of a not dissimilar river, I can only wish them God speed and bless the Bill which they have brought forward.
  I will leave the engineering question to be settled by eminent engineers with the advice and assistance of my hon. and gallant Friend. I asked the Secretary of State the other day, as my knowledge of Egypt is more ancient than that of my hon. and gallant Friend, what steps were being taken to make public the action which the Egyptian Government take at the instance of His Majesty's Government.

  1889
  My information, whether right or wrong, is that the public in Egypt do not follow what is going on in regard to such action, that they are not posted, and that where they see in some cases land waterlogged with too much Nile and in other places land arid and useless not having enough Nile, they are under the impression that the English policy is at fault. If that is the case in these days, when all Governments not only find it advisable but absolutely necessary to carry the public with them, not only the public at home but the public in the country immediately concerned, if my information is approximately correct, it would be quite worth while to consider whether some steps cannot be taken to keep the public in Egypt well informed from time to time of measures such as that now under discussion. The hon. Gentleman said that there was a Press in Egypt to deal with these things. The Press may have altered very much, but in my time it was of no great account, but, since in these days all foreign countries are not so grateful as they might be for the benefits brought to them by British rule, great as those benefits really are, I would suggest that it would be worth while to take particular care to urge the Egyptian Government to make public in the broadest possible manner in Egypt and in the Soudan the measures which they are taking and the limitless benefits which will undoubtedly result from them.
  Sir J. WALTON: It is with great satisfaction that I have listened to the statement by the Under-Secretary in regard to irrigation works on the Blue Nile. It is more than ten years since I went from Khartoum through the Sud, to which my hon. Friend referred, to Fashoda. I saw a little also of the Blue Nile. I have also been to the source of the Nile in Uganda. The impression left clearly on my mind with regard to the Soudan was that, given irrigation, there were enormous areas that would produce rich crops, particularly of cotton, and also of grain, and, indeed, that there were almost unlimited possibilities of development in that great region, and I have visited, near Berbera, experimental cotton farms, the land of which was irrigated by very recently constructed irrigation works. I do not know much about cotton myself, but I was assured that the samples which I saw were some of the finest long staple cotton produced in the world and that the results, so far as they have gone, were entirely satisfactory. One
  1890
  thing of which I was convinced from my slight knowledge of the Blue and the White Nile was that the volume of water in those rivers at certain seasons of the year is so great that if, by the construction of a dam, it is properly impounded there would be ample water, not only to bring into a state of fertility large areas in the Soudan, but also to ensure that the development of Egypt would not suffer by reason of the water being thus utilised in the other regions of the Blue and the White Nile.
  The amount of water that must be lost in the sudd by evaporation and otherwise is, indeed, enormous. My own judgment is that no better spent money could be imagined than that which is expended on the construction of these irrigation works, not only on the Blue Nile but also on the White Nile. The water supplies in both rivers should be utilised without delay to the fullest possible extent, because not only will it increase enormously the prosperity of those regions, but it will also provide profitable work for the increasing number of inhabitants. It is of the most vital importance to Lancashire that we should increase to the largest possible extent the production of the raw cotton which we need within the British Empire. We have been spending £8,000,000,000 in conducting a great war, and we know that Government Departments have been squandering money right and left. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that, everyone ought to welcome the spending of money to good purpose instead of the waste of money which has recently taken place, and has added enormously to the expenditure of the world. And if British credit guarantees £5,000,000 or £10,000,000 for the development of irrigation works on the Blue Nile or the White Nile for the benefit of the Soudan, and also for the benefit of this country, no project of greater utility or value could be undertaken by the Government, and I congratulate them on. having at last, late though it may be, taken this important step forward.
  Mr. SUGDEN: I think it but right that, at last, a Member from Lancashire should proffer the Government very hearty thanks because something is being done in respect to cotton for Lancashire. I have no special knowledge of the general conditions in relation to cotton so far as Egypt is concerned, but I do know this, that when the great countries across the water are doing

  1891
  their very utmost to the extent of £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 to corner and advance the cost of that raw material upon which Lancashire depends, it is vital for the Government to deal with this problem in no cheeseparing manner. I also join in congratulating heartily the hon. Gentleman who represents the Foreign Office, and, if I am permitted to associate myself with hon. Members on the Labour Benches, I would speak also in this respect for the employés as well as those who provide capital for that great industry which produces the largest export of this country. We require to-day an increased export trade if we are to equalise the rate of exchange and cheapen the food of the people. The Government are, at length, taking practical steps to consolidate the means which are necessary for this purpose, but the first point which I would impress on the hon. Gentleman who represents the Foreign Office is that £6,000,000 should not be fixed as the maximum sum that shall be devoted to this purpose. I have a little knowledge of the amount of money that is required in connection with these schemes. I have been associated with cotton schemes in India, Africa, and other parts of the world, and, as the practical man on the spot has to face the great pioneer work which is essential to the growth of a good type of cotton, it is not wise to limit him to one certain sum, even though that sum appears to be a large one.
  Therefore I hope that the Foreign Office will not limit the sum dealt with under this Bill to £6,000,000, but that when the Bill comes up in Committee it will be possible to accept an Amendment by which a larger sum may be made available, so that the cotton trade may receive more immediate benefit. If this great scheme is not pushed forward rapidly it may be too late. Speedy action is essential. Therefore the Government might consider whether they should not double the sum that is now proposed. From the experience of those who are interested in cotton schemes in India, Africa, and other places, it would seem that the sum proposed in this Bill will not be sufficient if results of the best kind for the Lancashire cotton industry are to be obtained. Special attention must be given not only to planting, but also to transport. The greatest problem in connection with cotton is not altogether the growing of the cotton, but rather the transport of it to
  1892
  the place where it is to be used, and when we consider the great dearth of shipping and the fact that shipping to-day is mainly in the hands of our great competitors, the American people, it will be seen that the great question is how soon this cotton will come to our country. Therefore I would suggest that a portion of this sum should be put on one side for the purchase or organising great shipping lines to bring the cotton to our country. I agree with the suggestion of another hon. Member that schemes should not be in the hands of uncertain native contractors only, but should be put under the guidance and management of our great public works Department for we know that they have a power in the Soudan which no other people would have.
  Time is the very essence of the contract if the cotton is to be of practical value, and if it is to be obtained it must be obtained rapidly. I beg, therefore, in proffering congratulations to the Government, to ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether he will suggest, when the Bill goes in Committee, the alteration of certain Clauses, with a view of securing speed, an increased sum of money, and greater proficiency? May I ask, also, that there may be co-opted on the Committee which deals with this Bill practical men of affairs from the great Lancashire industry, representative both of the great trade unions and those who provide and utilise the capital, so that the type of cotton which ultimately comes may be of the most serviceable kind. There has, in the past, been cotton grown which was of little practical value in this country, and there is always a danger, unless the right seed is sown in proper season, that the growth will be useful only to our American competitors.
  Major NALL: I understand that the Bill is not opposed in any quarter. Beyond wishing to associate myself with the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken I do not wish to detain the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Wednesday.£[Mr. Harmsinorth.]

  WAR LOAN BILL.
  Considered in Committee; reported without amendment; to be read the third time upon Wednesday.
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): I beg to move
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This Bill seeks to amend the Dogs Regulation Act of 1865. That Act imposed, in the case of Ireland, a tax on dogs of 2s. The proceeds of the tax are not paid into the Imperial Exchequer as in England, but are ear-marked to provide salaries for Petty Sessions clerks, whose duties correspond to the duties of justices' clerks in England. The first charge upon the amount recovered under the tax is to provide those salaries, and the balance is paid to the local authorities in ease of the rates. These Petty Sessions clerks have very small salaries in most cases, and, owing to the pressure of the War, it will be necessary to raise their salaries to enable them to live. When I tell the House that some of them receive salaries as low as £20 or £25 a year, it will be realised—
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present,
  Mr. HENRY: We propose to take powers to increase the tax, by Regulations to be made by the Lord Lieutenant, to a sum not exceeding 6s. We do not anticipate that it will be necessary to impose as much as 6s. but we propose to take powers. As he tax in England is 7s. 6d., I do not think the sum I have mentioned will be regarded as unreasonable.
  Mr. MacVEAGH:: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether justices' clerks in England are paid from the proceeds of the Dog Tax?
  Mr. HENRY: In England the money received from the Dog Tax is paid into the Imperial Exchequer, and not earmarked as in Ireland.
  Mr. MacVEAGH:: They are not paid from the Dog Tax?
  Mr. HENRY: They are not paid from the Dog Tax. If this Bill is passed, the local authorities will not suffer, because the additional money will be raised by the tax, and there will be the same amount applicable for rates as now. In some counties it amounts to £1,200 or £l,300. The Council of Agriculture, which is a representative body, has passed a resolution calling for legislation of this kind, and a number of county councils, boards of guardians, and other people, have passed similar resolutions. It is important, moreover, that the tax should be raised with a view of keeping down the number of dogs, for they do very great damage. There are 525,000 of them, and a very considerable margin can be spared. I therefore ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Mr. SPEAKER: May I ask why this Will was not originated in Committee? It is a proposal to increase the dog licence. If you increase the duty it is a charge on the public. There may be some explanation, but I do not understand what it is.
  Mr. HENRY: As it is only a small Amendment it was considered that this was the correct way.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: I had proposed to raise that point as a point of Order, and to urge that the Bill ought to have been preceded or accompanied by a Money Resolution, as it involves a charge on the taxpayer. I congratulate the Government on having at last found a subject on which it has made up its mind, if it is only a proposal that the salaries of the clerks of Petty Sessions in Ireland should be raised by an increased tax upon dogs. I do not think I ever heard, in support of a Bill, such a lame argument as that put forward by the Attorney-General. He says he wants to have the Petty Sessions clerk in Ireland put on the same footing as clerks to the justices in England, but in answer to a question ho admits that he is going to do nothing of the kind. Clerks in England are paid out of public funds. If you want to increase the salary of a justice's clerk in England you do not increase the tax on a dog, but you take the money out of public funds. I am at a loss to know why we should fall back on a dog tax for such a purpose. I am surprised at the Attorney-General introducing such a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has some

  1895
  common sense; he is rather unique in that respect on the bench he sits upon. When he gets the Bill in the Committee upstairs I can promise that he will find many Amendments proposed. I have heard no reason advanced for increasing these salaries. I do not know much about the subject, but, as far as I know, these clerks are fairly paid all over the country. There has been no great demand for the increase of their salaries; no one has threatened to start a civil war if the salaries are not increased. I really think this matter might be left over until there is a more urgent demand or a more necessary case. I do not suppose there is much use in dividing the House on a proposal of this kind, but we shall have sufficient opportunity of dividing the Committee. I would suggest to the Attorney-General to drop the Bill, which in any event is likely to fail on the point of Order.
  Mr. HENRY: On the point of Order. I submit as the money raised by this Bill does not go to the Imperial Exchequer but is simply applicable to the payment of the salaries of Petty Sessions clerks while the balance goes to the local rates, there is no charge on the Exchequer.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that matters. The same thing applies to all licences. There are licences for motors and licences for servants and other licences, the proceeds of which do not go to the Exchequer but to local funds.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: The dogs are saved.
  Mr. HENRY: I beg to move
  "That the Order be discharged, and the Bill withdrawn."
  Question put, and agreed to.

  HOUSING AND TOWN PLANNING BILL.
  Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, and Lords Amendments proposed in lieu of certain Lords Amendments disagreed to by this House, considered.
  New Clause in lieu of new Clause disagreed to.
  (Purchase of Building Materials in Possession of a Government Department.)
  Subject to any conditions prescribed by the Local Government Board, with the consent of the
  1896
  Treasury, any bricks or other building materials which have been acquired by a Government Department for the purpose of the erection or improvement of houses for the working classes (and which are not for the time being required for that purpose by any local authority or public utility society) may, during a period of two years from the passing of this Act, be sold to any person who undertakes to use the same forthwith for the purpose of erecting or improving houses for the working classes and to comply with the said conditions at a price sufficient to cover the cost of replacement at the time of sale or the materials so sold.
  Lords Amendments: Leave out the words
  "and which are not for the time being required for that purpose by any local authority or public utility society."
  Leave out the word "two" ["two years"], and insert instead thereof the word "five."
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Major Astor): I beg to move
  "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments."
  I may state, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that the Amendments, with one exception, are purely drafting, and there is nothing in them to which anybody can take exception.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  HOUSING AND TOWN PLANNING BILL.

    CLAUSE'27.—(Repair of Houses.)
    (1)If the owner of any house suitable for occupation by persons of the working classes fails to make and keep such house in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation then, with out prejudice to any other powers, the local authority may serve a notice upon the owner of such house requiring him within a reasonable time, not being less than twenty-one days specified in the notice, to execute such works as may be necessary to make the house in all respects reasonably lit for human habitation.
    (2)If the notice given by he local authority is not complied with, the authority may, at the expiration of the time specified in the notice given by them to the owner, do the work re quired to be done.
    Lords Amendments, in lieu of their Amendment to insert at the end of Subsection (l) the words
    "Provided that the owner may within twenty-one days after the receipt of such notice, by written notice to the local authority, declare his intention of closing the house for human habitation, and thereupon a closing order shall be deemed to have become operative in respect of such house."
    —Disagreed to by the Commons:
    At the end of Sub-section (1) insert the words
    "Provided that if such house is not capable without reconstruction of being rendered fit for

    1897
    human habitation, the owner may, within twenty-one days after the receipt of such notice by written notice to the local authority, declare his intention of closing the house for human habitation and thereupon the closing order shall be deemed to have become operative in respect of such house. Any question arising under this proviso shall in case of difference between the owner and the local authority be determined by the Local Government Board."
    —Agreed to.
    After the word "with" ["complied with"] insert the words
    "and if the owner hag not given such notice as aforesaid."
    Major ASTOR: I beg to move,
    "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    When we have disagreed with the Amendment I will propose a new Sub-section in substitution.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Major ASTOR: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2), and to insert instead thereof the following new Sub-section,
    "(2) If the notice of the local authority is not complied with the local authority may—

    (a)at the expiration of the time specified in that notice if no such notice as aforesaid has been given by the owner, and

    (b)at the expiration of twenty-one days from the determination by the Local Government Board if such notice has been given by the owner and the Local Government board have determined that the House is capable without reconstruction of being made fit for human habitation, do the work required.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE42.—(Power of Local Government Board to require to Planning Scheme.)
    (3)If the local authority fail to prepare a scheme to the satisfaction of the Board within such time as may be prescribed by the Order, or to enforce the observance of the scheme or any provisions thereof effectively, or to execute any such works as aforesaid, the Board may either authorise the county council to act, or may themselves act in the place and at the expense of the local authority.
    Lords Amendment (as amended in Commons): After the word "Act," insert the words
    "or in the case of a borough, or other urban direct, the population of which is less than20,000, may, if the Board think fit by Order, empower the county council to act."
    Lords Amendment to Amendment, as amended,
    After "20,000" insert the words "or of a rural district."
    Major ASTOR: I beg to move,
    "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I cannot make out where this comes in, and I would like to have an assurance that it dons not affect the Amendment which I moved in a previous stage, putting urban district councils on the same footing.
    Major ASTOR: If the hon. Member will look at the previous copy of the Lords Amendment he will find the words actually set out. In the case of certain default on the part of urban councils county councils are empowered to act, and it was rather absurd if urban councils were put under county councils in case of default that rural district councils should not be. This merely empowers the county council to act also in certain cases in connection with rural district councils. There is no point of substance in it.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: In the last stage we agreed to certain words so as to put urban and rural councils on the same footing. Does the population of 20,000 of an urban council apply also to a rural district council?
    Major ASTOR: This applies to boroughs and urban councils with a population of less than 20,000 and to rural councils.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered,
    "That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill."
    Committee nominated of Major Astor.
    Mr. A. Williams, Sir Kingsley Wood, Major Barnston, and Mr. A. Short.
    Three to be the quorum.
    To withdraw immediately.—[Major Astor.]
    Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported later, and agreed to.
    To be communicated to the Lords. —[Major Astor.]

  EDUCATION (COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF GRANTS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): I beg to move.
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This Bill is designed to meet a difficulty in the case of schools or other educational institutions conducted under trusts or instruments which are inconsistent with the

  1899
  conditions of receipt of Grants proposed by the Regulations of the Board of Education. The application of such an institution for a Grant cannot be entertained unless the trust or instrument of Government is altered by a scheme made under the Charitable Trusts Act or Endowed Schools Act, or by a competent Court. Such alterations have often occasioned great delay and inconvenience. This Bill embodies no principle which is new to our educational legislation. The Elementary Education Act of 1870 contains a provision enabling the managers of elementary schools to fulfil the conditions of Parliamentary Grants notwithstanding any provision contained in any instrument regulating trusts or management of their schools. The present Bill places the governing bodies of secondary schools and other institutions for higher education in the same position as managers of public elementary schools. In view of the modification of the Regulations for secondary schools in receipt of Grants, I have reason to believe that this Bill will be valued and will be welcome to the governing bodies of those schools.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time.
  Resolved,
  "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. fisher]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  RETIRED OFFICERS (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.

  WELLS PARTICULAR BAPTIST AND CONGREGATIONAL CHAPELS CHARITIES BILL.
  Read a second time. Resolved,
  "That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill." —[Colonel Sanders.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  NATIONAL TRUST CHARITY BILL.
  Read a second time.
  Resolved,
  "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill." —[Colonel Sanders.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  BROOKE ROBINSON MUSEUM CHARITY BILL.
  Read a second time.
  Resolved,
  "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill." —[Colonel Sanders.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  CONGREGATIONAL CHAPELS CHARITIES BILL.
  Read a second time.
  Resolved,
  "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill." —[Colonel Sanders.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  EATINGTON WESLEYAN METHODIST CHAPEL PROPERTY BILL.
  Read a second time.
  Resolved,
  "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill." —[Colonel Sanders.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  PLUMTRE HOSPITAL CHARITY BILL.
  Read a second time
  Resolved,
  "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill." —[Colonel Sanders.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  HEADCORN BAPTIST CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
  Read a second time.
  Resolved,
  "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill." —[Colonel sanders]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were road, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved,
  "That this House do now adjourn." —[Colonel Sanders.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Four minutes before Eight o'clock.

  SEX DISQUALIFICATION (REMOVAL) BILL.
  SEX DISQUALIFICATION (REMOVAL) BILL.
  MAGISTRATES (APPOINTMENT).
  MAGISTRATES (APPOINTMENT).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  MILK.
  MILK.
  FLOOKBOROUGH AERODROME.
  FLOOKBOROUGH AERODROME.
  NAVAL OFFICERS (RAILWAY FARES).
  NAVAL OFFICERS (RAILWAY FARES).
  ROYAL MARINES (BANDMASTERS).
  ROYAL MARINES (BANDMASTERS).
DEMOBILISATION.
  ORDER OF RELEASE.
  ORDER OF RELEASE.
  TERRITORIAL BATTALIONS, INDIA.
  TERRITORIAL BATTALIONS, INDIA.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  9TH HANTS REGIMENT.
  9TH HANTS REGIMENT.
  ARMY OFFICERS (ACTING RANK).
  ARMY OFFICERS (ACTING RANK).
  WAR DECORATIONS.
  WAR DECORATIONS.
  ROAD REPAIRS (GOVERNMENT INDEMNITY).
  ROAD REPAIRS (GOVERNMENT INDEMNITY).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  TROOPS IN RUSSIA (BONUS).
  TROOPS IN RUSSIA (BONUS).
  TRAINING GRANTS.
  TRAINING GRANTS.
BRITISH GUIANA.
  COLONISATION SCHEMES (UNSKILLED LABOUR).
  COLONISATION SCHEMES (UNSKILLED LABOUR).
  EXECUTIVE COUNCIL (LABOUR REPRESENTATIVES).
  EXECUTIVE COUNCIL (LABOUR REPRESENTATIVES).
  ASIATICS' TRADING AND LAND BILL, SOUTH AFRICA.
  ASIATICS' TRADING AND LAND BILL, SOUTH AFRICA.
  POLICE PENSIONERS.
  POLICE PENSIONERS.
  INTERNED PERSONS, READING GAOL.
  INTERNED PERSONS, READING GAOL.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  OWNERS' PROFITS.
  OWNERS' PROFITS.
  SANKEY RETORT (DISCUSSION).
  SANKEY RETORT (DISCUSSION).
RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.
  WAGON SHORTAGE.
  WAGON SHORTAGE.
  PORT OF LONDON (CONGESTION).
  PORT OF LONDON (CONGESTION).
  PETROL (PRICE).
  PETROL (PRICE).
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  HAY.
  HAY.
  ALLIED COUNTRIES (LEGISLATION CONCERNING ALIEN SUBJECTS).
  ALLIED COUNTRIES (LEGISLATION CONCERNING ALIEN SUBJECTS).
  CONSULAR APPOINTMENTS.
  CONSULAR APPOINTMENTS.
  ALIENS RESTRICTION ACT, 1914.
  ALIENS RESTRICTION ACT, 1914.
  ADMIRALTY ARCH.
  ADMIRALTY ARCH.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
BRITISH AND CONTINENTAL BANK BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH (CONSULTATIVE COUNCILS) ORDER, 1919.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (WELSH CONSUL TATIVE COUNCIL) ORDER, 1919.
  Debate resumed (according to Order) upon the Motion of Viscount SANDHURST, in accordance with the provisions of Section 8, subsection (3), of the Ministry of Health Act, 1919, to resolve, "That this House approves the said Draft Orders."
  VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I moved my Resolution on a former occasion, and I do not propose to say anything at present except to remind your Lordships, as the House was then very empty, that one factor has disappeared. I was rather led to understand in the course of the former debate on the various changes in the Bill, that your Lordships were somewhat influenced by that factor—namely, the opposition of a powerful body known as the Association of Municipal Corporations. That opposition has been withdrawn after a conference between the Minister and the officers of the Association, and they have consented to nominate persons to serve on the Consultative Council.
  LORD DOWNHAM LORD DOWNHAM moved to insert, at the end of Viscount SANDHURST'S Motion, the words: "but omitting in 1 (3) Local Health Administration and (4) General Health questions."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Amendment is intended to confine this very
  1074
  novel and unprecedented experiment in administration to setting up two instead of four, of these Consultative Councils. On the Second Reading, and again in the Committee stage, I expressed certain views for which undoubtedly a good deal of support was found in your Lordships' House. After all, what is it that the Ministry of Health are seeking to do? They are seeking to set up within the Ministry of Health no less than four of these Consultative Councils. They are to be statutory bodies, to be appointed for three years. They are to consist of, say, twenty members each—at all events not more than twenty, and they probably will consist of twenty members. Thus, under a single Department of State there will be four of these Consultative Councils.
  These Councils may appoint committees and sub-committees, they will each have secretaries and staffs, they will each have to have offices in which to carry on their business. What they will be allowed in the way of clerks and typists and machinery of that kind, I cannot say. But undoubtedly this is going to be a very expensive process of government. They are to be paid their travelling expenses, they are to be given subsistence allowances when away from home, they are to be paid for time which is lost in any profession, trade, or calling which they may carry on. There are to be four of these bodies drawing upon the Treasury in this way in one Department.
  But this is only an experiment made by one Department. if this is permitted for one Department of the State—the Ministry of Health—why should it not be permitted for other Departments that have large businesses consisting of many branches—the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Commerce, the Board of Education; there are about ten or twelve Departments which might equally ask to be allowed to set up four of these Consultative Councils with a large amount of machinery, and expensive machinery at that. It is a very great experiment, in government. I doubt whether my noble friend in charge of this Order can tell us that there is any precedent whatever for an experiment of this nature. I should like him to tell us if he would. I asked him or, the Second Reading whether, before we came to the Committee stage, he would tell us if the Government had formed some estimate of the cost of setting up the four Councils, so that we might know something of the

  1075
  expense to which as a nation we were going to be put. Really, for whose benefit is it that we are going to set up these four Councils? I agree with the first Council—the Medical and Allied Services—consisting of experts in medicine, surgery, midwifery, and matters of that kind. A Council like that may really give some value to the Minister of Health. I agree also with regard to No. 2, that where we are absorbing into the Ministry of Health what is now a separate Department—the National Health Insurance Department—it might well be that the Minister of Health may desire to have a special Council to assist him in matters connected with national health insurance.
  But what good are we going to get out of Councils 3 and 4? No. 3 is a Council to advise and assist the Minister of Health on local health administration. The Minister can now get any advice or assistance he likes from the various local health organisations all through the country; he can summon them whenever he likes, and have a conference with them; he can appoint any committee within their body whenever he chooses, for as long as he chooses, with what reference he likes as regards the subject-matter with which they are going to deal. There is no difficulty whatever in the Ministry of Health getting into touch with all those who are engaged in local health administration. No. 4 is a Council to advise on general health questions. Why do you want a Consultative Council set up as a statutory body to advise on general health questions?
  May I ask the noble Viscount how the Minister of Health proposes to differentiate between the duties and the sphere of activities to be assigned to the Local Health Administration Council and the duties and sphere of activities to be assigned to the General Health Council? If your Lordships turn to the Order, you will see that every one of these Councils has three powers—
  "A council may propose to the Minister from time to time that any question in connection with such of his powers and duties as relate to matters affecting or incidental to the health of the people …"
  that all those questions shall be considered of these Councils. Then if you will subsection (3) of Section 11 you these words—
  council may also present to the Minister to time a Report on any matter affect dental to the health of the people."
  1076
  All these Councils will be vieing with one another to present their Reports on the same question.
  I will take the whole question of housing in connection with insanitary areas. Is that a matter for Council No. 3 or Council No. 4? I will take one of the most interesting questions that we have at the present time in connection with health—namely, the great shortage of hospitals, of sanatoria, of skilled doctors, of skilled midwives, and of skilled surgeons. Is that a subject for advice and assistance and Reports by the Council that has to do with the medical and allied services, or the national health insurance, or the local health administration, or the Council for dealing with general health questions? All these questions relating to health—the question of tuberculosis in connection with residential institutions and sanatoria, for instance—will be matters on which each one of these Councils would think it its duty to report.
  I am very sorry for the permanent officials who are to be placed at the disposal of all these Councils in turn. I say of this system of government that it is really a system of "government by talking and serviettes"—there is no end to the talk; there will be much more talk than there will be action, resulting from these bodies. It is a costly and cumbrous method of government; it strikes at the very root of Ministerial responsibility; and I hope that if we are going to set it up we shall try it in homeopathic doses, and limit this experiment in the first place to two Councils—one for medical and allied services, and the other for national health insurance. I am perfectly certain that if the Minister of Health wants advice on general health questions he will be able to obtain that advice now from the numerous bodies up and down the country who are engaged day by day in the work of administering our sanitary laws. This is one of the specimens of really prodigal expenditure on the part of the Government of which we ought to take notice in this House; and it is because I want to curb this ever-growing extravagance that I move to omit subsections (3) and (4) from this Order.
  Amendment moved—
  To insert at the end of the Viscount Sandhurst's Motion ("but omitting in 1 (3) Local Health Administration and (4) General Health questions").—(Lord Downham.)
  VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, am obliged to my noble friend below the gangway for his courtesy last night in giving me private information that it was his intention to move this Amendment. I abstained from saying anything at the outset, because I had done my best on former occasions during the passage of the Bill to make as clear to your Lordships as I could why, at any rate in the opinion of the Government, these Consultative Councils formed a most important part of the measure which I was then advocating. I remember very well the various reasons that my noble friend gave against these Consultative Councils, and I did my best to rebut his arguments.
  Really, without offence, I may say that he told us what he had to say on the former occasions, and I do not think it is necessary for me to go again into the various reasons that I then gave. I am not prepared with any such estimate as my noble friend asks for; but when he says that there will be many secretaries, many offices, expensive staffs, and so on, I may point out that there will be one secretary and one staff, which will be as small as possible, and that they will use the offices of the present Health Department. With regard to the other Departments which he mentioned—the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour, the Board of Education, and so on—they have Advisory Committees already, some statutory and some not.
  On a former occasion I think it was the noble Marquess opposite who drew attention to the opposition of what I called just now—I think rightly—the powerful body known as the Association of Municipal Corporations. As I intimated a couple of minutes ago, that opposition has been withdraw. They were unwilling, as the measure had passed, that they should not be in a position to give the benefit of the knowledge and experience of their members in aid of this scheme, and they have put forward some names to the Minister of Health. In passing, I may say that the representative of the county councils in the House of Lords warmly supported the idea of these Consultative Councils, and I may also add that in regard to the London County Council, over which my noble friend (Lord Downham) presides with such distinction, we have received a reply from them putting forward the name of a well-known gentlemen, who no doubt will be of the very greatest service. Here
  1078
  again, however, I wish to allay an apprehension, if it really exists in the mind of my noble friend, that whatever that gentleman's views may be, or whatever advice he may tender, as I tried to make clear to your Lordships on a former occasion, that will in no way prejudice the view of the London County Council as regards the Minister nor will it in any way preclude the Minister from taking the advice of that Council as a whole.
  I am glad to note that my noble friend—and I think also the noble Marquess opposite—said that there were good reasons for the calling together of the two first Councils. But in regard to these medical and allied services, each question is so mixed. up with administration—for example, panel services under the Insurance Act, midwives, the county and county borough councils, and so on—and further medical assistance being needed, this Council will advise as to the authority by which the additional services should be administered. These Consultative Councils were in the first instance put into the Bill so that everything should not be done from Whitehall should the Minister wish to run the administration entirely from Whitehall, which to my mind would be, if I may say so, a most unwise proceeding. I may point out that all local authorities are now agreed and have sent in most suitable names, and their advice will be essential to efficient administration.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: How numerous will the Councils be?
  VISCOUNT SANDHURST: They will have twenty members each, half to form a quorum. I think your Lordships will hardly wish to oppose this united expression of opinion on behalf of these local authorities. As to the Council upon general health questions, which my noble friend somewhat scorned, I submit that this Council is hardly less important than the other three, and I believe the other three to be most important. I will take it on as broad a ground as I can. I venture to say to your Lordships that this particular Health Bill is in the truest sense of the word a People's Bill. It touches, or should touch if it is properly administered, the heart of the whole nation in their homes and in their domestic concerns, which are very delicate matters indeed to deal with. To make this thing a success, not only for those who are around us to-day but for these who are to

  1079
  come, we must endeavour to get the confidence of the whole people, and to get that confidence we want to enlist for our immediate coadjutators the most sympathetic help and knowledge, and indeed the co-operation of all. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that that is what this Council will supply.
  I may say—and a comment was made in this direction the other day—that we all recognise the value of expert and scientific opinion. Here again, however, it is necessary to see that it should not go too far or too fast at first and frighten people. I anticipate very great helpfulness from this fourth Council in mitigating or assuaging fear that may very easily be aroused in certain quarters. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that very full representation is to be given to women on this fourth Council. My noble friend called attention once more to the expense, and said it was an innovation. I venture respectfully to say that the intention of the Bill as it is now drawn and passed is an innovation, and as regards expense there is a great difficulty that many of us have found, especially those that have to do with charitable undertakings on a large scale, which is that we have not always been able to get amongst our voluntary workers—and they are many—an intimate knowledge of the poorest classes with whom we have to deal. In my own experience I know of difficulties that have arisen and blunders that certainly I have made because I have not been able to get hold of the advice of those who really understood the problems of the people with whom we were trying to deal and perhaps to relieve. Mistakes are very easily made, and in this case mistakes may be made which will be difficult to retrieve, and if confidence is early lost in our measure or in our administration I am afraid we shall find it difficult to restore.
  Another fear I have is that without these two Consultative Councils this may possibly occur which I think we should all regret—namely, that it may have the effect of driving the administration back into a central and local bureaucracy. Although I do not agree with a great deal that has been said lately about officialdom, I can perceive that there is a real danger. With these few words I ask your Lordships to support the Order as it lies upon your Lordships' Table. I urge it upon your Lordships with the most true sincerity,
  1080
  and I hope you will not consent to abridge it as suggested by my noble friend below the gangway.
  LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, I am sure we have all listened to my noble friend with the greatest respect, and we none of us for an instant doubt his most transparent sincerity. But when my noble friend tells us that this is a People's Bill I am bound to say that in my opinion, as an old Parliamentarian, it seems, in this particular application of it, to be a Bill for taking the administration of the people's health entirely out of the hands of the people's representatives, and I view it with the greatest possible alarm and suspicion. It is a continuation and an extension of a mistake which I consider the Government has made ever since the beginning of the war, which is to trust to outsiders and not to Committees of the House of Commons, private information concerning war matters and reconstruction matters and consequently the expert knowledge which proceeds alone from the possession of that confidential information. The whole tendency of that practice has been, most disastrously as I conceive, to lower the authority of the House of Commons and of Parliament as a whole in the eyes of the nation.
  We have gone to great expense to provide the heads of our Departments with Consultative Committees of experts in administration and experts also even in scientific matters. Not content with that, it is proposed to make further additions, which I must say I consider are bound to become expensive and elaborate, merely to duplicate a service which, goodness knows, was considered good enough in the past. If you have separate Committees it means that the Committees have separate minutes and separate correspondence. They must have separate registries, separate rows of pigeon holes, and besides, and worse than all these, they must have separate amour propre and competitive ambitions and aspirations. We know what disastrous effects during the course of the war have followed from the undue development of Departmental jealousies and amour propre; so much so that it is difficult to conceive, within the limits of Parliamentary language, words which adequately express the popular supicion and indignation against certain acts of certain Departments.
  Why I really object to these Consultative Councils is not only that I am convinced,

  1081
  as an old Parliamentarian, that they will disastrously weaken the Parliamentary' responsibility of the heads of Departments and will seriously interfere with the power of Parliament over the acts of the Executive, but also that I am afraid that the manning of these Councils will become matters of intrigue and agitation, with the inevitable result that, even more than at the present time, this country will come to be governed by the secretaries of societies and not by representatives of the people. It is quite true that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill says he has obtained support from the Municipal Corporations Association and other like bodies. Of course he has, so far as he gets responses to his invitation to them to nominate members to serve on the Councils. What is more natural than that they, seeing the Councils are about to be brought into existence, all with one accord proceed to say, "If there are going to be these Councils we will have our say upon them." It is not likely that they would refuse nominees in these circumstances. These are my objections, and. if the noble Lord is going to be allowed to have his two Councils, I am bound to say that I do not see any reason for letting him have his three or four. I am sure it will increase unduly the work of public Departments; it will increase the burdens on the Exchequer; and it will diminish the authority of Parliament.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, my noble friend has asked for all these Consultative Councils. May I say how grateful I am to him for having put off the Motion until your Lordships had an opportunity of considering it? I am sorry, however, that he has not used that opportunity of reflection in order to diminish the number of Councils for which he is asking. Of two of them there is, of course, no question. We agree, and always have agreed in the conversations which have taken place on the Health Act, that the Council which had to do with insurance and that which was representative of the medical profession ought to be accepted; but we thought that there was considerable doubt whether the other two ought also to be accepted. I do not desire in any wry to attack Advisory Committees in principle. Sometimes they are very useful bodies; sometimes they are a very necessary check upon administration and a very necessary assistance to the Minister. But the ques
  1082
  tion is whether you ought to have four Consultative Councils advising the Minister of Health at the very inception of his work and before he has had any experience really of how these advisory bodies are going to work.
  I say that you must distinguish between Advisory Committees, because I am quite sure your Lordships do not intend, in setting up these Committees, that they should be useless. I know of Advisory Committees which are wholly useless. I know of them because I serve on them myself. But some Advisory Committees may be very useful, and no doubt my noble friend opposite expects these to be very useful bodies. My noble friend Lord Downham has pointed out that these Advisory Councils will mean eighty representatives—twenty on each Council—and they will be furnished with enormous staffs and all the concomitants of a new administration.
  VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I think I answered that point by saying that there would be only one secretary and that the offices would be in the present Local Government Board offices.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: One of the many reasons why my noble friend opposite is such a delightful person to have to deal with is to be found in his sanguine temperament. If he really thinks that the whole staff of these eighty gentlemen will be one secretary—and I suppose one typewriter—I am afraid I cannot look forward to that. Therefore, I would make this suggestion to the Government. Let them appoint two of the Councils, the two which are essential and to which we have always agreed, and let the others stand over until the Minister of Health has had an opportunity of seeing how his two Councils work. Nothing is finally concluded if the whole proposal is not carried this afternoon. If in a few months my noble friend, or whoever speaks for the Department in his place, is able to come to the House and say that, having had experience of these two Councils, the Minister of Health is quite satisfied that two more will help him greatly and will be to the public advantage, then I am sure your Lordships would be prepared to consider with an open mind any arguments which might be laid before you. That seems to me to be the simple course. I should be sorry if we appeared to be putting a spoke in the wheel of the

  1083
  Ministry of Health. On the contrary, we take a tremendous interest in it. We want it to succeed in every way, and we should prefer that there should not be any kind of unfriendly feeling as between the Government and ourselves. It is for that reason that I am making the suggestion that the Government should be content, in the first
  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

FORESTRY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
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.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1), after "one," to insert "shall be nominated by the Royal Society and one." The noble Lord said: I move this Amend
instance, with two Councils. They can always come back for others.
On Question, whether the proposed words shall be added to the Motion—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Haldane, V.

Forester, L.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Gainford, L.

Denbigh, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Ludlow, L.

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

Denman, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Mayo, E.

Desborough, L.

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

Onslow, E.

Downham, L. [Teller.]

Strachie, L.

Stanhope, E.

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

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Sydenham, L. [Teller.]

Chaplin, V.

Erskine, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Islington, L.

Milner, V.

Lovat, L.

Bath, M.

Annesley, L.

Parmoor, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Ashbourne, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Balfour, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Bradford, E.

Clinton, L.

Rotherham, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Shandon, L.

Jersey, E.

Dynevor, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Kimberley, E.

Emmott, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Mar and Kellie, E.

Hylton, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Strafford, E.

Inverforth, L.

Wittenham, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

ment at the request of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, who is detained in Gloucester-shire on county business. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that one of the Commissioners shall be nominated by the Royal Society. On a previous occasion when my noble friend moved an Amendment of a similar nature, though not so specific in terms, the noble Earl said that he had great sympathy with the views expressed. This Amendment simply confines it to the point that one of the Commissioners is to be nominated by the Royal Society, who will, of course, take care that a fit and proper person is appointed. The noble Earl also said that he hoped on the Third Reading of the Bill to be able to give the names of the Commissioners. I am sorry that he did not do so in moving the Third Reading.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("one") insert ("shall be nominated by the Royal Society and one"—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am sorry I am not in a position, as I had hoped to be, to make an announcement with regard to the general Forestry Commission. On this particular Amendment I confess the

1085
noble Lord has not made out a very strong case. I do not think the Royal Society is much concerned or much interested in sylviculture. I cannot recollect any papers read before that Societ dealing with afforestation. Their activities are generally in other directions. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be pressed. It is not convenient to state that one particular society out of many should nominate Commissioners; and if any society were to be chosen I should have thought that one of the arboricultural societies, which devote their whole time and activities to afforestation, should exercise the nomination. Personally, however, I should prefer that no one was nominated by societies.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I do not know whether my noble friend desires to press his Amendment, but. I merely venture to point out to the noble Earl opposite that although he says the activities of the Royal Society are not specially devoted to arboriculture, yet there is a large field of science connected with the uses of timber with which the Royal Society might be held to be specially connected. I say nothing of the particular objection taken by the noble Earl to the naming of some one society for this particular purpose. But it has been, I think, a complaint against the Bill as a whole, that the purely scientific side, as, distinct from the cultivation of trees, does not appear in the terms of the Bill to have received quite sufficient consideration, and from that point of view I can see that the Amendment would be a useful one.
LORD SYDENHAM: The British Science Guild, of which I have the honour to be President, have considered this matter and have urged that the Royal Society should be asked to nominate and select one member. With regard to what the noble Marquess said, I think we all feel that the Royal Society is the premier of all the scientific societies in England, and also that forestry must touch science at a great many different points, and among them points with which the Royal Society is particularly concerned. I hope, therefore, that the Government will make this small concession.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I should like to add this comment. The feeling that has arisen, and which has prompted this
1086
Amendment, is one which I am sure will grow very much hereafter, when it is realised how Lilliputian an effort this is to deal with a colossal problem—Lilliputian in everything except expenditure. The Bill, in order to be made effective, would have had to be framed on much wider lines and in a much wider spirit, so far as science and education are concerned, and I do not think this Amendment if carried would make any very material difference to what is there now. Therefore, although I sympathise with what, is said about having nominal recognition of a great scientific body as a nominating party to the Bill, I cannot say that I feel any great enthusiasm for the Amendment, and I have sympathy with the desire of the Government not to have the framework of the Bill interfered with. It is from inside that you get spiritual grace, and not from outside. Therefore I cannot look upon this Amendment with any great enthusiasm.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: Before the Amendment is put, may I say a word upon a minor point which I wish to submit for consideration. If the Amendment as it now reads were inserted, the clause would run: "of whom one shall be nominated by the Royal Society and one, to be appointed by His Majesty, shall be chairman." I fancy that if inserted at all, the Commissioner to be appointed by His Majesty should precede the one to be nominated by the Royal Society. I think the noble Lord, if he intends to press his Amendment, would like it to be altered in that way.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2:
Proceedings, staff, and seal of Commissioners.
2.—(1) The Commissioners may act by three of their number and notwithstanding a vacancy in their number, and may regulate their own procedure.
(2) The Commissioners may, subject to the approval of the Treasury as to number, appoint and employ such officers and servants for the purposes of this Act as they think necessary, and may remove any officer or servant so appointed or employed, and there shall be paid to such officers and servants such salary or remuneration as the Commissioners may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.
LORD STRACHIE,LORD STRACHIE, on behalf of Lord BLEDISLOE, moved in subsection (2), after "number," to insert "and after

1087
selection by a Selection Board." The noble Lord said: Clause 2 gives power to the Commissioners, subject to the approval of the Treasury, to appoint a certain number of officers and servants, and the Amendment is to secure that these appointments should be made after selection by a Selection Board. I understand that all appointments falling under the Forestry Authority in the case of India are made by a Selection Board. Therefore I have a precedent for this, and I ask the Government if they would not consider that what is good in the case of India is good also in the case of England.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, after ("number") insert ("and after selection by a Selection Board").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If your Lordships desire to put in this Amendment I shall not press my opposition to it, but I confess I am not at all convinced of the necessity of this Selection Board. In the first place, of course, the Selection Board is not the Civil Service Commissioners, who know nothing about these matters, whose advice would be useless, and who in fact would not undertake the duties. The Selection Board would have to be nominated by the Forest Commissioners—by themselves, in other words. Is it necessary that the Forest Commission, under Statute, should be obliged to nominate a Forestry Selection Board before whom all appointments have to go? Under the Amendment suggested by the noble Lord nobody could be appointed under the Forestry Authority without the consent of this Board. Every vermin killer, every man working on ditches or fences, would have to go before this Selection Board. Is that necessary or desirable? Are you not by statute, by needless purism, placing upon this Selection Board duties which it is not fitted to perform? The forester or vermin-killer, or the man draining or digging, should be chosen by the local district officer, and if he does not appoint the right men he should be dismissed. Thus you concentrate authority, and that is the way you get proper servants. To say that they should be selected by a Selection Board sitting in London or Edinburgh or Dublin is asking too much, and I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 3:
(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 words thereon as they think necessary:

(b) Sell or let any land which in their opinon 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 for equality of exchange:

(c) Purchase or otherwise acquire standing timber, and sell or otherwise dispose of any timber belonging to them, or, subject to such terms as may be mutually agreed, to a private owner, 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, or give assistance or advice in relation to the planting or management 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:

(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, and publish or otherwise take steps to make known the results of such inquiries, experiments or research and to disseminate such information:

(i) Make or aid in making such inquiries as they think necessary for the purpose

1089
of securing an adequate supply of timber in the United Kingdom and promoting the product-ion 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 touch of any profit as represents the monetary equivalent of the grant shall be paid to the Commissioners and restored to the Forestry Fund.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved, in the proviso at the end of subsection (3), to leave out all words alter "Provided that," and insert "any profits resulting from the operations in respect of which the grant was made shall, after allowing for a return to the owner of 4 per cent. compound interest on the cost incurred by him (exclusive of the amount of the grant), be charged with the repayment to the forestry fund of the amount of the grant together with compound interest at 4 per cent. Any question arising between the Commissioners and the owner with respect to the amount of any repayment under this proviso shall, in default of agreement, be decided by a person nominated by the President of the Surveyors' Institution, and for the purposes of this proviso the expression 'owner' means the person for the time being entitled to the profits on the operations in respect of which the grant was made."
The noble Earl said: Many of your Lordships will probably remember a rather long discussion which we had, both in Committee and on Report, about the subsection dealing with advances to landowners who plant trees in conjunction with the Forest Authority. This Amendment has been considered with very great care, and especially in connection with two proposals made respectively by Lord Lovat and Lord Bledisloe. I hope that it combines the good points in both proposals. It adopts the principle laid down by Lord Lovat, that the owner should be entitled to a return of 4 per cent. upon his outlay before any question of the repayment of the grant arises. It equally accepts the principle laid down by Lord Bledisloe, that after this 4 per cent. return has been given the first charge upon further proceeds should be the repayment of the advance, also at 4 per cent., to the State. Of course, if there are any further proceeds they would accrue to the planter of the woods.
Finally the Amendment meets a point raised by Lord Phillimore, by defining who will be the owner responsible for repayment to the State of the 4 per cent. if there
1090
be any repayment. I am glad to say that the noble and learned Lord, though he cannot be present to-day, has examined this Amendment and professes himself satisfied with it. The last point that has been inserted in this very eclectic Amendment was raised either by Lord Bledisloe or by Lord Lovat—I forget which Peer it Was—and it provides an appeal clause which I think will prove a useful safeguard. It entitles the President of the Surveyors Institution to nominate an arbitrator in the event of dispute arising. So much for the history of the Amendment.
As regards its actual proposals and its working, everybody desires, I imagine, that complicated accounts should as far as possible be avoided, both in regard to the expenses involved in raising the crop and as to estimating its ultimate yield. Again, we probably all agree that the last thing to be desired is frequent inspection by the Forestry Commissioners to sec whether proper accounts are being kept, or to ensure that not more than a due proportion of the crop is being drawn out as thinnings. I think those two points are met. Some of your Lordships may remember that in the Report of the Forestry sub-Committee it was suggested that the acceptance of a grant would involve adherence to a working plan for say thirty years, so that the Forestry Commission might be satisfied that their percentage of the outlay was being properly safeguarded and used for its real purpose—namely, the bona fide increase of the timber supply. But after that point is met, the smaller the interference with the landowner who has planted the woods the better.
I have taken the opportunity of discussing this very technical and complicated matter with various members of the interim Forest authority, and I am satisfied that at any rate in a great number of cases it ought to be possible to work out at the beginning of the agreement the circumstances under which a return of grants to the Treasury Fund will ultimately arise, so that exact supervision will not be required in any degree after, we will say, the first thirty years have elapsed. It ought to be, and I believe will be, possible to agree upon the initial cost to time owner of establishing the crop It ought to be possible likewise to agree upon the annual value of his contribution to the management, to the value of land, and of course to the value of thinnings which may accrue. If then an esti-

1091
mate of the final crop in terms of cubic feet per acre can be agreed upon, it will be possible, by accumulating the owners' contributions according to the 4 per cent. compound interest tables, to say at what price per cubic foot be will have received his 4 per cent return. I know it sounds complicated, and it is certainly very difficult to explain in ordinary language, but those who have gone into this matter with care are convinced that it is quite possible on these lines to come to a general agreement which will be satisfactory, and, above all, which will not be too complicated or involve frequent and vexatious inspections.
I have heard it argued, indeed, that owners may be willing to undertake this actually in their own interests, because it will give them an exact idea of their results in any planting operations that they may undertake. I feel bound to acknowledge that any sort of contingent liability upon the owner may act as a deterrent to accepting State grants. That I am afraid must be conceded, but the Government attaches importance to the principle that where the giving of a grant does involve a profit the grant should in effect be returned. I hope the House will be willing to accept the proviso in the form now proposed as the best means of ensuring this principle, and at the same time as the most suitable method that we can devise of encouraging private owners of land to put suitable ground under timber.
Amendment moved.—
Page 4, line 28, leave out from ("that") to the end of line 31, and insert the said new proviso.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I think that any of your Lordships who have gone into this question will be much obliged to my noble friend for the trouble he has taken over the matter, and will agree that the Amendment makes it quite clear what the decision is. Your Lordships will also recognise that it is reasonable, if the owner makes a large profit, that the State should be entitled to a return of the sum it has advanced.
As my noble friend said, there are many owners who may not like any restriction at all, but it is essential that accounts must be kept in dealing with a matter of this kind, and I think the way proposed is the simplest and most practicable that could be found. The great advantage of this altera-
1092
tion will be this. It is quite obvious that the Commissioners, at any rate at first, will have to confine their operations to limited areas, probably only to certain districts of the country. It is most desirable that experiments should be made all over the country, and by this Amendment I think it is very likely that you will get proprietors in different parts of the country to try experiments which probably will not pay but which nevertheless they would like to undertake if they had not to incur the whole cost. Not only does the alteration meet the criticisms which were made, but it is one which will be of great benefit to the country.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am very glad that the noble Duke has expressed the recognition which I think the whole of the House must feel, both to the noble Earl and to those who have advised him, for the evident pains which have been taken to satisfy the objections that were raised to this proposition in its earlier form. It is no doubt an exceedingly intricate and difficult matter, and when one considers how far ahead the real profit may be earned—possibly a generation or two generations ahead—it is clearly a complicated and difficult matter to decide precisely the degree of profit that has been earned over so long a term of years.
But I quite agree with the noble Duke that it is worth trying for several reasons. In the first place, it clearly would have been a thoroughly invidious thing were it generally believed that landowners were receiving a free grant for replanting old land or planting fresh land. It would have made a most obvious text for an attack on such landowners. In the second place I quite agree with the noble Duke that, although the amount of the grant may not in many cases be large,—not, indeed, going at all far towards the total extent of planting or replanting in many cases—yet in the less hopeful areas it will, I can well believe, encourage people to plant who might otherwise not have cared to go to the trouble of risking a considerable sum of money for a quite uncertain return.
The estimation of the profits cannot be an easy thing. It will not be easy for everybody to debit the particular area of planting with the necessary share of wages and upkeep, or to credit his estate account in all cases with every set of rails that is cut out of a covert in the process of occasional

1093
thinning. But it will no doubt be an inducement to people to keep closer and more accurate accounts with regard to their woods than many, at any rate, have been in the habit of keeping, and I hope therefore that your Lordships will accept the Amendment in the form in which it has been, with great pains, prepared by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I should like to thank the noble Duke and the Leader of the Opposition for their very friendly remarks. The Forest Authority have given an immense amount of pains to investigating the subject, and I hope the result may prove a success.
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 snake such order.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved, in subsection (1) after "Commissioners" where that word last occurs, to insert "after giving the owner of such land an opportunity of being heard against such compulsory purchase." The noble Lord said: I understand that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill accepts this Amendment. It is an attempt to put into words what the noble Earl said he thought to be the privilege of an owner who has been deprived of his land.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I agree to the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page line 25, after ("Commissioners") insert ("after giving the owner of such land an opportunity of being heard against such compulsory purchase").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule:
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved to insert in the Schedule 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
1094
distance therefrom that the liberties hereby granted can be made available 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 actually caused, and if any question shall arise in respect thereof the came shall be determined by the arbitrator,"
The noble Lord said: This is the same paragraph that I moved on the Report stage. I would remind your Lordships quite briefly that the intention is to ensure that the owner of minerals and the lessee shall have access through and over the surface in order to work the minerals which may be under the surface acquired by compulsory powers by the Forestry Commissioners. I am advised that, unless some such paragraph as this is put in, there may be a great danger that the owner will not in future be able to sink a shaft or to run a tramline on the surface so acquired. I think it is most essential that although land may be taken for forestry the development of minerals should not be in any way interfered with.
When speaking on the Report stage I also alluded to the question of adjacent minerals and pointed out that it might be quite possible that the Commissioners might take land between the railway and the mineral, and therefore it would be very necessary to reserve rights of crossing that land in order to bring minerals to the railway. My noble friend, Lord Crawford, I think, used the word "wayleaves." I hope I am not to understand from that that the Forestry Commissioners, first of all acquire land compulsorily, and then afterwards charge wayleaves against the owner of the mineral, because, if that is so, it would be simply adding insult to injury. But perhaps I am mistaken in regard to that, and the noble Earl might make it clear. I sincerely hope that he will accept my Amendment. I ant sure that neither he nor the Government wish to stop the development of minerals.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, after line 39, insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Lord Dynevor says that if the Forest Authority compulsorily acquires land they must take both surface and minerals or, if they leave the minerals to the owner, must entitle him to get those minerals in due time. I agree with that view. I am informed that that is the existing law and practice. Lord Dynevor said he raised this on Report. He also raised it on the Committee stage of the Bill. This is the third occasion that we have discussed it, and every time we have discussed it Lord Dynevor has made the same argument and I have given the same reply—that this is already provided for. I really cannot go further than that.
I do not say this of my own knowledge; I say it on the authority of the Parliamentary draftsman, which, in my opinion, is a good authority. And I think it must be the case that provision is already made under the Lands Clauses Acts. If it were not the case, is it conceivable that this problem could have continued for sixty years without ever having been solved? It constantly happens, and in recent years with increasing frequency, that land is taken compulsorily by the Government for public purposes. Does my noble friend mean that in those cases where the Government does not take the minerals—and that applies to nine out of ten of these cases—the mineral owner has no right of access to those minerals? Of course not. When the agreement is drawn up the authority acquiring compulsorily is bound to state what it is going to do. If it is going to take the surface, it takes the surface and reserves not only the minerals but the right of access to the mineral owner. If it likes to take both it can take both; but if it takes the surface and prevents the mineral owner the right of access, then the Government has to pay for the minerals to which access is prevented.
I adhere to my view that what the noble Lord requires is already provided for in the Statute of the 'forties. But I will make this offer to Lord Dynevor. I do not want to put a long clause into this Bill and then have it struck out as surplusage by the House of Commons, but I will undertake that for the fourth time this matter shall be considered not merely by the Parlia
1096
mentary draftsman but that some one shall be consulted of acknowledged authority upon this particular point, and if it is not adequately provided for I will promise him that an Amendment to that effect will be moved in the House of Commons.
LORD DYNEVOR: I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. He has taken great legal advice, but I should only like to point out that I also took legal advice before moving my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Your Lordships will have been conscious that this Bill contains a large number of privilege Amendments—phrases such as, "there shall be issued out of the Consolidated Fund," "there shall be charged and paid out of the Consolidated Fund," and so on. There are half-a-dozen such Amendments in the Bill, and I beg leave, therefore, to move that these privilege Amendments be made. They do not, of course, affect the text of the measure as it is before the House; it is merely a provision in our customary practice by which there is a variation of printing in order to show the House of Commons the Amendments which are understood to be privilege Amendments.
Moved, That the privilege Amendments be made.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CATTLE IMPORTATION.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to call attention to the statement of Dr. Robertson, the Chief of the Canadian Agricultural Research Department, that the War Cabinet considered the question of importation of Canadian store cattle in April, 1917, and decided that they should be admitted to this country at the end of the war; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I deal with the actual Motion standing in my name on the Paper, I should like to say that it is not from want of courtesy on my part that I was unable to put it off until the new President of the Board of Agriculture was appointed. It is very late in the Session to put off any Motion, and

1097
considering that the Government have taken up and will continue to take up more of unofficial members' time, and that it is uncertain when the new President may be appointed, I shall have little chance of raising this question. Apart from that, this is really a matter which does not affect the Board of Agriculture or the President for the time being; because it is drawing attention to the statement made by the representative of the Canadian Government as regards the action really of the War Cabinet.
On the 10th of this month I read in The Times under "Political Notes "—and up to now it has not been contradicted—the following—
"Dr. Robertson, the Chief the Canadian Agricultural Research Department, revealed to the House of Commons Agricultural Committee yesterday the interesting fact that the War Cabinet considered the question of the importation of Canadian store cattle in April, 1917, and decided that they should be admitted to this country at the end of the war."
That is a very clear and definite statement, and it seems remarkable that it could have been made to the Agricultural Members of the House of Commons by an official of the Canadian Government when, during the debate that I raised in this House on March 6, 1918, it was stated by Lord Northbrook (who was then representing the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society in this matter) that he was satisfied as regards the present matter and that there was no intention to bring store cattle from Canada to this country—as I had supposed—because in a letter which had been addressed to the Council by Sir Daniel Hall it was said—
"You will see no promise has been given to permit the entry of these stores now or after the war, and should the question come up later the breed societies and other interests concerned would have ample opportunity of stating the case against the change of policy."
Then later, when the Duke of Marlborough (then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture) was challenged with regard to this pledge, he said—
"I think it will simplify matters very much indeed if I say the letter which the noble Earl, Lord Northbrook, read out from Sir Daniel Hall to the Royal Agricultural Society, sets forth in clear and concise language the precise news of the President of the Board of Agriculture. It will be better for me, I think, to confine my reply to the noble Lord to stating that I prefer to pin my views on that letter, because it is the carefully considered and chosen language of the President; and I do not feel authorised in any way to go beyond it."
1098
That seems a very definite pledge that the Council of the Royal Society and the other breed societies should be consulted upon this matter. Then comes that startling statement made by Dr. Robertson that the War Cabinet had actually made a promise that Canadian stores should be allowed to come into this country.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: When was that?
LORD STRACHIE: The statement appeared in The Times on July 10 of this year. If that had been all, and no further statement had been put out on behalf of the Board of Agriculture, I should have been satisfied with leaving the matter there, and merely asking whether we should have a definite pledge from the Government that they made no such promise and that they had no intention at the present time of allowing store cattle to come into this country from Canada. I should have pressed for a definite pledge, because the House will remember that the record of the previous Government is not very clean in this connection. Just before the war, Mr. Runciman (who was then President of the Board of Agriculture) admitted dairy cows into this country from Holland, though it is well known that in Holland foot-and-mouth disease exists practically all the time. It is true that Mr. Runciman impounded these cattle and kept them in quarantine for something like three months; but, still, it showed that the Government had done this, and the question would have been seriously raised in both Houses of Parliament if it had not been for the war. Therefore it seems to me very necessary that I should get some definite assurance that Canadian store cattle will not be imported into this country, and that the procedure adopted by Mr. Runciman will not be followed again thereby allowing us to run a great risk of disease, because there is risk even with quarantine.
As I have said, I should have been satisfied merely in putting this Question and asking for pledges, but there appeared in The Times this morning a statement which I think is very serious indeed, having in view the statement that was made by Sir George Rogers at the Imperial Conference on April 26, 1917. Sir George Rogers then said—
"If the Board of Agriculture conceive it to be their duty and to be in the public interest of Great Britain to have a policy of protection of their live cattle industry, then we would have no complaint and offer no objection."

1099
That question at once raises the question, not of disease, but of Free Trade and of Protection. What did The Times say this morning? They had a long statement headed "Canadian Store Cattle. British Farmers' Interests." It looks to me very much like one of those inspired communiqués which are being constantly issued. The Times, referring to the Motion which I have upon the Paper, says—
"The Board of Agriculture, on the other hand, in a statement issued on Saturday, maintain that it is absolutely necessary, in the present and future interests of the industry, to continue the prohibition—"
That is of Canadian stores—
"not because they can no longer assert that such importation would be specially dangerous to the health of our herds at home, but because it would be felt as a menace to the security of the British farmer and would cheek that development of the industry which is absolutely essential to the national prosperity."
Then again The Times, commenting upon this, says—
"Agriculture is for the moment in a very precarious position. Every measure which in any way threatens the future market or the apparent security of the farmer will be at once reflected in diminished employment within the industry, and the opening of our ports to Canadian stores would seem to many men a complete breach of faith on the part of the Government and proof positive that now the food emergency is past they have no longer any care for the interests of the farmer … It is want of confidence alone at the present time which hinder, the farmer from starting up his business and employing more men. He feels tempted—in many cases he has already begun—to lay down his land to grass, as thereby he spends little and risks little. He will only go on with the arduous and expensive plough programme to which he was perforce introduced in the war if he feels safe about the future."
I think it is pretty clear from this that the position apparently is desired by many people who hope the Government will disclaim that as a whole they do not approve of the assertion of the Board of Agriculture that now we have not to exclude Canadian cattle because of the fear of disease, although I personally believe the fear of disease is just as great at the present moment as it was in the past—I do not say because Canada is not free, but you have to remember that there is an immense frontier as regards the United States. How is it possible to guard that immense frontier from cattle coining over from America and spreading foot and mouth disease in this country? Sir John Butler, who had to make a report for the Government from a defence point of view, said it
1100
was quite impossible to police the Canadian frontier and to prevent American cattle straying over into Canada. We know very well that in America foot and mouth disease does exist. It may be quite true that there is no disease at the present moment in Canada, but how can the Canadian Government assure us that that state of things will exist for ever, or that foot and mouth disease cannot in the future be imported from Canada?
It seems to me that it is very unfortunate indeed that the Board of Agriculture, from the statement put forward in The Times, now wishes to raise, not the question of protection from disease, but rather the question of protection for Canadian stores coming into this country when other stores are kept out. I do not believe for one moment that the workers of this country are going to agree to the exclusion of Canadian cattle, or any other cattle, except on the ground of disease and the protection of our flocks and herds from that disease. They assert, and to my mind quite properly assert, that if there is no fear of disease then they have the right to get meat in the cheapest possible form. If it is possible to bring it over on hoof, which I very much doubt, they will insist upon that. To my mind that is very unfortunate at the present moment when there is less shipping, and it is of course much more economical to bring over frozen or chilled meat from Canada or America, or wherever the country may be.
It is now proposed apparently, from the statement of the Board of Agriculture which I have quoted, that all the old theories we had of keeping out Canadian, American, and Argentine cattle on account of disease are to be scrapped. If you admit cattle from one country you will have to admit cattle from another. It seems to me that if the Government do not speedily repudiate this suggestion of the Board of Agriculture that Canadian cattle are to be allowed to come into this country in the future if free from disease, but for the time being they are to be kept out in order to bolster up the breeders in this country, it will be very unfortunate. It seems to me it is only once more putting forward the question of Imperial Preference. It is true that the Board of Agriculture say that at the present moment it will not be done, but they look forward in the future to excluding Canadian cattle from this country only on the ground that it is protection for the

1101
British farmers. I beg to move for Papers.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I will make to your Lordships a statement on behalf of the Board of Agriculture, Lord Ernie being unable, owing to indisposition, to be here to-day. So far as I can learn, this subject has never been before the War Cabinet, but it was discussed by an Imperial War Conference which was held on April 26, 1917, to discuss the admission of Canadian cattle into the United Kingdom. Documents on that subject have already been laid before Parliament. It was then urged by Sir George Rogers, on behalf of Canada, that a great injustice was done by the Board of Agriculture to the cattle industry of the Dominion in respect of the ground taken in prohibiting the importation into this country of live animals. He said—
"If the Board of Agriculture conceive it to be their duty and to be in the public interests of Great Britain to have a policy of protection of their live cattle industry, then we would have no complaint and offer no objection; but we do seriously complain in that an embargo is placed against our cattle which supplies this protection and carries with it the stigma that they are liable to have pleuro-pneumonia, and therefore we suffer not only in this market, but more or less in the markets of the United States."
The same argument was used by Sir. Robert Borden, who stated—
"If it is thought desirable in this country that the cattle industry should be protected, whether in Ireland or England or Scotland or Wales, that is a matter of domestic concern for the United Kingdom, about which we do not desire to make any suggestion.
Two points were thus raised—the removal of the ground of the prohibition as a matter of justice to Canada, and the removal of the prohibition itself as a matter of domestic policy. The ground of the prohibition was stated by the Canadian representatives to be "a stigma," "an undeserved slur," "an old sore," and "an old grievance." Assuming it to be the case that Canada suffers in the markets of the United States from the ground on which the prohibition is based, the first question is whether it is justified by the prevalence of disease in Canada. I think, and am advised, that the cattle born and bred in Canada have been exceptionally free for many years from all forms of infectious disease. There are probably no cattle in the world which can show so clean a bill of health. So far, then, as cattle are concerned which are born and reared in Canada, and leave that country
1102
for the first time by direct shipment to a British port, it is, in my opinion, impossible to justify the ground of the prohibition.
But it must be remembered that Canada has a long frontier line with the United States, that the United States cannot show so clean a bill of health, and that there may be risk lest, if an export trade from Canada with Great Britain were developed, cattle should be brought in from the United States which were subject to infectious disease. This point is one of serious importance, and while, in my opinion, the ground of the prohibition ought to be removed so far as it affects Canadian cattle born and bred in that country and leaving it for the first time by direct shipment to a British port, it does not necessarily follow that even the ground of the prohibition itself could be safely removed, in view of the possible risk involved in the importation of cattle from the United States.
The question of the removal of the prohibition stands on a different ground. In March, 1917, we were asking the agriculturists of this country to increase to a very large extent their arable area. We were also extremely short of imported fertilisers, and dependent in the main on home resources. If the corn-growing policy was to succeed, the farmer would need an increased number of store cattle to trample the straw, consume the roots, and make manure. The margin of money profit on the feeding industry is always extremely small: it mainly lies in the manure. Cheap stores were of supreme importance to the progress of the corn-growing programme. At the same time, in April, 1917, the reserves of frozen meat upon which the Armies of the Allies mainly depended, were running dangerously low. It appeared in the highest degree probable that we should have to depend upon a very large slaughter of our home-fed cattle. We could not cut down our live stock sufficiently to meet the military needs of the moment, and at the same time supply the increased number of store cattle required for the additional arable acreage.
Another consideration was that Ireland was ploughing up considerable areas of her second-rate grass. She was thus enabled to finish a larger proportion of her cattle at home, rather than obliged to send unfinished stores into Great Britain. This process was already beginning. It has since been accompanied by the setting up of a refrigerating company in Ireland which,

1103
in proportion as it succeeds, will diminish the number of Irish stores coming into this country. If tonnage had been available in 1918, the Board of Agriculture would not have hesitated, on these grounds, to endeavour to supplement the supply of stores in this country by obtaining them from Canada, under such precautions as were regarded as necessary, and to ask Parliament to sanction the temporary importation of Canadian stores.
To-day the position is, so far as Great Britain is concerned, considerably altered. We are certain to be very short of concentrated feeding stuffs, and shall find it very difficult—almost impossible—to carry our existing herds through the winter months. We could not feed stores from Canada even if we brought them into this country. It therefore appears absolutely impossible to allow even the temporary importation of Canadian cattle into this country at the present time. The economic interests of Canada are strongly in favour of finishing cattle in that country and, by the installation of refrigerating works, opening up a dead-meat trade with this country. But, for the moment, the want of an export trade in cattle checks the development of the Canadian cattle-rearing industry. It is as a temporary measure, in order to maintain and encourage that industry, and to bridge over the interval before the dead meat trade can be opened up, that Canada mainly wishes to re-open her export trade with this country.
The advantage to this country from reopening a trade in Canadian stores are, that the stock-feeder will obtain a cheaper material, and that the butchering profits, the offals, and the hides, will be retained for this country. It cannot be reasonably urged that the meat supply of the country will be increased by the importation, since live cattle from Canada can always be imported for slaughter at the ports. From the breeders' point of view, the main arguments are that, since the importation of live animals into this country as stores was prohibited, home-bred stores have very largely increased in number; that it is desirable to encourage their further increase; and that the certainty of freedom from imported disease has done, and will continue to do, much to stimulate this branch of the live-stock industry. Further, the Boards of Agriculture in each country are making great efforts to improve the quality of the stock bred by organising
1104
farmers to keep better sires and by assisting in their purchase. This movement, which is now growing rapidly, would be prejudiced if the breeders were threatened with the competition of foreign stores at the present moment.
Canada asks to export cattle as stores mainly because of the psychological effect upon her Western farmers, who will thereby be encouraged to breed cattle in larger numbers. On the other hand, the psychological effect on British breeders of permitting the import of Canadian cattle will naturally be to discourage the breeding industry. If that result follows, then, as soon as Canada is in a position to open up her dead meat trade, the breeders of Great Britain will not be in a position to meet the competition by a larger supply of homebred stores for feeding purposes. This seems a very important argument, rendering it inexpedient to remove the existing prohibition and permit the importation of Canadian cattle as stores.
So far as the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries is concerned, the position, therefore, is this. The Board acknowledges in the fullest measure that the ground of the prohibition on which Canadian stores, horn and reared in Canada, and leaving it for the first time, are now excluded, is not justified, and that they are, and for many years have been, exceptionally free from disease. But the Board is equally strong in the opinion that no relaxation of the prohibition itself is possible in the interests of live-stock at home. It follows that, if the present ground of the prohibition is removed as a matter of justice to Canada the prohibition itself must remain as part of the domestic policy of the United Kingdom. I may add that the general importation of Canadian store cattle into this country is impossible without further legislation.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am sure your Lordships listened with interest to the full and complete essay—that, I think, is the correct term—which we have just heard from the Board of Agriculture, through the mouth of the noble Earl. The conclusion—namely, that it is not expedient to import Canadian stores now, or, as I gather, in the future so far as we can see it—will, I think, commend itself to your Lordships generally, and will certainly commend itself to those interested in cattle breeding in this country. But

1105
it is a curious fact, which the noble Earl did not mention, that there has been here in England a definite change of opinion even among those who are feeders rather than breeders of cattle. There are some parts of England, the Eastern counties, in which there was a strong body of opinion in favour of encouraging such importation, but I am told, and I believe it to be true, that there has been no small change of opinion even in those parts of England. It would take too long to examine the possible reasons for such a change.
I do not think the statement of the Board of Agriculture lays sufficient stress on the paramount, the overwhelming, importance to this country of the industry of breeding cattle and sheep. It might have been supposed from their Paper that there really was not much to choose in relative importance between the fattening of store cattle in this country and the breeding of the different types for which this country is so famed. In my view these islands ought to be kept absolutely and permanently free from the importation of cattle of all kinds; on the same principle that no cow or bull of a foreign breed has been known to be allowed to land in the Channel Islands for certainly 300 years. There are ordinances in those Islands going back to the beginning of the seventeenth century which have been scrupulously maintained ever since, and they include transit from one island to another.
Considering how supremely successful our breeding of cattle has been, and to what a remarkable extent the type changes after some years of acclimatisation in other parts of the world, so that it is quite easy for anybody who understands shorthorns to tell from photographs the difference between a first-class South American shorthorn and a first-class British-bred shorthorn, it is absolutely impossible to over-estimate the importance of keeping this country clear from the faintest, and even the remotest, risk of cattle disease. This, of course, hinges upon the amazing value of the stock that is bred. Once you get pleuro-pneumonia or foot and mouth disease on a considerable scale in this country, you may in a few weeks destroy stock worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, and no scale of compensation which has ever been devised or thought of meets the case of such losses as those.
1106
I can quite understand, because I have been Colonial Secretary myself, that there is a great deal of feeling in Canada that it is hard it should be supposed there is risk of disease among animals coming from Canada. I entirely appreciate and sympathise with that view. To speak of Canadian cattle specifically as being a danger is, I think, altogether unfair. But there is the fact of the three thousand miles of frontier and the practical impossibility of insuring that some animals from Canadian ports may not have come from over the frontier. Therefore if it is understood that the prohibition is absolute, with no particular relation to Canada but applying to the whole world, I cannot think that our Canadian friends need continue to regard this as a special hardship.
I am bound to say that I would continue to put prohibition on the ground of disease only. Once you mix up the question of possibly making this small island self-supplying in all respects, for beef as well as wheat and everything else which the human race may require for the purpose of consumption, then you get into deep water, and you will find that you are definitely harming your agricultural system instead of setting to work to improve it. Personally, I am not content therefore to place the maintenance of this prohibition so much on the general grounds mentioned by the Board of Agriculture as simply upon those that, being the foremost breeding country in the world, we are not prepared to run even the faintest shadow of risk of importing disease into this country.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I am very glad the noble Marquess has mentioned the question of disease. I quite agree with him upon that point, and I think the argument should have been put very much more forcibly by the Board of Agriculture. Disease when it attacked us in Ireland was most serious. Cattle in Ireland have now to be destroyed, but when I was a young man I remember seeing foot and mouth disease there, and at that time there was no question of destroying the animals. It is therefore on the ground of disease that I was delighted to hear that the Board of Agriculture are not going to allow the importation of Canadian cattle into the country. Pleuro-pneumonia is a. most fearful thing to think about, and when it came into our country it nearly ruined the cattle trade. I only wish to enforce this one point, that disease, and disease only, is the most impor-

1107
tant question with regard to the importation of cattle.
LORD STRACHIE: I am, of course, quite satisfied with the noble Earl's assurance that the statement made by the Canadian representative, that the War Cabinet had promised to admit Canadian cattle in to this country, was unauthorised. May I ask, without having given notice, if the noble Earl would give an assurance that no cattle will be imported from Holland?
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, every one interested in agriculture and in our celebrated herds of cattle is greatly indebted to my noble friend Lord Strachie for so constantly keeping his eye on this question and raising it whenever there is any alarm whatever about a change in the present legislation. That alarm cannot fail, I think, to be very much allayed by the extremely unqualified statement of the noble Earl, speaking on behalf of the Board of Agriculture, and, as I understand, reading from a Memorandum by that Board, that in no circumstances is there to be any change whatever made with regard to the importation of cattle from foreign countries into the United Kingdom, which is to override the statement in the Act of Parliament that they shall not leave the wharf alive. That is what is of real importance. There have been constant misapprehensions on the question of cattle diseases in England ever since I can remember. Mistakes and misapprehensions have been made by Ministers time after time, and even by Prime Ministers. I remember that Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman, many years ago, promised his constituents in Scotland that store cattle should be imported into this country. That was very much at the request of the feeders of store cattle in Scotland. Of course that promise was not adhered to. It was overridden. It was found that very bad consequences would in all probability have followed.
There have been other misapprehensions, and perhaps I may just say this much more upon the subject, as this is a matter with which I have been familiar for many years, and moreover I was the Minister who first extirpated that fell disease pleura-pneumonia from the cattle of this country. There have always been three diseases which we have had to contend against. One was cattle plague. I am old enough
1108
to remember how it absolutely destroyed the greater part of our herds at one time. From that date, I thank God, we have never had a return of it and I pray that we never may have. Then there is pleuro-pneumonia. That has been extirpated too, and unless and until the law is altered it can never recur again, because one of the peculiarities of this disease is that unlike foot and mouth disease it can only be conveyed by immediate contact. It is not indigenous to this country, and if no foreign animal is allowed to leave the wharf alive we shall be safe from any return of pleuro-pneumonia in this country.
I do not think that we should be safe if that law was departed from. It is one of the most difficult diseases in the world to detect in the living animal. Many living authorities will tell you that it is impossible to detect it, and although in Canada they may think they are free it is impossible for them to know. They have this enormous frontier of goodness knows how many thousands of miles, on the other side of which it is known that pleuro-pneumonia exists. It is a disease which lies dormant for many years. All these reasons together make me rejoice more than I can say that the noble Earl on this occasion has given us the most positive assurance that can be given by the Government, that as long as they remain in power there shall be no change in the law, which will allow animals brought from abroad into this country to leave the wharf alive.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am sorry to trouble your Lordships again, but Lord Chaplin is reading into my remarks more than I think is in them. I beg him to study with care the statement, which will be printed verbatim in the OFFICIAL REPORT available to-morrow morning. I could give no such pledge as he has just asked me to give, because the actual Statute allows animals to leave the wharf alive, for very good reasons with which he is familiar.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Then what are we to understand?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I will explain to the noble Viscount. In the first place, I have given an extremely carefully prepared statement on the general views of the Board of Agriculture. So important is that matter, both to the Dominions and

1109
to ourselves, that I did not trust myself to give a verbal version to your Lordships of what has been carefully set down to paper. Then Lord Chaplin assumes that this statement means that no animal shall leave the wharf alive, and asks me to give that pledge, and went so far as to say that the Government had given that pledge. I sefeguard myself by saying that I cannot give that pledge, because the Statute provides conditions under which animals can leave the wharf alive.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am aware of that, but those conditions are so special that they require that if the animals leave the wharf alive they are to be kept in the closest possible quarantine and cannot come into communication with any other animals. After what has now fallen from the noble Earl, I do not think the public will be so satisfied with his statement. Unhappily I do not hear as well as I used to, and I will take the earliest opportunity of reading the printed statement of the noble Earl; but if I find that it does not bear out what I thought it did, and that there is any intention to re-admit animals into the country alive—cattle from foreign countries—then I shall reserve to myself the right of raising the question again at any time, if I see the least necessity for doing so.
LORD WITTENHAM: The noble Viscount's criticism may not carry weight in this House on this subject, yet outside the House a great number of people may be unnecessarily alarmed. I understand from what the noble Earl said, and I speak as an agriculturist of long standing and on a large scale, that the law is not to be altered. With that I am perfectly satisfied. Is not the noble Viscount satisfied also?
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I have stated that as plainly as I can.
LORD WITTENHAM: Then we are all at one; but do not let it go forth that, with his vast agricultural experience, the noble Viscount is not satisfied with the matter as it leaves the House of Lords.
LORD STRACHIE: May I ask the noble Earl whether he will answer my question about Holstein cattle?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have no information about Holstein cattle. If they
1110
are introduced into this country it must be under subsection (b) of Section 1 of the Statute. I will refer the matter to the Board of Agriculture.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

GOVERNMENT WORKS AT SLOUGH.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they propose to erect dwellings for the workmen at the new Motor Transport Depôt at Slough; and whether there is any prospect of finding the missing War Office files relating to this depôt; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as in all probability the whole question of the Report of the Joint Select Committee on the Government Works at Cippenham will be raised at some future time, I do not think that it will be necessary to trouble your Lordships at any length on this particular occasion. I understand that a reply has already been given to my second question in another place, and this reply somewhat animadverts upon the Report of the Select Committee. As I see the Chairman present—and I saw certain other members of the Select Committee present a little while ago—it is quite unnecessary for me to say very much about it. Bat I must quote to the House the authority on which I framed that question. It occurs in Section 26 of the Report of the Select Committee which says—
"The Committee hate not been supplied with War Office files carrying the history beyond the summer of 1917. It is stated that these files cannot be found."
That is the reason I put the question down on the Paper. The Report goes on—
"It has therefore been impossible to follow up the responsibility for delay in that Department."
The Committee attach a good deal of importance to those responsible for delay, and they say some pretty straight things. For instance, they say—
"It is clear that the delay in commencement was responsible for two very serious consequences. It was the cause of the failure of the scheme as a war measure, the urgency of which has been fully revealed in the evidence taken by this Committee. The delay was also the cause of the waste of large sums of public money. Thousands of vehicles were left to rot at Kempton Park and other places waiting for the repair shop which never came into being."

1111
I need not read any more, except this sentence—
"The Committee are satisfied that the delays which occurred are mainly responsible for the lamentable waste of public money and for the failure to have the works available during the war."
There are two mysteries connected with this, what I venture to call, unnecessary and ill-placed depot, and they are these. There is the mystery in the delay which caused the scheme to be a failure as a war measure, and was also the cause of the loss to the country of large sums of public money. There is another mystery which, to my mind, is a very much greater one still, and that is the reason for the feverish activity which was displayed after the Armistice was signed. Had a little of this activity been displayed before the war instead of after the war this lamentable waste of public money might have been saved, and presumably thousands of vehicles would not have been left to rot at Kempton Park, and the scheme would never as the Committee say it did, have failed as a war measure. But that is no excuse for this feverish activity afterwards.
Soon after the Armistice was signed the activity began. The whole works were put into the hands of a contractor, bound by none of the usual restrictions and subject to no risk but apparently given carte blanche orders to get on with the work with all possible speed and despatch. The work went on by night and day. Special trains were run down from London, and they are being run from London at the present time. The work was got on with at all possible speed. We must remember that every brick sunk into the brick earth made it less likely that any Committee would take upon itself the responsibility of stopping these works. These special trains had to be run from London because the site selected was not near labour. It was in a rural area growing valuable corn and where a farmer was fattening 2,000 sheep. It was not suited to an enterprise of this character, because in addition to not being near labour it was not near coal or water transport. The whole adventure, including the houses, will probably cost the country over £3,000,000, and even up to the present moment its object has never been defined.
I should like to quote the Report on this (Section 42) which states—
"The requirements of other Government Departments had always been in the mind of
1112
Lord Inverforth. But even up to the present time no concrete proposals have ever been considered."
Later on, in paragraph 65, it is stated—
"For the distant future Lord Inverforth, though it is not within his province, is satisfied that if Parliament should set up a Minister of Supply to succeed the Minister of Munitions, that Minister will endorse the policy of a central depot for all Government-owned vehicles. But the Departments concerned have not yet been consulted."
None of the Departments—the Pest Office or even the War Office, or any other Department—was consulted. The War Office was not asked whether, with a diminished army, this scheme should be gone into—a scheme with all the inconveniences which I have enumerated to your Lordships. Papers throwing light on this post-Armistice activity certainly would help to clear up the matter, and to elucidate the second mystery.
I now come to the question which remains—that of housing. I should very much like to know, as would all the dwellers in that area at the present time, what the policy of the Government is likely to be. The Report says, about housing, that the question has become a most important one. The minimum estimate of the number of men to be employed at the depot is 3,000. These would be 3,000 skilled workpeople presumably, and not the same elderly gentlemen who used to be employed there previously. The minimum estimate of houses is 400. These are expected to supply homes for 600 workmen. The intention is, it is stated, "to get the Slough Urban District Council to do it or to do it ourselves." Lord Inverforth appears to be doubtful whether this cost is to be charged against the scheme, and no provision has been made for it in the estimate presented to the committee. The committee consider that it is sanguine to expect that anything like 400 houses will suffice. These 400 houses are not likely to suffice. A small sum in arithmetic will show the probable number of houses that will be required. If 400 houses are required to supply 600 workmen, then, as there are 3,000 workmen, you will have to multiply the number of houses by five, and instead of 400 houses you get 2,000 houses. Two thousand houses will cost at least £1,000,000. I do not think you can build a decent house for £500. I had some estimates this morning on another Board, and for a house that cost us before the war £550 the lowest estimate was £1,400. It

1113
was put out to public tender. We will take it as £500; that means £1,000,000.
It seems quite doubtful whether the Government mean to put down that £1,000,000 to the cost of these works, to which it obviously belongs, or whether they are going to get the local authority (which is not the Slough Urban District Council but the Eton Rural District Council) to do it. It is only a small rural authority, and the chairman happens to be a tobacconist, and probably knows as much about building as I know about tobacco. This council, as a matter of fact, has a building scheme of its own, which has nothing to do with these works. The houses in that district happened to be short, especially in the neighbourhood of Burnham. They have a scheme to build 800 cottages at a cost of £400,000. That is quite enough for a small council like this, and if they are saddled with an extra £1,000,000 for houses, which they never asked for, and which really has nothing whatever to do with t hem, then I think it is wrong.
I should like to ask the Government what they propose to do in the matter of providing workmen's dwellings for these workmen who are to be engaged in future on the Cippenham works. The Government, I understand, contemplate sending people round to persuade large employers of labour to go in for building schemes for their own works. I venture to say that the Government ought to be the first to set an example of providing houses for their own workmen, instead of leaving those workmen absolutely unprovided for. Nobody knows how long the depôt is going on. It may be sold. There was a suggestion that it should be got rid of, and sold at a profit—personally I think that is the best thing to do with it. But after they have finished repairing these vehicles, which is to be done in three years, what position will the Eton Rural District Council be in, if they are saddled with a debt of £1,000,000, or it is put down to their account for providing houses for a depot, which has ceased to be a Government depot, end for the workmen of which the Eton Rural District Council have really no responsibility at all? I sincerely hope that the Government will be able to say what their building scheme is, and that they will assume the responsibility of building houses for workmen whom they propose to bring down there for their own purposes. I beg to move for Papers.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT MILNER): My Lords, I think the course which my noble friend has adopted is a somewhat inconvenient one. He tells us that the whole question of this Slough Depot is going to form the subject of a subsequent debate in this House. I can only say that, as far as I am concerned, I welcome any amount of debate on the general subject. But I think it is unfortunate that on this occasion he did not confine himself to asking the two specific Questions which ale on the Paper.
It is a rather difficult hour at which to begin the discussion of a whole subject. When the noble Lord got up and said that lie meant to confine himself to this particular question I intended to leave the matter alone for to-night; and my noble friend on my right, Lord Peel, is prepared to give him the specific answer on those two comparatively minor points, which I am not in a position to give—except that I may say that I do know something about the question of tae housing. I cannot make out whether my noble friend's point is that the Government is very guilty for not providing houses for all the workmen that have anything to do with Slough, or whether his complaint is that we contemplate building any houses.
As a matter of fact the importance of the housing question is considerably exaggerated, owing to tie fact that, though no doubt something like 3,000 men are employed there, the majority of them do come and go from houses in the neighbourhood or from houses in town, without any inconvenience to themselves or anybody. It is desirable, and I believe it will be necessary, to provide something like 400 or 500 houses for what you might call pivotal men concerned with the works, but I understand that it is not regarded as necessary, or likely to be necessary, that a larger number should be built. Supposing there are 500 houses built, and that they cost £700 apiece. That is, I think, an outside estimate, both of the number of houses that will be required, and very likely of their cost. That is a cost of £350,000. I do not quite know on what principle that is to be regarded as an addition to the cost of the Slough works as a whole. These houses may either be provided by the Government, or they may be provided by the Rural District Council. In either case the people who occupy them will pay rent for them.

1115
As I say, I should have preferred to leave this subject alone to-night altogether, and simply to allow my noble friend to reply to these Questions. I cannot do so because my noble friend opposite has seized the occasion once more to create all possible prejudice to the future discussion of this question by reproducing the charges which he has so often made in this House, and which I really cannot allow to pass unchallenged. I should have been only too delighted to leave the general question of Slough to be discussed on some future occasion. But as he cannot even ask a question on this subject without repeating over and over again the charges which have been made against the Government—all of which I consider are unjust, and Some of which have been absolutely knocked on the head by the Report of the Committee which he was so anxious to have set up—
LORD DESBOROUGH: I have been quoting from the Report.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Yes, with a great deal of comment, innuendo, invective, and suggestion of argument, and it is to that I am replying. I am also going to quote from the Report. It will be within the recollection of the House that this scheme has been attacked, certainly in the Press and even to some extent in this House, in very unmitigated fashion, on the ground that the enterprise was in its original form unnecessary; that even if it were necessary it was adopted on very much too large a scale; that the site was most unwisely chosen, and that the lay-out was bad. On every one of these points the finding of the Committee is dead against the accusers. I will read one or two passages of the findings. The Report says—
"In the judgment of the Committee, the policy of establishing as a war measure a central depot for repairs and for storage of spare parts was a good one. The decision which was taken appears to have been entirely sound, and the conditions which prevailed at the time justified the decision to establish s central depôt for immediate war purposes."
Then, again—
"The Committee are of opinion that the estimate of vehicles to be overhauled annually for war purposes justified the size of the depôt. They are satisfied that the trade were unable to undertake repairs on the necessary scale—"
This is one of the points which was pressed over and over again with the greatest vehemence. It was asked, Why do you not go to the trade? We repeated over
1116
and over again that we knew that the trade could not do the work. The Committee upheld that essential point in the Government case—
"and that the policy of giving out repairs to the trade could not have been satisfactorily adopted as an alternative to the construction of a large War Department repair shop."
Then about the site. There was nothing in the world on which we were more overwhelmed with reprobation. It meant the ruin of agriculture, and so on; it was a very bad site in itself, and we were destroying the agricultural prospects of the county. The Committee say, "The site chosen was a good one."
LORD DESBOROUGH: There was the canal.
VISCOUNT MILNER: My noble friend thinks it was not a good site. He may be right, and the Committee may be wrong. I am only pointing out the fact. These original charges have all gone by the board. In the circumstances I can understand my noble friend's annoyance. Then there was a great deal of criticism of the lay-out. The Committee say—
"The lay-out and design have not been seriously challenged in the evidence, though severely commented upon in Mr. Fitzpatrick's Report on National Service."
That Report was one on which a great deal of criticism was based, but the Committee says that "the Report was made without sufficient knowledge of all the circumstances." And the Committee, which presumably had "sufficient knowledge of the circumstances," found that the lay-out and design, though severely commented upon, could not be seriously challenged in the evidence.
Now, as far as the original scheme in this much-abused depot was concerned—the necessity for it, the necessity for its being of the size which was planned, the site, the lay-out—on all those points the policy of the Government has been completely justified by the Report of the Committee. But I should like to say a few words on the points on which the Committee's Report is not so favourable, and to which reference has been made by my noble friend. I do not want to go at great length into the matter—especially as we are going to have another debate about it—but there are two main points on which the Report of the Committee is either un-

1117
favourable to the Government or to some of its members—perhaps I will not say "unfavourable," because I should be expressing myself rather too strongly, but on which the Report is critical. It is very critical of the delay which occurred in the first stages of the construction of the depôt—that is to say, between August, 1917, and February, 1918. I personally am not so much concerned in that as I am in some other matters, because it was just after February, 1918, that I took over the office of Secretary of State for War. I was not Secretary of State for War during the period in which the delay occurred and to which this criticism applies. But it has been fully recognised throughout by, I think, all Government speakers, that this delay was regrettable. It can be accounted for by the many difficulties of the time—of labour, of materials, and of a hundred and one other things. It remains, however, a matter of great regret.
I ask your Lordships, however, to observe this point. The Committee comment very severely upon that delay; they point out, as my noble friend has said, that it involved very great loss to the country. But what is the necessary inference from that? It is that the depôt was calculated to bring about great saving to the country. The delay was unfortunate, because the repair of these vehicles which could not be otherwise repaired was of such vital importance in the interests of economy. But has the importance of repairing those vehicles ceased because there is peace? The Government is left with this enormous number of motor transport. vehicles—something like 80,000. It is a vast property. Many of them are comparatively worthless while they are unrepaired; but they are of great value if they can be repaired. It is very regrettable that we had not this depot six months sooner as we should have had that length of time extra during which saving could have been effected. But surely if it were of such importance to have those repairs made, and to have them made quickly, it did not cease to be of importance when peace came. This consideration is very material as bearing upon the decision of the Government, which is criticised in the Report, to go on with this big undertaking when the Armistice was concluded. That is the second substantial criticism in the Committee's Report.
They have approved the Slough Depot as a war measure, but they question the
1118
wisdom of going on with it after the conclusion of the Armistice. I do not think it can be fairly said that they condemn that action, but they soy that it was not, taken with sufficient. reflection; that we ought to have reconsidered a number of points—which they enumerate—before we decided to go on with it. Here, my Lords, I come in—my personal responsibility is here involved. The noble Lord (Lord Inver-forth) has repeatedly said that he holds himself personally responsible for the advice given to the Government to go on, and I have seen in various papers, commenting upon the history of this affair, that he is regarded as alone responsible. Although I was Secretary of State for War at the time that the decision was taken, I am let off lightly on the ground that, of course, I did not know much about it and was dependent upon my technical advisers. I beg to say that I do not want to be let off.
It is perfectly true that it was impossible for me at that time of extreme pressure to go fully into all the technical details and the long history of this thing to enable me to form an independent judgment. It is perfectly true that I was influenced very largely in the decision I arrived at to proceed with the work by my confidence in the sound business judgment of Lord Inver-forth, but that does not in the least absolve me from responsibility. It must be within the experience of every noble Lord in this House—and there are many who have held high office—that the head of a big Government Office constantly has to take decisions in which he must be guided, not by any intimate knowledge he himself has of a particular question, but by his reliance on the judgment of the people who are advising him. If his judgment of their judgment is wrong, he must take the consequences and the blame. I do not wish in the least, by the fact that I relied largely on the judgment of Lord Inverforth, to escape any blame which may attach to myself for having given effect to his advice. More than that, I should be sorry to be absolved from the responsibility in my own interest. I have been convinced for a long time, and I am more convinced than ever to-day, that the decision I took was a right one, and that when the question of the pounds, shillings, and pence of this matter comes to be a matter of history, as it will be before very long, and not of forecast, we shall be justified, and more than justified, in the course that we adopted. I am more convinced that when I last spoke in this House

1119
that the Slough "scandal" is going to result in a very great saving of public money, and that the scandal will be the unscrupulous way in which the depot has been attacked.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT MILNER: When I say that, I am not bringing a charge against noble Lords in this House. A great deal of the criticism has been perfectly legitimate and fair, but a great deal of the criticism in the Press has gone beyond reasonable limits. Only the other day pictures were printed in a newspaper purporting to give a representation of the condition of things at Slough; they were photographs which were three or four months old. I have corresponding photographs of the actual condition of affairs, and the difference between the two is so great that the same site is almost unrecognisable. If photographs of the same places had been taken to-day they would have given not only a different impression but an absolutely opposite impression.
Had we hesitated when the Armistice was concluded and reconsidered and caused fresh delay instead of doing what my noble friend condemns me so much for doing—that is, bearing in mind all that had been lost by past delay and therefore pressing the work on as fast as possible—Slough would not have been working even now. As a matter of fact, we have now begun work at Slough. It has already repaired between 1,000 and 2,000 lorries. It is capable of repairing at the rate of several hundred a week now, and very shortly we shall be able to repair 100 a day. So far, the result of the repairs and of the sales has been so favourable that it promises to bear out the most optimistic estimate which has ever been made. I do not, however, wish to base too much upon the success which has so far attended the commencement of the work at Slough. We foresee enormous activities during the next year and a half, and if the result of further operation is at all corresponding to what we have already achieved, it will be a moderate estimate to say that within a couple of years we shall have paid for the whole cost of the depot and have the depot left for the Government to make any use of it pleases, or to sell at a profit—for every penny we get for it then would be profit—although for my own part I do not suppose for a moment that the Government will
1120
ever want to part with it. It may want to part with some of the repairing machinery, but of that I cannot speak positively.
I do not wish to go at greater length into the matter now. We are, I understand, to have a fuller debate upon it. I shall welcome any opportunity of discussing the matter still further either in this House or elsewhere. I am certainly prepared to take full responsibility for the decision to go on with the work after the Armistice was concluded, and I believe that in doing so I did what was in the best interests of the country.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I was going to answer the two specific Questions on the Paper put by my noble friend Lord Desborough, which no doubt are of limited interest or importance compared with the larger subject that has just been raised in debate. The Question lie asks is whether it is proposed that His Majesty's Government should erect dwellings for the workmen at the new motor transport depot at Slough. The answer I have to give, of course, confines itself entirely to that subject.
A Conference took place between representatives of the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Munitions and the Eton Rural District Council (in whose area the Slough depôt is situated), at which the question of the provision of these houses by the District Council was discussed. It was explained that if the houses were built by the District Council they would form part of the Councils general housing scheme and that all deficits on the complete schemes in excess of the amount of a penny rate would be paid by the Government.
The representatives of the Council were of opinion that the Council would probably be willing to undertake the scheme provided they could do so without delaying the building of the new cottages required in the villages of the district, and they were assured that the houses in the villages could proceed concurrently with the erection of the Slough houses and that the scheme for the villages would not be prejudiced in any way by the scheme to be carried out in the neighbourhood of the depôt.
The District Council has since passed a resolution to the effect that they are prepared to include in their housing scheme 400 houses to be erected at the motor transport depôt at Cippenham provided

1121
they can do so without delaying the building of the new cottages required in the villages in the district, and that guarantees are forthcoming that precedence will be given to the Council scheme for the erection of cottages in the rest of their district. I may point out that under Clause I of the, Housing Bill it is made the duty of the local authority to prepare such housing schemes as are necessary for the people of their district and, in inviting the Eton Rural District Council to provide the houses at Cippenham, the Government are only asking them to carry out the obligation which is placed upon them by the Bill. The houses so provided will be available for the population of the district generally and will not be tied to the workers in the depôt, though it is, of course, unlikely that as a general rule these houses will be inhabited by people other than those working at the depôt. The management of the houses when built will be in the hands of the District Council and as the inhabitants of the houses will be ratepayers a voice in the management will be assured to them.
I think it is rather regrettable that my noble friend, in referring to the District Council, allowed himself to sneer at the Chairman of that body. The Chairman is, I understand, working energetically on the scheme, and it is rather hard that he should be alluded to with a certain lack of respect as shown by my noble friend.
LORD DESBOROUGH: There was no sneer in what I said.
VISCOUNT PEEL: There was a distinct sneer in the way in which my noble friend referred to him; otherwise, I would not have said this.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon. I said that on that matter we were probably equal.
VISCOUNT PEEL: As regards finance the other schemes of the District Council will exhaust the penny rate which the Council are required to contribute towards housing schemes, and any loss on the Cippenham housing will, therefore, fall upon the Government and will form part of the general expenditure incurred by the Government in connection with housing proposals.
LORD DESBOROUGH: Does that mean the housing proposals in connection with the depôt, or housing generally?
VISCOUNT PEEL: The expense of course will fall, as in the case of all other housing schemes, upon the general taxpayer, but through the Ministry of Health. They will be in exactly the same position as any other housing scheme throughout the country. The other point that I was asked about was whether there is any prospect of finding the missing War Office files relating to this depôt. I understand that there were no War Office files lost at all. There were some files which were mislaid but were subsequently found, and the only papers which I understand were lost were some papers containing some minutes by Sir Alban Crofton Atkins. These papers were apparently not registered and were not in any sense Official Papers. It appears that these have not been recovered but the, papers referred to in the Report, I understand, have been discovered.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Have they been submitted to the Committee?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was going to say that there is a rather full statement on the subject which I am quite ready to give to your Lordships if you wish it, but I was going to have it circulated for your Lordships. I thought possibly that would be more convenient as the statement is a rather long and detailed one. But if you like I will give it to your Lordships at the present moment.
THE EARL OF KINTORE: My Lords, in view of the answer which has just been given to my noble friend Lord Desborough on the subject of these missing War Office files and, more especially perhaps, in view of the answer made on July 22 by Mr. Churchill to Mr. Briant in another place, it becomes my duty, as I had the honour of being Chairman of this Joint Committee on the motor repair depôt, to substantiate the statement made in paragraph 26 of the Joint Committee's Report. I have to say that that paragraph, as it stands, is entirely accurate. Some confusion has been introduced by the reference, on behalf of the Government, to other War Office files which could not be found but which are not those referred to in paragraph 26 of the Report.

1123
There are, in fact, two distinct sets of War Office files which were not forthcoming when required by the Committee. The first set consists of the files prior to May, 1917, which are referred to in the correspondence which, with your Lordships' indulgence, I propose to read. It is not long. The first letter is from the Secretary of the Joint Committee to the Private Secretary to the War Minister under date May 3, of this year—
"General Sir Alban Crofton Atkins was called as a witness yesterday before the Joint Committee appointed to inquire into the Government works at Cippenham. He stated in evidence that there are War Office files containing minutes from himself which point out the serious position as regards mechanical transport repairs prior to May, 1917. Sir Alban stated that he had no copies of these minutes. I ate desired by the Chairman of the Joint Committee to request that the Secretary of State will be good enough to assist the Inquiry by causing these files to be produced as evidence before the Committee."
That letter was answered three days later, on May 6—
"Assistant Secretary, War Office, to Secretary of Committee.—We have for some time been making every endeavour to find the Office Papers to which General Atkins alluded, but they have been missing, as I think he told you, for many months. We are making further efforts to find the files."
On May 15 the Secretary wrote to the Assistant Secretary of the War Office as follows—
Referring to my letter of the 3rd instant asking for the production of certain War Office tiles … I am to say that the Committee will be obliged, in the event of the Office Papers still being missing, if the Secretary of State will cause evidence to be tendered to the Committee which will make clear the grounds upon which General Atkins's proposals were not adopted."
That was replied to on the same day—
"Assistant Secretary, War Office, to Secretary of Committee.—We have now been able to trace one paper … but I am sorry to say that the earlier papers cannot yet be found."
You will agree that this correspondence sufficiently establishes the disappearance of these documents, by the admission of the War Office itself.
The Committee did not think it necessary to refer to this disappearance in their Report, and allusion to it is only now made necessary by the recent statement in another place on behalf of the War Office. The files, however, to the absence of which the Committee did attach importance, are the second set of files referred to by Mr. Churchill in these words—
"The Committee then asked, for the first time, for files carrying the history beyond that date,
1124
i.e., May, 1917, and up till the adoption of the site at Slough, which had not been mentioned hitherto. Accordingly a file, the next in chronological order on the subject, carrying the history forward to November, and showing the acceptance of the Slough scheme by the War Office, was obtained from the War Office by the Ministry of Munitions, who had been asked by the Committee to examine and prepare such papers for them. The Ministry derived from it a part of the information contained in the paper, marked Appendix P. to the Report, which was put in by them, dated 30th May. The Secretary to the Committee was informed that this file was with the Ministry of Munitions, but he made no request for it, and was presumably satisfied on receiving the extracts contained in Appendix P."
I very much regret the inconvenience caused to your Lordships by the delay in the issue of the printed evidence and Appendices. You may be sure that it is by no fault of mine that their issue is only promised for early next week. But the true history of these files is sufficiently revealed by extracts from the printed evidence. On May 16 these remarks are reported—
Mr. HOGGE: Are we going to have the file from 3rd August, 1917, till Slough is taken?
The SECRETARY: This file (i.e., the earlier one, the one which has just been read) has been obtained from the War Office. I have not any others.
Mr. HOGGE: I have listened to those letters, and they alter my view altogether. It appears that we have not heard the story yet, but only the preliminary chapters.
Mr. ELLINGER (representing Minister of Munitions): There is no reason why you should not have all the files up to the adoption of Slough.
Earl RUSSELL: With an expert to enable the Secretary to find his way about them, I hope.
Mr. ELLINGER: That I cannot promise, but I will endeavour to find the files and put them in.
The CHAIRMAN: I am sure you will.
As a result of these proceedings I made constant inquiries for these files. Lord Inverforth had appointed a private secretary to attend to the business side of the Committee on behalf of the Ministry of Munitions and of the War Office. This gentleman was present in the Committee room throughout, and constantly in the office of the Secretary to the Committee. Under these circumstances formal correspondence, as in the previous case, did not appear necessary. But it will be within this gentleman's knowledge that he, was repeatedly asked when these files would be produced, and that he always stated—I think I quote his words—that "he could not get them from the War Office, who said that they could not be found."

1125
I pass on to May 23, on which day Sir Charles Harris, Financial Adviser to the War Office, was called as a witness. He referred to a file covering the period of Christmas, 1917, and which therefore must have been one of those which it had been promised should be produced to the Committee. I quote from his evidence—
"About Christmas, 1917, the Papers Came to my Department in order that Treasury approval might be obtained, and Treasury approval was applied for and obtained. I should like to say that, as the official files on which this action took place have been mislaid, I am speaking largely from memory."
He went on to say—
"I hope they will be recovered in due course, but as far as I know they have not been recovered yet. I set a special body of searchers that is kept in the service to meet such contingencies to work on Saturday last with no result."
Mr. Churchill further made the following statement in another place—
"Thus the Papers carrying the history of the discussion beyond the summer of 1917, to which alone the Committee allude in their Report, are not lost. Moreover, they were found within a short time of their being required."
From these statements it is perfectly clear that, though the files are now available, they were lost during the sittings of the Committee; and it is my duty to add that the statement that the Ministry of Munitions were ever asked to examine and prepare the files for the use of the Committee is wholly incorrect and has no foundation in fact. The extracts from the evidence which I have read prove that the Committee asked for the files in order that their own secretary might examine them. Nor is it in any sense correct to say that the Secretary was informed that the file was with the Ministry of Munitions.
Neither I myself nor the secretary had any knowledge or suspicion that the files had been found until it was so stated on July 22 in another place, and I am afraid I must add that if the files were in the possession of the Ministry of Munitions at any time during the sittings of the Committee the Ministry of Munitions signally failed to communicate this fact to myself or to the Secretary of the Committee. Mr. Churchill also stated as to the files that "the substance of them was placed before the Committee in the paper submitted to them by the Ministry of Munitions on May 30." Your Lordships will find that in Appendix P. Appendix P referred to was handed in on the last day on which evidence
1126
was taken in response to a direct and specific request, made by the Committee in a letter, dated May 27, which asked for the following information—
"A chronological table showing the action taken by the War Office and the Ministry of Munitions, departmentally, and with other Government Departments between August 15, 1917, and June 1, 1918, to include dates of instructions to select a site, selection of Cippenham by Lands Branch, and subsequent action."
This letter made the following reference to the lost files—
"The information under head II the Committee had hoped to obtain from the files which have not been put in."
Between the important dates November 13, 1917, and February 12, 1918, with two unimportant exceptions, Appendix P. was found to contain no entries other than minutes of the Mechanical Transport Board. After a careful perusal of this document the Committee decided that it contained no information which enabled them to follow up the responsibility for delay or to atttibute the blame to any person or persons. The substitution of Appendix P. for the actual files by the Ministry of Munitions if these files, as is now stated, were in their possession, appears to be an action on which it is superfluous for me to offer any comment to your Lordships.
I apologise for detaining the House so long. I only desire to add this. As Chairman of the Joint Committee I adhere entirely to paragraph 26 of the Report and to the following statement which it contains—
"The Committee have not been supplied with the War Office files carrying the history beyond the summer of 1917. It is stated that these file, cannot be found. It has therefore been impossible to follow up the responsibility for delay in that Department."
This statement, my Lords, is literally correct.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, after the very serious statement made by the noble Earl the Chairman of the Committee I am sure the Government will not be surprised if those of us who have not had en opportunity of hearing the facts before ask the Government to remember that it is absolutely necessary the House should have an opportunity of again entering into them. What is the position? We appointed a Committee with the object of considering whether these works should

1127
ever have been begun, whether, when they were begun, they should have been continued after the Armistice, and what the approximate commercial results were likely to be. What information have we? The noble Earl tells us that owing to most unfortunate circumstances regarding documents at the War Office the Committee have been unable to arrive' at the responsibility for the outlay in commencing works, which might have been justified at that period.
When we come to the question of the continuance of the works after the Armistice, that has been condemned by the Committee. On the other point, on which your Lordships attach the greatest importance—namely, what are likely to be the commercial profits of the undertaking—we are told that these were given confidentially and that we cannot see them. The only evidence we have is in the Report of the Committee, a portion of which was not read by Lord Milner, which says—
"The Committee are satisfied that the attractive estimates of large profits presented to Parliament by Lord Inverforth and supported in evidence to this Committee were too readily accepted by him, and without sufficient independent examination. The result is that the nation is in possession of an elaborate and costly factory, partially completed. It carries with it a commercial undertaking of which the financial aspects have, in the opinion of this Committee, been insufficiently considered. And this undertaking is based upon a calculation of profit which was presented to the Committee as its justification, but which, in fact, is unlikely to be realised."
I do not suppose a more severe censure was ever passed upon any Minister by any Parliamentary Committee with regard to a commercial undertaking—certainly not for many years. Under those circumstances, on all the three points which were raised in your Lordships' House a few months ago, and which led to the appointment of the Committee, we are left without satisfaction and without information. The noble Viscount who spoke first seemed to think that my noble friend was not sufficently justified in charging upon the Government the whole cost of the housing of this large town which was about to be erected. I think it is quite clear that, whether these houses are to be put up by the War Office, or whether they are to be erected by the local authority under the guarantee of the War Office—
VISCOUNT PEEL: Not by the War Office, but by the Local Government Board, or the Ministry of Health, in the usual way.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Whoever puts them up, does anybody suppose that those who are employed there will be able to pay 15 s. or £1 a week for them, unless by means of exaggerated wages paid by the War Office. The whole housing of these persons will come as a gigantic addition to the cost of the undertaking, and I undertake to wager that no provision was made for this addition to the cost of the adventure. That being so, and as we are not really in a position to judge of the facts, I hope the Government will not take it amiss if, when the evidence is before us, and when the further evidence which the noble Earl alluded to becomes available, we ask to be further satisfied on the matter. I would ask the noble Viscount who represents the War Office whether he would communicate with the Secretary of State and ask whether it is not possible for us to have as a guidance that estimate of commercial profit which was laid before the Committee, and which seems to us vital to the determination of the whole matter.
LORD GAINFORD: I do not know whether I might ask Lord Inverforth one question, which seems to arise out of the correspondence that we have just had read to us by the Chairman of the Committee. I do not want to go into the merits of the case, but it seems to me rather extraordinary that a file which was in the possession of the Ministry of Munitions, and which the Committee sitting required to see, was not produced. I should like to ask Lord Inverforth whether he can explain the circumstances which prevented that file being placed in the possession of the Committee while it was sitting.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: The position was this, that the files were asked for and sent to the Ministry of Munitions in order that they might draw up a chronological order of the events. The official of the Ministry of Munitions when he had done that, thinking it was all that was required by the Committee, sent the papers back to the War Office. When we wished to have the papers hack again from the War Office they had been mislaid, and could not be found. That was the position.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I only wish to deal with two points that have been mentioned. Viscount Midleton criticised these houses and said the people would not be able to pay adequate rents for them. Of course

1129
these houses will be built in exactly the same way, and on the same terms, as all the other houses to be built under the new Housing and Town Planning Bill. Therefore his criticism is a general one and does not apply merely to Slough.
The noble Earl who was Chairman of the Committee has criticised severely a certain Statement issued in reply to a. written question in another place. It was a rather full Statement, and I do not wish to read it, but if it is circulated I think your Lordships will be better able to judge the situation when you have read it. There were two points on which the noble Earl gave a direct denial to certain statements made in the paper. One was that the Secretary of the Committee was informed that the file in question was with the Ministry of Munitions. There is a direct issue upon that point. The Statement says that he was informed, and my noble friend says he was not informed.
There is also a direct issue on the question of Sir Charles Harris's evidence. The missing paper was found a day or two after evidence was given by Sir Charles Harris, but no later request was made for the production of these papers, presumably because the dates given by Sir Charles Harris were approximately correct. I do not know whether anything turns upon these matters, but I think your Lordships will be able to study the question when you have the papers, and I can, of course, bring the statements before the Secretary of State and another reply can be issued.
LORD CLINTON: I should like to allude to two matters of which the noble Viscount has spoken. In the first place, he has told us that the reason why the documents were not produced was that no later request was made for them My recollection of the evidence, and I think it is correct, is that when the Financial Adviser to the War Office was asked about the documents he said they were missing, but that lie would supply them to the Committee when he could find them. We were waiting from day to day to get those reports. We were relying upon the promise of the Financial Adviser to the War Office that they would be produced when he could find them, and yet they were never brought before us.
There is one further matter upon which desire to say one word. I should like to press the Government and Lord Inverforth
1130
to let us know what the position is to be with regard to housing. We pressed the matter upon a great number of witnesses, and we never got a definite undertaking as to what was to happen. We know that 3,000 workmen must eventually be required. I am aware that under the scheme as stated it was intended to carry on with military labour, and the question of providing civilian houses did not arise, but shortly after the idea of building military barracks was done away with and it became clear that 3,000 civilian workers would be wanted. Yet no information was forthcoming after the date when the Committee began to sit as to the provision of housing. It is clear that. it was not even in the minds of those responsible for the creation of these great works that houses would be required.
The noble Viscount, the Secretary of State, addressing us first this evening, told us that these houses would be found largely in the district. The noble Viscount, Lord Peel, later told us that these will be supplied by the Eton Rural District Council, who already have a large scheme on foot and are prepared to build for Slough after their own houses are completed. Therefore for the time being these men will have to be provided for somehow in the surrounding districts. Your Lordships are aware of the grave housing difficulty that exists at the present moment. We in country districts are always complaining that the houses which are intended for agricultural labourers are being taken up by the workmen of local authorities and industries, and it is because they are being taken up by those workmen that we have this great shortage of houses for agricultural labourers. It seems to me that is an exceedingly bad example on the part of the Government, who are pressing on this great housing scheme, that in one of their largest works, they should be adopting the attitude of the worst employer, and relying upon other people to provide houses for the Government's own workpeople. I hope that we shall hear from the noble Lord that they really are going to provide houses, although I am quite aware if they do so that it will upset the whole finance of the undertaking.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not desire to continue the discussion tonight. As the noble Viscount the Under-Secretary of State for War has said, we shall be much better able to judge of the very important correspondence which the

1131
Chairman of the Committee has read out to us when we have it under our eyes with the statement that the Secretary of State has made in another place, and which the noble Viscount says will be circulated, I suppose immediately.
VISCOUNT PEEL: At once.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is a very fair suggestion. We shall then be able to judge as to the merits. Regarding the housing, it is impossible for us to see what justification there was for the Government to erect these enormous works and then not to provide houses for the people who were to work in them. The whole of the housing policy of the Government is, of course, that there should be sufficient houses provided for all the workmen in a district, but as I understand the noble Viscount he believes that a great number of these workmen will be housed in the existing accommodation in the villages round. That appears to be a most unsatisfactory arrangement, for it would produce over-crowding everywhere.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not say that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They must be housed somewhere. First of all the Government have not provided any houses, which they ought to have done; and, second, they are going to provide an inadequate number of houses. The remaining workmen, as I understand, are to be lodged somewhere, either in London and come down by special train every day, or in the surrounding villages. I understood that the noble Viscount looked to both these sources to supply the required accommodation.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not say anything about either source of supply. I was confining my answer purely to the question as to the number of houses to be built by the Eton Rural District Council; but my noble friend Lord Milner stated that these were for pivotal men, and that the other men who required accommodation would for the present come down from London by train.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That appears to be a most astonishing method of procedure. Why cannot the Government house their own people properly, as all good employers ought to do? Why should
1132
we be preaching to employers everywhere, "House your workmen," when the Government themselves do not house their workmen? Why should the wretched Squires of England be held up to obloquy because they have not sufficient cottages for their workmen, when the Government do not have sufficient houses for their workmen? Why should the owners of mines be held up in the Coal Commission Report because they do not provide adequate housing when the Government do not provide adequate housing? It is the Government's business not only to do as others do, but to set a good example—to be the best employers—and to be those who house their workmen best. I should have thought that would have been the method the Government would have adopted. As regards the cost, the whole cost as an obligation should be upon the Government. If it should happen in a few years hence that the Slough Depôt comes to an end, then all these extra houses will be thrown upon the hands of the local authority, and unless they can get people to live in them they will be a dead loss. I do not want to press my noble friend now, but I earnestly hope—
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend is directing his thunder against me. It is my noble friend on my left.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I apologise. I had forgotten. My noble friend replied for the Government, and of course he did so, as he always does, with great skill, and I directed my observation to him. If it applies to the Ministry of Munitions, by all means let them deal with it. I do not desire to press them now, but let us be clear that in future it is the business of the Government—whether the War Office, or the Ministry of Munitions, or any other Department—to make adequate arrangements.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I rise in consequence of the very ominous statement of my noble friend the noble Viscount that the local authority can be called on under the Housing Act to provide a building scheme.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not say that. My noble friend knows the Bill.
LORD HARRIS: Under the Bill I think the local authority can be called on.
VISCOUNT PEEL: They can, but I did not say so.
LORD HARRIS: They can be called on notwithstanding the character of the industry which requires the cottages. Here is an industry which may become a white elephant a year or two hence. There may be no necessity for all the factory buildings a few years from now, and, if I remember the Bill aright, after seven years the liability for the interest on the loan falls upon the ratepayers. Here is another instance of how the unfortunate ratepayer is liable to have burdens thrown upon him by the Government. In this particular instance I think it is grossly unfair to throw upon the local authority the cost of having to provide these houses.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord move for Papers?
LORD DESBOROUGH: Yes.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Will the noble Lord say what. Papers he requires?
LORD DESBOROUGH: The Papers I move for should be something more than formal. I understand that the Government are going to issue a Paper which is practically a flat contradiction of what has been stated in the Report of the Committee which I read out, and it has been contradicted by the Chairman. If you circulate any Papers I move that you circulate the two together—the statement which was made in the other House (which I understand it is the intention of the Government to circulate), and also the reply from the Chairman of the Committee. People will then be able to compare the two.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Those two documents will appear in the same Report.
LORD DESBOROUGH: Lord Kintore's reply?
VISCOUNT PEEL: They will be in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
LORD DESBOROUGH: But this is a separate Paper, carefully thought out, in reply to a document which was recently given in another place. If you are to circulate that document, why not also circulate this one in a separate Paper and not leave people to pick it out of speeches?
THE, EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am anxious to meet the noble Lord. The speech of the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, will be printed in the ordinary way in our OFFICIAL REPORT published to-morrow morning. You do not require to move for Papers to get that document circulated. The other document is a statement made in the House of Commons a week or so ago by the Secretary of State. My noble friend has said that he is prepared to circulate that document. The normal course would have been for him to have read it to your Lordships, but as it occupies two columns in the House of Commons OFFICIAL REPORT he did not read it, and proposes to let it be circulated. Both these documents will be in your Lordships' hands at once, and there is no necessity to move for Papers in order to secure them.
LORD DESBOROUGH: But the Paper I should like to move for is the reply of the chairman of the Committee, which should be given just as much prominence as the statement made in another place, and, if that is circulated as a White Paper, the reply of Lord Kintore ought also to be circulated as a White Paper.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Mr. Churchill's statement appeared in the Commons OFFICIAL REPORT. Lord Kintore's statement will appear in our OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning. The publicity, assuming the circulation to be the same, is identical.
EARL RUSSELL: I venture to say that that is not quite the same.
LORD DESBOROUGH: Mr. Churchill's statement is going to appear as a special White Paper. All I say is that the reply to Mr. Churchill should appear in the same White Paper.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, in the same White Paper. It is obvious that you do not want to have one statement in a White Paper, and have to find the other in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Both these replies are going to be in Hansard. One is already there—on July 22; the other will appear there on July 29. One was made in the other House by Mr. Churchill; the other in this House by Lord Kintore. Your Lordships will have the official documents at your disposal in that manner.
A NOBLE LORD: I suppose the Government do not want to hide or Burke anything—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If we are accused of lurking anything—though a. more absurd statement could not be made—I must detain your Lordships by reading to the House Mr. Churchill's statement, in order that it should appear in the same OFFICIAL REPORT as Lord Kintore's statement. Mr. Briant had asked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the statement made by the Cippenham Select Committee that the War Office files carrying the history beyond the summer of 1917 were missing, whether an investigation had been held into the loss of these official documents and those responsible for the loss; and, if so, what was the result of such investigation. Mr. Churchill replied that he had caused this matter to be investigated, and would circulate the result with the OFFICIAL REPORT. The following is his statement—
The Report of the Select Committee on the Government works at Cippenham stated:
"The Committee have not been supplied with War Office files carrying the history beyond the summer of 1917. It is stated that these files cannot be found."
Turning to the evidence, references to missing War Office papers were made by two witnesses only—namely, Major-General Sir A. Crofton Atkins and Sir C. Harris. The former stated on 2nd May (Questions 228 and 229) that there were War Office files, which were either lost or unobtainable, on which he had written minutes, prior to May, 1917, on the seriousness of the position as regards mechanical transport repairs. On 3rd May, the secretary to the Committee wrote to the War Office asking that these files should be produced, and on 15th May, the only registered official file containing minutes of the kind and date referred to, was sent to the Committee. On 16th May this Paper was laid before the Committee, and, as would appear from the evidence, and especially from the Report as quoted above, it satisfied them as to the history of the case till August, 1917.
The Committee then asked, for the first time, for files carrying the history beyond that date and up till the adoption of the site at Slough, which had not
1136
been mentioned hitherto. Accordingly a file, the next in chronological order on the subject, carrying the history forward to November, and showing the acceptance of the Slough scheme by the War Office, was obtained from the War Office by the Ministry of Munitions, who had been asked by the Committee to examine and prepare such papers for them. The Ministry derived from it a part of the information contained in the paper, marked Appendix P to the Report, which was put in by them, dated 30th May. The Secretary to the Committee was informed that this file was with the Ministry of Munitions, but he made no request for it, and was presumably satisfied on receiving the extracts contained in Appendix P.
On 23rd May, Sir C. Harris was called before the Committee, and stated, in the course of his evidence, that he had to trust to memory for the date upon which the paper came to his Department, and that on which Treasury approval for the Slough Scheme was sought and obtained, as the file had been temporarily mislaid and was being searched for [Questions 3732 and 3753.] He had had very short notice that he was required to give evidence. This set of papers was, in fact, recovered on the same day from the Exchequer and Audit Department at Adastral House, and was sent to Sir C. Harris, too late, however, for his evidence. No later request was made for the production of these papers, because presumably, the dates given by Sir C. Harris were approximately correct.
Thus the papers carrying the history of the discussion beyond the summer of 1917, to which alone the Committee allude in their Report, are not lost. Moreover, they were found within a short time of their being required, and the substance of them was placed before the Committee in the paper submitted to them by the Ministry of Munitions on May 30. (See Appendix P.)
The only papers which are not forthcoming are those which Sir A. Crofton Atkins stated contain minutes, other than those in the file laid before the Committee, written by him prior to May, 1917. Sir A. Crofton Atkins is unable to furnish any more precise reference to such papers, and none answering the description can be traced amongst the registered files of the Department. The

1137
minutes were perhaps written on papers which were never sent for entry in the registers of the permanent records of the War Office.
The suggestion that important official papers essential to this case have been lost, therefore, takes its place among the many misleading legends which have been put in circulation about it.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I understand that the noble Earl does not intend to publish that statement as a White Paper?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No. The statement and the reply will both be published to-morrow morning in our OFFICIAL REPORT. We cannot have them printed twice.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, the Insurance Bill of 1911 made insurance compulsory up to £160 a year for non-manual workers. All manual workers are included. At present, that sum does not represent the situation because, of course, the dividing line between the different classes of manual workers represented by £160 a year in 1911 is, owing to the rise in wages and value of money, very different. Therefore the Government, after much consultation, have decided that £250 a year should represent the dividing line. The result will be that all persons up to £250 a year who are. non-manual workers will come under compulsory insurance. Of course a certain number of persons who were not insured before, that is to say, non-manual workers who were getting £160 to £250 a year and whose income has not now risen to over £250 a year, will be forced to insure. Under a subsection of the Bill they are able to contract out in certain cases, that is to say, to get certificates of exemption, because there might otherwise be some hardship upon them. Financially there will be hardly any fresh charge on the Treasury. All that will happen is that whereas a number of these insurances would have lapsed, and therefore there would be no Treasury contribution towards them, the effect of this measure will be to maintain
1138
that compulsory contribution, and therefore they will be insured.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL.
RESTORATION OF PRE-WAR PRACTICES (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Brought front the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of July 24]
PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Lord Forteviot be proposed to the House as Commissioner under the Act in the place of the Lord Kintore (E. Kintore); read, and agreed to, and the said Lord appointed accordingly.

AMMANFORD GAS.
Petition for Bill.
Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.

WATERFORD HARBOUR BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
PALLIN'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
  STONEY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
  Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings before this House on the Second Reading, together with the documents deposited in each case, returned from the Commons.

CITY OF LONDON POLICE BILL.
Third Reading put off sine die.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.