Sitting of 30 July 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Newark Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
Londonderry Port and Harbour Bill [Lords](by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    PUNJAB REBEIXION (COURTS-MARTIAL).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the result of court-martial prosecutions in connection with the Punjab rebellion; if such prosecutions have been directed against acts of passive resistance against the Rowlatt legislation; and, if not, whether he will give some indication of the class of crime for which prosecutions have been initiated, particularly those in which capital sentence has been passed?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I have not yet had a full Report, but I understand that capital and other serious offences, such as waging war against the King, murder, robbery with violence, have been tried exclusively by Commissions appointed by the local Government under a Special Ordinance, and consisting of three persons of whom two at least must be judicial officers. Minor offences have been tried and penalties inflicted by courts-martial, the presiding officer being generally a civilian exercising the powers of a first-class magistrate. I understand that acts of "passive resistance" were not in themselves treated as offences by the Punjab authorities.
    Sir F. HALL: In view of the untrue statements made in certain portions of the Press and the injury likely to be done in India, will the right hon. Gentleman take care to see that his reply is made known in India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, Sir.
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for India whether sentences recently passed by special military Courts in the Punjab included, in addition to sentences of imprisonment, confiscation of the property. of persons so sentenced; whether such sentences necessarily involve the destitution of the innocent wives and children of offenders; and whether he will take steps to revise such sentences forthwith?
    Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. and gallant Friend presumably refers to sentences passed by Commissions of three judges appointed under the Special Ordinances. Under the Indian Penal Code the forfeiture of property is part of the penalty provided for the offences of waging war against the King, or attempting to do so, or collecting arms for that purpose. The Courts have therefore no option but to include that in the sentence on persons found guilty. But the Government examines all such cases and remits or reduces this penalty in cases in which it would involve the destitution of the family. The local Government has directed that the orders of forfeiture should not be carried out in cases where the convicted person does not pay Income Tax or does not pay revenue exceeding Rs.30 per annum. In other cases special report is to-be made to the Government.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is India the only part of the British Empire where the sentence of confiscation of property is permitted?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I do not know that.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon Gentleman aware of any other part of the British Empire where by sentence a man's property can be taken away?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The question on the Paper only deals with India.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: What is meant by "waging war" against the Government in connection with these riots?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The offence of waging war against the Government is an offence

    2079
    dealt with in the Indian Penal Code, and the facts of the case are judged by Commissioners. I have not yet received a full report of these cases.

    ROWLATT LEGISLATION.
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received, and is continuing to receive, representations from various quarters in India regarding the Rowlatt legislation; and whether he can take any steps to allay the uneasiness evidenced by such representations?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have received a large number of communications from India on the subject of the Rowlatt legislation, and I would take this opportunity of making it clear that I have given them my best consideration from the point of view referred to in the last part of the question. I believe that the powers given to the Executive by the Rowlatt legislation are necessary at the present time, and that there are no reasonable grounds for the apprehensions felt in India. The Act itself is valid for a period of three years only, after which the whole position will be considered. If the anarchical and revolutionary actions against which the Act is framed are abandoned, the Act will not be used, and there will be no necessity for its renewal.

    ARMY OFFICER PRISONERS (PAY).
    Colonel BURNasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will favourably consider the case of those officers of the Indian Army who were, through no fault of their own, taken prisoners during the War; if he will explain why they were only credited with half their staff pay, while officers of the British Army were better paid while prisoners than they were while serving with their regiments; if he will explain why the moneys given to the officers of the Indian Army by the Red Cross, to compensate for the dearness of provisions, was debited against them; and if compensation will be awarded to those officers who find their uniform has been ruined by white ants in India while they were detained as prisoners of war?
    Mr. MONTAGU: With the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT in order to deal fully with the points he raises.
    The following is the reply promised:
    I understand my hon. and gallant Friend's question to refer particularly to the Kut garrison. The Government are most anxious to do what they can for these officers, and have invited from them claims for compensation in respect of expenditure incurred during captivity—for instance, on house rent, purchase of furniture, fuel and lighting. Most of the claims have been sent in, and it is hoped that they will all be settled shortly. I may mention that we are giving these officers also free dental treatment, or in the alternative paying bills submitted by their own dentists, in respect of all injury or deterioration to their teeth occurring while they were prisoners of war.
    As regards their pay, the present position was fully stated in an answer which I gave in this House on the 6th March last. It was then explained that Indian Army officers prisoners of war received for sixty-one days the full pay of the appointments which they held when captured, and thereafter full pay of rank and half staff pay of their substantive appointments. The Indian Army officer thus received, even after the first sixty-one days, practically the same pay as the British Army officer if a lieutenant, and substantially more if of the rank of captain or over.
    So far as I am aware, no money was given by the Red Cross. Presumably the reference is to the Embassy allowances, which were sums issued by the American Embassy, and later the Dutch Embassy, from British, relief funds placed at their disposal by the British Government. It is not the case that these sums have been debited against officers, but officers have merely been asked to deduct the amounts so received from their total claim for compensation under the various headings mentioned above.
    As regards the last part of the question, no officer proceeding on field service is entitled to compensation for loss or damage to private property stored in India. I see no reason to discriminate in this respect between officers who were taken prisoner and those who were not.

    LONDON SCHOOL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE (TREATMENT OF OFFICERS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering the importance of the generous arrangement made by him for the treatment of civil and military officers from India suffering

    2081
    from tropical diseases at the hospital of the London School of Tropical Medicine, he will take steps to have his recent announcement on the subject published in India for the information of all concerned?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, Sir.

    COTTON CULTIVATION (SUKKUR BARRAGE).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has under consideration the recommendation of the Indian Cotton Commit tee that the Sukkur barrage should be constructed upon the Indus in order to effect the. extension of the. cultivation of long-staple cotton in Sind?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I hope to transmit shortly to the Government of India the advice of the "Empire Cotton Growing Committee on the recommendations made by the Indian Committee. The Govern-men of India will then, if they have not already done so, consider the whole Report, including the recommendation relating to the Sukkur barrage.

    GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL (SELECT COMMITTEE).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will direct the Government of India to request the pre sent Governors of the provinces which submitted an alternative scheme on the 15th January last to nominate representatives, either now in this country or in India, to express their views before the Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Bill?
    Mr. MONTAGU: No, Sir.
    Colonel YATE: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement the other day that he represents the Provincial Governments, may I ask how he can represent those Governments when his opinions are directly opposed to their views?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I will take the most scrupulous care that their views are put before the Committee. I understand that the Committee have already decided to hear the evidence of one of those who drew up the alternative scheme.
    Colonel YATE: May not the other five also be represented?
    Mr. MONTAGU: If five men draw up a scheme I should have thought it sufficient to have one to explain it.
    Colonel YATE: Has the right hon. Gentleman nominated only one man to represent his views? How many does he directly nominate?
    Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. and gallant Friend sticks to his point very hard. The oilier day I asked him to suggest to me the names of witnesses he thought ought to be called by the Select Committee. He did so, and I have communicated these names to the Committee, and I have every hope that they will be called.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Seeing that it is the Government of India that is in question, will it not be possible to call more Indians before the Committee. Why should people like Lajpat Rai be prohibited coining to this country to give evidence?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have not the slightest doubt that the Committee will call for and get what evidence is required.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that the Indian extremists and soi-disant moderates are represented by large deputations now in this country, and that there are many organisations of Mahomedans and the working classes of India which are prevented by want of money from sending their representatives, as they are most anxious to do, the Government of India will provide the necessary funds in order that these poor people may be properly represented and thus placed in a position of equality before the Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Bill with the Brahmin and higher caste deputations?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have repeatedly stated that I will do all in my power to get for the Joint Committee any evidence for which it asks. I do not regard the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion as practicable.
    Colonel YATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that rural committees in India have applied to the Government of India for help to come and give evidence? Are not their views to be represented?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I understand that the Government has not helped any deputation to come to this country, but has simply provided facilities for those who wish to come at their own expense. I do not see how it is possible to differentiate between one deputation and another.
    Colonel YATE: These people are poor agriculturists. Why should not the Government give them help to come to this country?
    Mr. MONTAGU: If my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to add that suggestion to the others he has made I will certainly communicate it to the Government.
    Lieut. - Colonel POWNALLasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will suggest to the Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Bill the advisability of taking evidence of some of those who have recently held Provincial Governorships or other high official positions?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, Sir, certainly. Part of the evidence already taken toy the Committee has been of the kind referrd to; and as I informd the hon. and gallant Member for Melton on Wednesday, I shall be happy to submit further names for the Committee's consideration.

    DISCHARGED BRITISH OFFICERS (EMPLOYMENT).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India if he can say, approximately, how many British officers of the Indian Army who have been invalided out of the Service owing to wounds or ill-health due to active service in the War have been provided with civil employment in the United Kingdom; and how many of those still seeking employment will he be able to recommend for service in a civil capacity in Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, or East Africa?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Arrangements have been made with the Ministry of Labour, as the central authority for questions of resettlement, to make the machinery of the Appointments Department available to officers of the Indian Army equally with those of the British Service. No separate figures for Indian Army officers are kept by the Appointments Department. Every effort is made to help these officers, but it is difficult to find suitable employment for an officer who has been rendered unfit for further service by wounds or ill-health. In regard to the second part of the question, I am already in communication with the authorities concerned as to the possibility of finding posts for any disabled officers of the Indian Army in the countries which have temporarily come under British administration or control.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    MENTAL CASES (MAINTENANCE).
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Ministry of Pensions, in a letter dated the 12th instant, reference Treatment/INS/N.G.R., 861, stated that Stoker James Robinson, First Class, No. K.24942, Royal Navy, was awarded a gratuity of £15, but as, up to the 30th April, 1918, there was no provision for the Ministry bearing the cost of a man's maintenance in a mental hospital, the gratuity was absorbed by the cost of maintenance prior to that date; and whether, in view of the decision of the Admiralty that it is not allowable for deductions to be made from war gratuity on account of hospital treatment, he will ask the Ministry of Pensions to refund to Stoker James Robinson the £15 war gratuity which they state they have received on this man's account?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): I have been asked to answer this question. This man was discharged on 2nd September, 1915, with neurasthenia, not attributable to service. 1.1 April, 1918, he was awarded a gratuity of £15. In May, 1918, the clerk to the Middlesbrough Asylum reported that Robinson had been admitted to the asylum on 27th November, 1915, and had remained there until 20th April, 1917, that he had again been admitted on 12th January, 1918, and was still an inmate. The asylum was then instructed to classify him as a Service patient, and from 10th April, 1918, his wife and two children have been receiving full allowances. The gratuity was withheld to meet any claim which the guardians might make to meet the cost (over £50) of his maintenance prior to classification. The guardians have been asked whether they will waive their claim in favour of Mrs. Robinson. If they agree to do so the amount will be issued to her less the sum of £2 10s. advanced by the war pensions committee. The decision of the Admiralty applies only to the war gratuities issued by that Department.
    Mr. THOMSON: Is it understood that these charges are to be deducted from gratuities granted by the Admiralty? Does the hon. Gentleman think it desirable to differentiate in this way the claims made on gratuities granted.
    Sir J. CRAIG: That is a rather wide question. If my hon. Friend will put down a specific case, 1 shall be very glad to consider it.

  RUSSIA.

    GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS FOR GERMANS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information showing that the manager of a German firm at Moscow has been placed in control of the Ministries of Trade and Industries, Transport, and War Supplies, and that as a result of this Germans are being given important appointments in these Departments; and if, in view of the stimulus which is thus given to German trade and the position of British trade owing to the diminishing outlet for home manufacture, he will state what, if any, practical action the Government intend to take in the matter?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD(Department of Oversea Trade): I have no official information on the subject, but my attention has been drawn to a letter from the Prime Minister of the Provisional Government of North Russia, which appeared in the Press on 10th July, stating that Mr. Krassin, a German citizen and the manager of a large German firm, had accepted the control of the Ministries of Trade and Industries, Transport, and War Supplies in Moscow, conditionally upon being allowed to introduce a number of other Germans into those Departments.
    As regards the second part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton gave on the 17th July to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull.
    Sir F. HALL: Does the hon. Baronet appreciate the importance of the point of these Germans being appointed in Russia, and, if the Department has not any official information, will it find out whether this is being done?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The importance of the question and the facts in the answer are fully appreciated by the Government.

    CONSCRIPTION.
    Captain BAGLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Soviet or Bolshevik Governments have enforced Conscription; if so, what treat-
    2086
    ment is accorded to conscientious objectors; and whether it is the declared policy of foreign Bolsheviks to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, even to the extent, if and when possible, of armed intervention?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: In reply to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, one of the fundamental laws of the Russian Soviet Government, as adopted by the 5th All Russian Convention of Soviets on 10th July, 1018, is that it establishes universal obligatory military service. I am unable to say how far this has been enforced, but the numerous peasant risings against Conscription which have been reported, and the treatment of officers whose wives and families are held as hostages to ensure their continuing in Bolshevik service, make it appear that no special regard is paid to conscientious objections. It is not understood to what class of' persons or Government allusion is made in the third part of the question.

    SOVIET GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS
    Mr. SWANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Mr. Philip Kerr handed to Mr. Bullit, an official of the American Peace delegation in Paris, a Memorandum in Mr. Kerr's own handwriting containing proposals for an agreement with Mr. Lenin, head of the Soviet Government of Russia; whether Mr. Kerr took this action with the Prime Minister's approval; and what action he proposes to take?
    Lieut.-Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the-Prime Minister whether an offer of peace was conveyed to the Bolshevist Government and accepted on the following terms: Recognition of the Governments now existing in Russia, the raising of the blockade, full and complete amnesty for political opponents, the recognition of Russia's financial obligations, and the reduction of the Soviet and anti-Soviet Armies; and whether the Government will once more open negotiations on these lines and endeavour to ascertain whether the Soviet Government is prepared to abstain from military aggression and political propaganda outside Russia and grant an amnesty to political opponents and impartial justice to all classes?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The statement on which the ques-

    2087
    tion is based is absolutely without any foundation in fact. As I stated in this House some months ago, the Prime Minister knew nothing about the supposed mission of Mr. Bullit until after this gentleman had returned. The suggestion, therefore, that any statement had been handed to him by Mr. Philip Kerr, who has been acting as one of the secretaries of the Prime Minister, was obviously absurd, but in order that there should be no possibility of any misunderstanding, we have communicated with Mr. Kerr, who replies that the statement is quite untrue.

    MILITARY OPERATIONS (COST).
    Mr. SWANasked the Prime Minister whether any agreement, arrangement, understanding, or promise exists between this country and the Peace Conference, the League of Nations, France, Italy, the United States, or any other Power, as to the cost of the military and naval and diplomatic operations undertaken against the Soviet Government of Ruusia; if any such exists can its terms or main features be stated; and whether the various Powers sending troops, munitions, food, supplies, shipping, or other aid to the anti-Soviet forces or districts of Russia are sending Such aid at their own charges, or on some arrangement for payment by this or any other country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first and third parts of the hon. Member's question is that certain agreements have been concluded between the Allied and Associated Governments in regard to the apportionment of expenditure connected with joint Allied operations in Russia. The agreements in question have been concluded by His Majesty's Government with their Allies, and could not be made public without their consent.

    BOLSHEVIST PROPAGANDA.
    Colonel BURNasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to a pamphlet that is being widely distributed by post advocating Bolshevism, and quoting the Russian correspondent of the "Daily News" as proving that Russia is flourishing under Bolshevist rule, that the universities have increased from six to sixteen, the number of students increased, and 1,100 versts of railway and 1,200 versts of roads are under construction; and if he will say what steps does he intend to take to counteract this propaganda?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The leaflet to which the hon. and gallant Member appears to refer consists of extracts from Arthur Ransome's book, "Six Weeks in Russia in 1919." The real facts about the effects of Bolshevism, both in Russia and Hungary, are described almost daily in the newspapers, and so many persons, quite as well informed at first hand as the author of the leaflet, are publishing their experiences, that no further steps seem to be called for. I gather that from Mr. Ransome's book the information it contains is founded on a short trip to Russia, undertaken under the auspices of the Soviet Government while there is abundance of evidence available to the public which is derived from more independent sources, and is based on wider experience.
    Colonel BURN: Docs the right hon. Gentleman think that the truth actually reaches those people? Is he aware that a great deal of money is being spent on the circulation of this travesty of the facts?
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Has any good come out of Russia at all?

    NORTH RUSSIA (WAR PRISONERS).
    Mr. A. DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for War whether it was the custom of British officers to induce or allow prisoners of war to take up arms and fight against their own countrymen; whether he was aware that such action on the part of General Ironside resulted in the death of six gallant: British officers; and whether he would issue an order forbidding the use of prisoners of war for the purpose above-named?
    Captain GUEST: The battalion in question was formed of prisoners of war who had been forcibly compelled to serve by the enemy, and who were glad of an opportunity to fight with us against their former masters. It is feared that some of these prisoners wore sent deliberately by the Bolsheviks for the express purpose of propaganda and assassination, and the mutiny was caused by these agents. We have evidence that similar efforts were made to introduce Bolshevik agitators in British units. The loss of the gallant British lives is deeply regretted, and by no one more so than by the distinguished general in whom His Majesty's Government have complete confidence.
    Mr. DAVIES: Is it in accordance with Army Regulations to issue an order for the purpose named in the question?
    Captain GUEST: It is impossible to answer the question in that form. The answer is that the General Officer on the spot is entitled to make what use he can of recruits, wherever they may be found. Many of these men who surrendered evinced a desire to fight for us against their previous masters.

  ITALY.

    PRO-GERMAN PROPAGANDA.
    Captain FOXCROFTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that our popularity in Italy is becoming gravely endangered by increasing pro-German propaganda; whether he is aware that this propaganda is being powerfully assisted by the recent action of the Allies upon the Fiume question, the decrease in our coal export to Italy due to our decrease of output, and the shortage of food; and whether, in consideration of these things, of our traditional friendship with Italy, and of her services and sufferings during the War, His Majesty's Government contemplate affording to Italy equal facilities in the matter of food as are being afforded either to Germany or Austria?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am convinced that the ties of traditional friendship between this country and Italy, to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, are too deeply rooted to be seriously affected either by hostile, propaganda or by causes and conditions arising out of four years of war. But he may rest assured that we shall do all in our power to render every assistance to our Italian Ally, and that she now enjoys far greater facilities in the matter of supplies than either Germany or Austria.

    FIUME.
    Captain FOXCROFTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will promote the compromise suggested by Italy, whereby the population of Fiume should have the protection of the Italian flag while the port should become a free port open alike to Italy and Yugo-Slav?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: This matter is in the hands of the Peace Conference at Paris, and I cannot anticipate their decision with regard to it.

  PASSPORTS TO CONTINENT (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to relax in any way the conditions on which passports are issued to British subjects proceeding to the Continent now that Peace terms have been signed; and, if so, will he state what the new conditions will be and from what date they will be brought into effect?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: No restrictions are now imposed on the issue of passports for British subjects to proceed to the Continent provided they do not contemplate entering the enemy countries.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is my hon. Friend aware of the time it takes to get a passport now before you can get all the formalities completed, and that on returning to this country people are penned like sheep for an hour before they can get their passports examined at Boulogne and that the greatest inconvenience is suffered?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: As far as the examination of returning passengers at Boulogne is concerned, I cannot give any answer to that. As far as the issue of passports is concerned, in this country everything possible is done to expedite the issue and minimise the inconvenience of applicants.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of English citizens returning to this country without having this delay, because that is the moat inconvenient thing? Would it not be possible to examine the passports of aliens coming to this country and to exempt English people from these intolerable delays?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am sure my; hon. and gallant Friend will not expect me to give an answer on. a question like that. As one who has travelled recently on the Continent, I can say that whatever inspection is now required it is justified.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will the hon. Baronet represent to the Secretary of State that

  2091
  getting a passport is still rather like undergoing an -operation? Will he endeavour to simplify that tiresome process?
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the hon. Baronet hurry up the viséing of passports? A great part of the day is wasted in getting a passport viséd.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: With regard to the complaint as to the issuing of passports, that is not a matter solely concerned with the British Government, but With the representatives of foreign Governments as well.
  Colonel YATE: How long did it take the hon. Baronet to get his own passport?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will my hon. Friend try making a trip to Paris without a diplomatic passport?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: As soon as my official duties will permit me I shall be delighted.

  PEACE DAY (PAYMENT OF WORKERS).
  Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTSasked the Minister of Labour whether payment for Peace Day was granted to workers in all controlled firms; and, if so, is he aware that certain firms have not yet paid in accordance with the award
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): No distinction was made between controlled and uncontrolled firms. The position was that in Government industrial establishments wages at plain time rates were to be paid to direct employés. As regards Government contractors, payment or non-payment should depend on the trade custom in the district concerned. As regards firms other than Government contractors, the matter was one entirely for the discretion of the firms concerned.

  COST OF LIVING.
  Captain BAGLEYasked the Minister of Labour if he can state, approximately and as far as he is able, how much would the gross average weekly income of the following individuals, spent upon each of the commodities and services mentioned, purchase now, expressed as a percentage of what could be purchased by
  2092
  their pre-war income at pre-war prices, assuming an average worker doing a full week's work and giving a specific trade or calling, commodity, or locality where unable to give an average; Individuals: Coal-miner, transport worker, docker, skilled artisan, unskilled labourer, agricultural labourer, policeman, Civil Service clerk, elementary school teacher, shop assistant, and individual drawing pension, superannuation, or compensation at prewar rates; Services and commodities: Travelling, rent. coal, food, boots, clothing, cotton goods, and woollen underwear?
  Mr. WARDLE: I regret that the information available is not sufficient to enable me to give the desired particulars.

  UNITED SERVICES FUND.
  Commander Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as stated, the administration of naval and military funds is to be placed under the control of a distinguished soldier; and, if so, will he indicate what naval funds are. referred to?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): An. official statement issued by the War Office in regard to the formation of the United Services Fund appeared in the Press on Saturday last. As explained is a reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull Central, on the 14th May--a copy of which I am sending the Noble Lord—no naval funds will be allocated for this or any other purpose without the scheme being approved by the Fleet.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    GERMAN WARSHIPS SUSK AT SCAPA FLOW
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can make any statement as to what progress has been made with the salvage of the ex-German Fleet at Scapa, and as to whether a Court of Inquiry has been held into the circumstances attending the sinking of the ships referred to; and if he is in a position to make any further statement with reference to any new facts which may have transpired as to the preparations made by the Germans for, it?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): The present situation with regard to salvage of the ex-German Fleet at Scapa is:
    1 battleship, "Baden,"
    3 light cruisers, "Emden," "Frankfurt, "Nurnberg," and
    15 destroyers are salved.
    Salvage operations on three more destroyers are proceeding, but no further steps are being taken, at present with regard to the remainder of ships and destroyers. I have nothing at present to add to the statement I have already made. It is not proposed to hold a Court of Inquiry.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are steps being taken to get hold of the very powerful German salvage plant at Hamburg and Bremen to assist in the salving of these ships?
    Mr. LONG: No, I do not think anything of that sort is necessary. I believe we have the best salvage plant in the world.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minster what has been decided as to the fate of any ex-German ships salved at Scapa Flow and also the ex-German "Goeben"?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that no decision has yet been taken by the Peace Conference in Paris.
    Mr. RENWICK: Before the Government come to any decision in regard to repairing these vessels will they take into account the fact that at the present time there is an enormous amount of repairs necessary for merchant ships, and that it is much more important to repair them than these warships?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am quite sure the Government thoroughly agrees with my hon. Friend, and they would never agree to take time and money for repairing these ships.

    NEW CONSTRUCTION (COMMITTEE).
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the terms of reference to Admiral Phillimore's Committee on new construction?
    Mr. LONG: The Committee will consider, in the light of the experience of the War, the uses and values of the different types of war vessels; and will advise as to the main naval requirements of each type.

    NAVAL RATINGS (COAL STRIKE).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what extra pay and allowances will be paid to the naval officers and ratings employed about the mines in connection with the mining strike; and upon whom will fall the total charge in connection with their employment at the mines?
    Mr. LONG: The matter is under consideration.

    NAVAL NUESING SISTERS.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if any increase of pay, gratuity, or war gratuity has been or is to be given to the naval nursing sisters for their work?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend's question refers to nursing sisters and reserve nursing sisters of Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service, and not to V.A.D. nursing members or British Red Cross Association nurses employed in naval hospitals. The rates of pay of Reserve nursing sisters wore revised in September, 1919. The rates of pay for nursing sisters (active service) is at present under consideration. We are at present in correspondence with the War Office on this point, and that Department hopes to be in a position to give its observations shortly. No war bonus is payable to nurses, as they arc in receipt of free victualling, and the larger part of their uniform is provided at public expense. It has been decided to extend the War Office scheme of war gratuities for nurses to the naval nursing staff, and it is hoped to publish full details in the Press at an early date.

  POLAND.

    TREATMENT OF JEWS.
    Mr. RAPERasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he has now come to any decision as regards the desirability of publishing a full statement, based on the reports already received from British and American investigators, regarding the alleged anti-Jewish pogroms in Poland, in order that the Polish nation may be acquitted of the charges levelled against them?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: His Majesty's Government realise that it is very desirable that a full and authoritative state-

    2095
    ment should be made in regard to the treatment of Jews in Poland. As I have before said, reports have been received from His Majesty's Minister in Warsaw, and a further dispatch is shortly expected. We propose to send one or two persons to Poland to make an independent and thorough inquiry into the so-called pogroms about which very conflicting reports have reached this country. These persons will, it is hoped, be in close touch with the special Commissioner to be sent to Poland for a similar purpose by the United States Government. I hope to be able to announce their names very shortly. I think the hon. Member will agree that the immediate publication of a statement by His Majesty's Government would, in the circumstances, be undesirable.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman see that one of the Commissioners is a Jew?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not responsible for the selection of the Commissioners, but I will refer the question of my hon. and gallant Friend to the Department.

  BRITISH CONSUL, GENEVA.
  Mr. STURROCKasked the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House of the name and qualifications of the British Consul at Geneva; the length of this gentleman's service under the Foreign Office; and whether he will state this gentleman's qualifications for the post?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: The British Consulate at Geneva has hitherto been an unsalaried post which was held by Monsieur de Candolle, a Swiss citizen, for the last seven years. Monsieur de Candolle has now resigned, and Geneva is to be made a paid Consulate-General. Pending the creation of this post, Geneva is in charge of an acting officer, who, until recently, was acting-consul at St. Moritz.

  ASSAULT AND ROBBERY, LIVERPOOL.
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to an assault and robbery which took place in Liverpool on 10th June, and of which
  2096
  the victims were Messrs. C. R. Cathline, junior, T. Jones-Nelson, and J. W. Nelson, all of whom had arrived the previous day by the is. "Mandingo" from Accra; and whether His Majesty's Government will take any steps to secure redress and compensation for this outrage, which was committed in broad daylight, in the middle of Liverpool, on three British subjects of the Gold Coast?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): The matter has only just been brought to the Secretary of State's notice, and he proposes to communicate at once with the Corporation of Liverpool on the subject. I need hardly add that he profoundly deplores the outrage committed upon these gentlemen.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Watch Committee of Liverpool have repudiated all responsibility, and any power to make reparation, and in these circumstances will His Majesty's Government think it proper to intervene in the case?
  Lieut. Colonel AMERY: Yes, we have heard of the attitude taken. In the first instance we are communicating with the Liverpool Corporation to get a statement of the facts.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    DERBY SCHEME MEN.
    Sir WILLIAM SEAGERasked the Secretary for War if he is aware- that great dissatisfaction exists among the men who enlisted under the Derby scheme as, although they attested prior to 1st January, 1916, they were not called up until after that date, and in consequence their demobilisation is delayed; and will he consider granting to them the advantage of the same regulations as to demobilisation as have been granted to the men who joined up prior to 1st January, 1916, and treat them as having joined on the date on which they offered their services?
    Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): Eligibility for demobilisation in such cases is determined by the length of actual service with the Colours, calculated from the Sate of joining up for immediate service. I regret that I cannot, in fairness to men with longer service, adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Sir W. SEAGER: Will the hon. Gentleman sympathetically consider these men? They volunteered for service and were told to go back to their usual occupation until they wore wanted, and now they are penalised for doing that.
    Captain GUEST: It is quite true; but a. date had to be set up, and the only date for that purpose was the actual date of joining the Colours.
    Mr. SPENCER: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of burning all the Regulations they have got, and issuing fresh ones which they have some hope of keeping?
    Captain GUEST: I am afraid the bonfire would be a very big one.

    COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE.
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he would explain the meaning of the words "and young recruits who did not join in time to share in the fighting," which appeared at the end of paragraph 3 of his Memorandum on Demobilisation, 16th July; and whether this was an intimation that such young recruits who do not volunteer would be retained in the Army beyond the 30th of April, 1920, contrary to the law as contained in the Act of Parliament prolonging compulsory military service to that date?
    Captain GUEST: The phrase to which my hon. Friend alludes was intended to refer to those recruits who, either because they were insufficiently trained, or on ac count of their youth, did not embark for any theatre of war or garrison abroad before the Armistice was signed, and who may, if required, be retained by law till the 30th April, 1920. There is no present intention of retaining these soldiers beyond the period authorised by the Naval, Military, and Air Force (Service) Act.

  ARMY CHAPLAIN'S DEPARTMENT.
  Major COLFOXasked whether any scheme is under consideration for the reconstruction of the Royal Army Chaplain's Department; and whether, in view of the recommendations contained in Sir Douglas Haig's dispatch, it is proposed to bring the Department under the control of the Adjutant-General?
  Captain GUEST: A scheme for the reorganisation of the Royal Army Chaplains Department is now under consideration.
  Major COLFOXasked what are the conditions of service; and pension under which the appointment of Chaplain- General of the Forces is held; and how long has the present Chaplain-General held the appointment?
  Captain GUEST: The Chaplain-General is appointed by the Secretary of State for War. He may retire voluntarily on retired pay on or after attaining the age of sixty, or, if promoted from the rank of chaplain, and having at least twenty years' service, he may retire before the age of sixty. The age for compulsory retirement is sixty-five. The scale of retired pay is governed by length of service. The present Chaplain-General has held the appointment since 1901. He attains the age of sixty in 1920, and not having previously served as a chaplain, he is not entitled to any retired pay if retired before that date. In 1920 he would be eligible for retired pay at £400 a year. In 1021 he would complete twenty years' service, when he would be eligible for retired pay at £600 a year, which is the maximum rate.
  Major COLFOXasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many Church of England chaplains took part in the military procession in London on Saturday, 19th July; of these how many were Regular officers of the Royal Army Chaplains' Department; and whether the Deputy Chaplain-General, British Expeditionary Force, took part or was consulted in the choice of representatives of the Department?
  Captain GUEST: Eight Church of England chaplains took part in the procession on the 19th July, 'and of these seven were Regular officers of the Royal Army Chaplains' Department. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  THANKS OF PARLIAMENT TO FORCES.
  Major O'NEILLasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to move that the thanks of Parliament be accorded to the Forces of the Crown for their services in the War?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is intended that this Motion should be proposed before the Recess, and I hope to be able early next week to give the date on which it will be taken.

  COAL SUPPLIES.

    NATIONALISATION OF MINES.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether he has now fixed a date for the statement in this House of the Government's policy in regard to the nationalisation of the mining industry?
    Lieut. Colonel CAMPIONasked whether an opportunity will be given to debate the question of the nationalisation of the mining industry on a date previous to the declaration of policy by the Government?
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, in the speeches made by himself and the Lord Privy Seal in November and December of last year, and in which the electorate were asked to support a Coalition Government, no mention was made of the nationalisation of any of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; and, if the Government have determined to deal with the subject, will he announce its policy before the Recess, so that it may be debated in the country before an Autumn Session?
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the suggestion for the establishment of a Ministry of Mines in the Report of Sir A. Duckham; and, if so, whether he is yet in a position to state the views of the Government with regard thereto?
    Major BARNESasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of the complete agreement in all the Reports of the Coal Commission that great changes must be made in the administration of the coal industry and the substantial agreement between all the Reports on the nature of the changes, he will say whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce the necessary legislation required to enable those changes to be carried out under the direction of a Ministry of Mines or a Mines Department, while leaving the question of nationalisation to be decided after the effect of these changes has been seen;
    (2) Whether, in view of the complete agreement in all the Reports of the Coal Commission that the coal royalties should be nationalised, he will say whether it is the intention of the Government to nationalise the coal royalties?
    Major TRYONasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the Motion, on the subject of the nationalisation of the mining industry, standing in the name of the senior Member for Brighton; and will he give an early day for the discussion of this matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to what I said in reply to questions on this subject in the House yesterday.
    Major TRYON: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that approval by the House of Commons is necessary to give full authority to the Government plan, whatever it may be, for dealing with this urgent national question, and that the House may not be sitting?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We fully realise that, and there can be no question of any action of any kind being taken by the Government without the approval of the House of Commons.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Are we likely to have a statement before the Recess?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have said so many times, but I am sure that hon. Members realise that there is no question more important and more vital to the interests of the nation, and it is not unreasonable that it should be examined from every point of view before a statement is made.
    Major NEWMAN: Has the Government a mandate from the country to nationalise any thing?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: So far as I know, I do not think there ever was an election where it was made plainer that the problems before us could not be defined in advance, and that we must rely upon the House of Commons to support us in any steps necessary for dealing with them.
    Sir F. LOWE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any claim was made by any candidate in favour of the question of nationalising a single mine?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would not like to say that no candidate made that claim, but certainly I did not.

    EXPORT TRADE.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that prior to the War coal was one of our principal exports; that this export is now greatly reduced owing to the fact that America

    2101
    can get and sell coal at less than half the price of British coal; whether he is aware that with the advent of millions of tons of American shipping our export of coal is likely to cease; whether he is aware that coal is the basis of ail our manufactures; that dear coal in competition with American cheap coal handicaps the export of our manufactures and results in great loss to the nation; and can he state what measures the Government propose to take to enable this country to compete with others in export trade?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Geddes): The Government are fully aware of the serious effect on our export position not only of the reduced export of coal but also of its incidence on cost of production, but I am obviously not in a position to state whether an improvement in these respects may be looked for in the not distant future.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this country, more than any other, depends for its existence upon our export trade, and will he take measures so that everyone in the country may be made aware of the fact?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Yes. We are doing our best to inform the country in that respect.

    YORKSHIRE MINERS' STRIKE.
    Lieut-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Yorkshire mine-owners and miners had agreed to an advance on piece rates of 14.3 per cent.; whether the Coal Controller declined to approve this agreement and fixed the rate of interest at 10 per cent.; whether he can state on what date strike notices were handed in; and who was responsible for the action of the Coal Controller?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I have no official information that the Yorkshire mine-owners and minors agreed to an advance in piecework rates of 14.3 per cent. I would, however, point out to the hon. and gallant Member that, even accepting, for the sake of argument, the figures put forward by the Miners' Federation, the advance in piece-work rates for Yorkshire could not work out at a higher figure than 12.2 per cent. I must not, however, be understood as in any way accepting or disagreeing with those figures. In reply to the second part of the question, no request
    2102
    was made to the Coal Controller by any party to approve any rate of increase. The Coal Controller was informed by the Mining Association of Great Britain, in a letter dated 20th June, that meetings had been held in most of the districts, but that no arrangement had been come to, and he was requested to inform the association whether piece-work rates were to be increased, and, if so, whether it was his intention to authorise the owners in each district to arrange the advances, subject to his confirmation. The Coal Controller gave instructions to the Mining Association of Great Britain, on the 26th June, that piece-work rates were to be increased by 10 per cent. when the reduction in hours was one hour, and proportionately for any lesser reduction in time worked, the increase in any district not to exceed 10 per cent. This instruction was modified on the 9th July to the extent that the 10 per cent, was to be an average over the whole country instead of a maximum. The strike notices in Yorkshire were handed in on or about the night of the 10th July. The Government accepts full responsibility for the action of the Coal Controller, and authorised all instructions sent out by him before issue.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the instructions about this 10 per cent. were given only to the Mine-owners' Association and nut to the Miners' Federation, and, if that is the case, why notice was not given at the same time to the Miners' Federation and to the Yorkshire Miners' Union.
    Sir A. GEDDES: There was no instruction issued at, all in the ordinarily-accepted sense of the word "instruction" that is to say, there was no instruction circulated. A letter was received and a reply was given to that letter.
    Mr. CLYNES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, if it be the fact that the Coal Controller never prevented an arrangement between the employers and the miners, there should have, been some official statement to prevent the public misapprehension which has arisen?
    Sir A. GEDDES: There have been many official statements, but it is, unfortunately, the fact that some people do not pay much attention to official statements.
    Mr. GRUNDY: Can the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries to ascertain whether his statement is correct that the

    2103
    owners and the men had not agreed. I wish to say that the owners both of South and West Yorkshire and the representatives of the miners had agreed to an increase of 14.3 per cent, and it was only after they had agreed that they received an instruction from the Coal Controller. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] That is the position.
    Sir A. GEDDES: No; really the hon. Member is entirely misinformed. The owners were negotiating not on their own behalf but on behalf of the Government whose money, or rather the taxpayers' money, was at stake. They found out what the men's claim was, and then, exactly as I have said in this reply, they applied to the Government asking what they were to do. There was no agreement.
    Mr. GRUNDY: I hare it definitely. Are you aware I have a definite statement from Mr. Herbert Smith, the President of the Yorkshire Miners' Association, that the arrangement was made as I have said, and that the complaint is that the Coal Controller interfered too late, and that he ought to have interfered earlier before the negotiations.
    Sir A. GEDDES: No.
    Mr. GRUNDY: I have the definite statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am only doing this to try and bring peace. I am sorry the position at present is that the coal-owners blame the Government for the delay, and the men are blaming the Government, and those two people are at a deadlock and waiting for the Government or the Coal Controller to make a move in the matter. I have it definitely that the owners had agreed.
    Sir A. GEDDES: It is no new thing to hear that the Government is being blamed. That is the usual procedure in all these cases, but the facts are as I stated that the Coal Controller was informed by the Mining Association of Great Britain in a letter dated 26th June that meetings had been held in most of the districts but that no arrangement had been come to, and he was requested to inform the Association whether the piece rates were to be increased. Those facts are beyond dispute in writing, and documentary evidence exists to show that the letter was received and an answer sent. I quite understand why the hon. Member (Mr. Grundy) is asking these questions, and I
    2104
    appreciate that fully. With regard to the further point that there is what he calls a deadlock and delay, I do not think that is the case. There is now, or there was an hour ago, proceeding at Leeds a meeting, and I have no doubt it is still going on, at which this very difficult point is being discussed, and that meeting, I understand, is attended by three parties, the representatives of the men, the representatives of the Yorkshire employers, and the representatives of the Government, and we hope that that meeting will find some way out.
    Mr. GRUNDY: I have a document here—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will show that document to the President of the Board of Trade.

  POET LAUREATE.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether the Poet Laureate has up to the present written any Peace ode or other poem commemorative of Britain's part in the War; and, if so, whether he will supply a copy for the use of Members?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As far as I am aware, the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not, therefore, arise.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a portion of the remuneration of the Poet Laureate consists of a certain cash payment in lieu of a supply of Canary wine, and has the Government considered the advisability of paying that part of his salary in kind on the off-chance of his getting inspiration?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Before making that suggestion I should have to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see which would cost the country moat.

  ANGLO-FRENCH TREATY (DEFENCE OF FRANCE).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of Britain and America being called upon under the Treaty with France to take up arms in her defence, they would automatically cease to be members of the League of Nations, having regard to the increased armaments which would be necessary for them to raise?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: This question is hypothetical, and I therefore cannot answer it.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Under this Treaty which has been approved it is conceivable that Britain and America may have to take up arms in defence of France, and that means raising armaments, and is not that contrary to the League of Nations Covenant?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I think not; but my hon. Friend is quite as competent to advise as to what the Peace Treaty means as I am.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that that is so?

  CYPRUS.
  Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been come to with regard to the disposition of the island of Cyprus?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No decison has been taken in this matter.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report in the papers that it has been decided to cede Cyprus, and will he take steps to contradict that statement?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that it has already been contradicted. It is right to say nothing so important as that would be done by the Government in such a way as to commit us in any way without the knowledge of the House of Commons?
  Sir F. HALL: And without the consent of the House of Commons?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.
  An HON. MEMBER: Will the Government consider the question of the cession of Ireland to America?

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the national expenditure is about double the national revenue; and whether, in view of the disastrous consequences which must follow, he will lake immediate steps to reduce drastically expenditure in every Government Department?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; every effort will be made to reduce national expenditure.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that our mi-ports are more than double our exports, that we have now become a debtor nation, and that America and Japan, by reason of cheaper production, are cutting us out in markets in which we were once supreme; and will he state what steps are being taken by the Government to arrest this disastrous state of affairs and to revert to our pre-war prosperity?
  Sir A. GEDDES: I have been asked to reply. I am very fully aware of the relative values of our imports and exports also of the keen competition which our traders have to face in foreign markets. The first step to meet the difficulties of the situation, namely, to increase production, must be taken by the people of the country themselves and not by the Government.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take effective measures to-bring home to everyone in this country the grave warning given by His Majesty at the Guildhall yesterday, as to the vital necessity for the utmost economy and strenuous work on the part of everyone?
  Sir A. GEDDES: The announcement made by His Majesty has received full publicity, and we have every hope that it will carry conviction to some who have not reached that stage before.

  TRADING WITH GERMANY AND AUSTRIA.
  Mr. CAIRNSasked if it is the intention of the Government to restore all pre-war principles of trading between this country, Germany, and Austria?
  Sir A. GEDDES: I would refer the hon. Member to the memorandum on conditions under which trading is permissible since the raising of the blockade (Cmd. 274), a copy of which has I understand been circulated to every Member. It is not possible to make a. further statement in anticipation of the announcement by the Government of a permanent trade policy.

  PROHIBITION (WINE AND SPIRITS).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a body of Americans has entered the United Kingdom for the purpose of promoting the policy of prohibition, under which no per son can remove any wine or spirits from his own house to another house, whether or not his own, or carry beer or wine in his car or carriage without becoming liable to fine, impisonment, and confiscation; and whether he will take steps to make it clear that this policy has no sup port from His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. SHORTT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have no knowledge of the activities suggested in the question except what I have gained from reading the Press. I do not think any pronouncement by the Government is necessary.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    WHEAT SUTBSIDY.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the Report just issued of the Select Committee on National Expenditure dealing with the Wheat Commission; and what steps he proposed to take with regard to the proposal it contained in paragraph 35 (b), which, by a restriction of the bread subsidy to flour actually used for bread, was estimated to save £14,500,000 yearly?
    The, MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): I have been asked to reply. The Report just issued by the Select Committee on National Expenditure will receive immediate consideration, and the proposals contained in paragraph 35 (b) will be carefully examined.

    MILK (FRANCE AND BELGIUM).
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister whether the populations of Belgium and Northern France are suffering in their health from want of milk; and, if so, what steps, if any, the Government intend to take to go to their assistance?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have been asked to reply. I have no reason to believe that the populations of Belgium and Northern France are suffering in their health from want of milk. As the Leader of the House stated on Monday, supplies of fresh milk
    2108
    are, unfortunately, scarce in these districts, but good supplies of condensed milk have been provided.
    Lord R. CECIL: Is the light hon. Gentleman aware that the babies in Germany and parts of South-Central Europe are suffering very seriously?
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not possible that the question of supplying milk to the women and children in Central Europe could be made the subject, of some international arrangement's
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am not competent to answer questions in respect of Germany. I have answered the question on the Paper. The further question put by the Noble Lord is still the subject of international investigation.

    PEACE TREATY (DELIVERY OF COWS).
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister whether the obligation for Germany to deliver] 40,000 milch cows within three months of the coming into force of the Treaty is an absolute one, or whether their delivery is within the discretion of the Reparation Commission?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am advised that the obligation is absolute, but that the time of performance will be within the discretion of the Reparation Commission.
    Lord R. CECIL: Is this one of the cases in which the Reparation Commission can postpone their action by a majority or must it be a unanimous decision?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot answer that specific question without notice.
    Lord R. CECIL: But as the matter stands am I not right in saying that the delivery of these cows has to be. made within three months 1
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not myself attempted to follow the exact meaning of all these points. The answer which I have given is the answer which has been sent to me from Paris, from the Economic Council dealing with it.
    Lord R. CECIL: Not the Economic Council.

  BELGIAN CONTRACTS (GERMAN COMPETITION).
  Mr. STURROCKasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that British

  2109
  engineering firms tendering for contracts in Belgium find themselves unable to compete with German firms tendering for the same work; whether this is due to the German exchange being at present so low and the British exchange so high; whether the Government or the Board of Trade has had the matter under consideration; and, if so, whether a statement can be made on the whole matter?
  Sir A. GEDDES: Cases of the nature indicated have been brought to the notice of the Board of Trade. In the ordinary-course movements of the foreign exchanges tend to reflect changes in relative levels of prices as between different countries, but the position is at present abnormal. There is ground for thinking that the level of prices in Germany has not risen so much as would be suggested by the depreciation in the value of the mark in neutral countries, and that to this extent and while this condition lasts exports from Germany are stimulated. With regard to exports from the United Kingdom, these would certainly tend to be encouraged by a fall in the value of sterling in terms of foreign currency. It is perhaps hardly necessary for me to add that the position of the foreign exchanges is engaging the close attention of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Is Belgium at liberty to purchase any material which she requires from Germany?
  Sir A. GEDDES: Yes. She is at liberty to make arrangements of that sort.
  Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is Germany under obligation to make restitution of the special machinery which she stole from Belgium, and which is so essential to Belgium to enable her to restore her industries?
  Sir A. GEDDES: That is provided for in the Peace Treaty that has been circulated.

  SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
  Captain LOSEBYasked the Prime Minister if in the near future, in order to meet the case of the great public schools, he intends to make any variation of the rule which compels secondary schools to accept a certain proportion of non-fee-paying pupils from primary schools?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. If the hon. and gallant Member means to ask whether I intend to alter Article 20 of the Secondary School Regulations in order that the great public schools may be enabled to receive Grants under the Regulations without admitting free pupils from elementary schools, the answer is in the negative.
  Captain LOSEBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that there will be no further alteration in regard to the principle upon which Grants are made to secondary schools without taking the feeling of this House?
  Mr. FISHER: Certainly.
  Captain LOSEBYasked the Prime Minister whether he was aware that Grants to secondary schools were being made on variable conditions, and that in the same towns and districts one school was compelled as a, condition of Grant to accept 25 per cent. of its pupils free from primary schools, whereas a more favoured school was made to receive only 10 per cent.; and whether he would take steps to ensure that one definite rule was made generally applicable"?
  Mr. FISHER: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The condition in question has remained unaltered since 1907, when it was first introduced into the Regulations for secondary schools. I do not think it would be in the public interest to alter it in the direction which the hon. and gallant Member suggests.
  Captain LOSEBYasked the Prime Minister whether, under Secondary Schools Grants Regulations, 1919, the representative majority control of State- aided secondary schools had been completely abolished, or if the new rule requiring one-third only of the councils of State-aided schools was confined to those schools not at the date of publication of the Regulations in receipt of State aid; and whether, in the latter event, he would avoid discontent and dissatisfaction by making the new Regulation generally applicable?
  Mr. FISHER: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. As is stated in paragraph 7 of the Explanatory

  2111
  Note prefixed to the Draft Regulations for Secondary Schools, which were published on 26th May [Cmd. 180]:
  "It is not contemplated that the Board should undertake the revision of the Trust Deeds or Instruments of Government of schools which have already complied, in respect of the constitution of the Governing Body, with the existing conditions of grants, unless such revision is clearly advantageous to the organisation of, higher education in the area."

  CURRENCY (DEFLATION).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet had laid down the principles upon which the deflation of the currency would be dealt with; and, if so, what these principles were?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The principles which His Majesty's Government propose to adopt are those outlined in the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member on Monday by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
  Lord R. CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a small expert Committee to look into this question?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes. I have seen the suggestion made by the Noble Lord. I think the work is being done by a Currency Committee.

  TOWER OF LONDON (CHARGES).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he would state on what conditions the Tower of London is open for view to the public; if special facilities are or can be given by which parties of school children can view the historical buildings on any day free of charge; and if he would give instructions that no charge shall be made to parties of school children under proper control, as is now done?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER Of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The public are admitted to the Tower daily, except on Sundays, Good Friday, and Christmas Day. The fees for admission are 6d. for the Bloody Tower, 6d. for the Jewel House, and 9d. for the combined tour of the vaults and armouries in the White Tower, children being admitted at half-
  2112
  price. Free admission to the Jewel House and White Tower is granted on Saturdays and Bank Holidays. I am at present considering, in communication with the Board of Education, some extension of the facilities for free admission in the case of conducted parties of elementary school children where the visit is for educational purposes.

  OVERSEA SOLDIER (PASSAGE MONEY).
  Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he would see that Sergeant R. E. Carter, M.M., No. 280625, Royal Garrison Artillery, was refunded his passage money, which he paid to come over from Canada in 1914 in order to join His Majesty's forces; whether he was aware that application had been repeatedly made both by Sergeant Carter and the hon. Member for Eastbourne to have this claim dealt with; and, in view of the fact that Sergeant Carter was due to sail for Canada on Saturday next, would he see that the money, 70 dollars, was paid to him before that date and the documents which he sent up to prove his claim, and which have not been returned, were sent back to him?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Payment of the amount due on this claim (£12 7s. 1d.) has been made to Sergeant Carter, but the document which he forwarded in support of the claim is necessarily retained as a voucher.

  CENOTAPH, WHITEHALL.
  Mr. HAILWOODasked the First Commissioner of Works why the cenotaph erected to our glorious dead in Whitehall should have on it no prayer nor mention of God nor Cross or other symbol of Christianity, seeing that ours is a Christian country and not a heathen nation?
  Sir A. MOND: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday by the Leader of the House to a similar question by the Noble Lord the Member for the Aldershot Division of Hampshire.
  Mr. HAILWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are hundreds of war shrines erected in the streets

  2113
  of our cities and towns by the people themselves, and that in all cases they have some religious emblem?
  Sir A. MOND: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday.

  DANCING, ROYAL PARKS.
  Major BARNETTasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the success of the public entertainments given in the Royal Parks on Peace Day, he would consider the possibility of arranging, either in co-operation with the League of Arts or otherwise, for dancing in the parks on Saturday afternoons in August and September?
  Sir A. MOND: I am in communication with the League of Arts on the question raised by the hon. Member, and will give the matter careful consideration.

  CIPPENHAM MOTOR DEPOT.
  Mr. INSKIPasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was aware that a large number of railway wagons are being used to convey broken-down motor vehicles to the Cippenham. depot; and whether, in view of the number of vehicles already collected and stored in the open awaiting facilities for repair, he would take steps to prevent railway plant and labour being used for this purpose as long as the congestion of the ports and the delays at collieries for want of wagons continue?
  The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to answer this question, and would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him yesterday.
  Mr. INSKIP: May I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he approves of the use of trucks for carrying broken-down motor vehicles, which was the question on the Paper?
  Sir A. GEDDES: The whole of these uses of the railways are interrelated. It is no use having a great block of broken-down vehicles at the ports. The best adjustment is made to get the best results.
  Mr. INSKIP: Am I to understand that in order to remove the great block of motor vehicles at the ports, trucks are
  2114
  used to carry them to Cippenham, as I was told yesterday that they were not used?
  Sir A. GEDDES: I require notice of that.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (OFFICERS).
  Dr. M'DONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would endeavour to have extended to demobilised officers of the Mercantile Marine the same facilities and financial aid for higher education which had already been granted to demobilised officers of the Navy and Army?
  Mr. WARDLE: I have been asked to reply to this question. I regret I have nothing to add to the answer which was given to the hon. Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities on the 14th April last.

  RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

    NOTTINGHAM STATION (MIDLAND RAILWAY).
    Mr. ATKEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the information supplied to him by the Midland Railway Company in respect of the opening of one of the closed entrances to their Nottingham station is incorrect, and that the opening of the entrance opposite Trent Street would not involve any additional booking office accommodation or the appointment of any additional booking clerks, none of which have ever been provided at this entrance prior to its closure; whether he has caused an inspector to be sent down to make inquiries on the spot; and, if so, whether he will be instructed to make inquiries from the town clerk on behalf of the corporation and the secretary to the chamber of commerce as to the views and convenience of the travelling public?
    Sir A. GEDDES: It appears to me that if the policy of the company, namely, to convert Nottingham Station from an open to a closed one, is continued, the opening of an additional entrance will necessarily involve additional booking-office accommodation. I am asking an inspecting officer of railways to take an opportunity of visiting the station, but if the corporation or chamber of commerce desire to offer any observations it would, I think,

    2115
    be convenient if they would do so is writing before the inspecting officer visits the place.
    Mr. ATKEY: May I ask why it should be necessary for that to be provided now, when prior to the closing for fifteen or twenty years the accommodation existing was available without either booking office or attendants?
    Sir A.. GEDDES: My hon. Friend does not appear to have listened to the reply to the question, that
    "if the policy of the company to convert Nottingham Station from an open to a closed one is continued, the opening of an additional entrance will necessarily involve additional booking-office accommodation."
    Mr. ATKEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Great Central station at Nottingham is a closed station under precisely similar conditions, and why should not the Midland Company provide the accommodation which is demanded by the travelling public at Nottingham?
    Sir A. GEDDES: My hon. Friend will remember that, at his suggestion, we decided to send an inspecting officer of railways to look at the station, and that without the plans before me I could not say whether the description is accurate.

  POLICE BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 152.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 152.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

  BOLAND'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].
  Message to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House Copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with the Documents deposited, in the case of Boland's Divorce Bill [Lords].— [The Lord Advocate.]

  COMPENSATION FOR SUBSIDENCE BILL.
  Leave given to the Standing Committee E to make a Special Report in respect of the Compensation for Subsidence Bill.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 153.]

  INTESTATE MOVEABLE SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND)BILL [Lords]
  Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 158.]
  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

    STANDING COMMITTEE A.
    SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Lord Hugh Cecil, Captain Foxcroft, Mr. Inskip, Mr. Ronald McNeill, Sir William Pearce, Mr. Reid, Mr. Sitch, and Captain Watson.
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Coal Mines Bill): Mr. Secretary Shortt.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to—
    Stocksbridge Gas Bill,
    Waterford Harbour Bill, with Amendments.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WEST INDIAN COURT OF APPEAL BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): I beg to move,
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This Bill provides for the constitution of a West Indian Court of Appeal for the Colonies of Trinidad and Tobago, British Guiana, Barbados, the Leeward Islands, Grenada, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent. The more distant islands of Jamaica, British Honduras and the Bahamas are so many hundreds of miles away that they have not, up to the present at any rate, evinced a desire for co-operation in this particular purpose. Power is, however, taken in this Bill to bring other Colonies within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal by Order in Council if the Legislature of the Colony so provides, and similarly there is a provision that if the Legislature of any Colony included wish to be no longer under the Court of Appeal it can make provision to that effect. The existing Windward Islands Appeal Court, set up by an Act of 1889, is superseded and replaced by this new Court of Appeal. The proposed Court is normally to be presided over by the Chief Justice of Trinidad with the Chief Justices of the Islands and Colonies to which the Act applies. If any of them are unable to attend their places are to be taken by duly qualified substitutes, and there is power also under the Bill by which His Majesty may appoint an additional judge of the Court of Appeal.
  The Court itself will be an itinerant one, and will visit the various Colonies in succession to take their appeals. There is no interference contemplated with the right of appeal to the Privy Council, except in so far as local Legislatures may provide that appeals from their Courts should in the first instance go to the West Indian Court of Appeal. This proposal to set up a single Court of Appeal for the West Indies, or for a great part of the West Indies, has been discussed for a great many years, and, as the outcome of these discussions, an Intercolonial Conference met at Trinidad in 1916, and formulated proposals which are the basis of the
  2142
  present Bill. It is thus an agreed measure as far as those who are affected by it are concerned, and the only reason why it has come before this House is that the proposed legislation affects a number of Colonies simultaneously and in combination, and that for that reason an Imperial Statute is required. The House of Commons is, in fact, being asked to do what it has so often done before when different Legislatures in the Empire have wished to combine for some common purpose. It is the residual power of legislating for the whole Empire in order to enable them to achieve their objects in the most convenient and most expeditious fashion. I have no doubt that this Court of Appeal which the West Indian Colonies ask this House to set up will be a useful institution from the legal point of view, and I think we in this House should also welcome it as an indication of the growing tendency of the British West Indies towards closer co-operation in every way. Their danger has always lain in isolation, not only from the Mother Country, but from each other, and the inevitable tendency of that isolation towards parochialism. I believe the prospects before the West Indies in the future are brighter than they have ever been in the past, and the more effectually the various Colonies work together and tend to regard themselves as a single unit for their common purposes, the more assured their future success will be.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
  Mr. G. MURRAY: Is it not possible to say anything on the Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member did not rise in time. The House has passed the Second Reading.

  WAR LOAN BILL.
  Order for Third Heading read.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move,
  "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  I will take this opportunity of making a statement to the House about the figures rather more complete than that I have given before. The revised figures now available indicate that the total of the Loan

  2143
  exceeds the figures of £708,000,000 given by me on the 17th instant, just after the closing of the lists, by about £59,800,000. The revised figures are as follows: Stock and Bonds, applied for in cash, of the Funding Loan, £287,956,000; Victory Bonds, £286,748,000; total, £574,704,000, as compared with the £539,000,000 previously announced. This figure includes £18,744,250 for which Treasury Bills were tendered. It will interest the House to see that those applications are almost exactly divided equally between the Funding Loan and the Victory Bonds. Stock and Bonds created in respect of conversion are: Funding Loan, £120,617,000; Victory Bonds, £72,203,000; total, £192,820,000, as com. pared with £169,000,000 previously announced. The total Loans created in cash applications and conversions are £767.524,000, as compared with £708,000,000 previously announced by me. In considering the financial effort which these figures imply, it must be remembered that since the beginning of the calendar year 1919 there has also been raised in cash by National War Bonds of the Fourth Series £290,205,832 and by War Savings Certificates £47,000,000, making together with the Victory Loan a cash total during the calendar year, apart from Treasury Bills and short - term advances, of over £800,000,000.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it will be open to us to discuss the question of Government expenditure or whether we are limited to the rather narrow title of the Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: On the Third Reading the general rule is that the discussion must be limited to the contents of the Bill. This Bill, as 1 understand it, authorises the proceedings which took place in respect of the recent Loan, which was started before the Bill was introduced, but was authorised up to that time only by a Resolution of the House. This is the Bill which authorises the transactions which then took place.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I was about to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, which, I hope, will be in order, as to the inflation of the currency. I think that is not outside the scope of the Bill. He gave us some very interesting particulars at an earlier stage, not of this Bill, but of a Bill relevant to the scope of this Bill, informing us what was the paper issue at the date of the Armistice, at the beginning of the year, and then at
  2144
  about 1st April. If he could tell us-whether that has been increased, and, if so, to what extent, I think it would be a matter of public interest.
  Mr. CLYNES: I think there is one question which I would like to put to my right hon. Friend on the statement which he has made, as to whether he can give the House any information as to how the investments on the part of the small investor in connection with the recent Loan compare with previous Loans, and whether he has to hand any information which shows how far industrial and trade unions and labour organisations may have invested their funds in the recent Loan as compared 'with previous Loans?
  Mr. LAMBERT: Does the Treasury-consider that the response to this Loan was satisfactory, because there was a rumour that banks had to help considerably in raising money for the latter part of the Loan? I would also like to ask whether he could give us any assurance that the Government will not raise another Loan?
  4.0.P.M.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I cannot answer questions about the amount of the currency issue without notice. As regards the second question, I think I must say, speaking very broadly and generally, that the response of the small investor to the recent Loans was less, proportionately, than his response to some of the earlier Loans-I could not say about trade union money, or any other particular form of working - class money, certainly not without notice, and I am not sure whether 1 could get the information, whether the application on the face of it shows for whom it was made. I could, however, make inquiries if my right hon. Friend desires it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) asks me whether the response to the Loan is satisfactory. It is a larger sum than I was advised that I could get. If I am asked whether it fulfils all my hopes, well, sometimes I am unduly sanguine. When you take into account, as I did in the statement that I made just now, the fact that this is not the only Loan this year but that the calendar year from January includes the last months of the previous War Loan campaign and the tremendous whip-up that was then made, and further when you take into account the issues of War Bonds and of War Savings Certificates, then, I think, the response is

  2145
  satisfactory. I do not contemplate issuing any new loan at present. If my right hon. Friend means, "Will any new Loan ever be issued," he is asking me a question that really is not capable of a satisfactory answer. I am not contemplating anything at present. When shall I contemplate something? I cannot say. I must be governed by the circumstances of the time.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would congratulate him and his permanent -officials on the excellent campaign and the wonderful organisation in connection with the Loan. Under all the circumstances, the response was very good indeed. We are faced now with an extraordinarily complicated and difficult financial position which is not understood in the country. My right hon. Friend below me (Sir D. Maciean) made a few remarks on the subject of inflation, and the question is most serious. Practically, the whole of our trouble can be traced to the unavoidable; inflation of currency at the present-moment. I have put down two questions on policy with regard to this matter. Those questions were put with the intention of assisting in any way that I could to draw attention to this very serious matter. The general public do not understand the situation. I do ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take us into his confidence as soon as his experts have advised on the policy which they think is for the general good of the country, and to tell us what steps it is proposed to take with reference to this question, because in my opinion heroic steps will have to be taken. We shall either have to stop the issue of further notes, which may mean considerable loss to business men, or we shall have to have very much heavier taxation in order to reduce the floating debt. That being the ease, it is necessary to educate the people beforehand, and I urge the right hon. Gentleman to let us know exactly what is the policy of the Government and what his experts are proposing with regard to the matter. We find ourselves faced with the necessity of paying £400,000,000 yearly interest on loan. This country as at present constituted cannot stand it, and the future financial policy of the country will have to be radically changed. I am sure that in every part of the House the Chancellor of the Exchequer will receive the utmost sympathy and assistance if he will tell us what the policy is going to be, and, by doing so, be will begin the necessary, though pos-
  2146
  sibiy painful, education of the country in our financial position and in the necessary remedies.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  GOVERNMENT OF THE SOUDAN LOAN BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and repotted, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Friday.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY) BILL [Lords].
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY) BILL [Lords].

    CLAUSE 1—(Wireless Telegraphy Requirements.)
    (1) Every seagoing British ship registered in the United Kingdom being a passenger steamer or a ship of sixteen hundred tons gross tonnage or upwards shall be provided with a wireless telegraph installation and shall maintain a wireless telegraph service which shall be at least sufficient to comply with the rules made for the purpose under this Act, and shall be provided with one or more certified operators and watchers, at least, in accordance with those rules:
    Provided that the Board of Trade may exempt from the obligations imposed by this Act any ships or classes of ships if they are of opinion that, having regard to the nature of the voyages on which the ships are engaged, or other circumstances of the case, the provision-of a wireless telegraph apparatus is unnecessary or unreasonable.
    Mr. CHADWICK: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "seagoing."
    Before coming to the subject of my Amendment, I would ask the House to realise that the object of this Bill is to increase the safety of life at sea. Hitherto, our legislators have not thought it necessary to go beyond providing a man with the means of keeping himself afloat after he gets into the water, but this Bill gives him the means of providing himself with another ship. I would ask hon. Members to keep in mind two main factors with regard to wireless on board ship, namely, the ability to call for help and the ability to hear a call for help. There is no need for me to insist on the immense significance of those two vital factors. I am sure the House will share my view that

    2147
    the service of wireless telegraphy must be brought to the use of our seamen to the widest possible extent. There are difficulties of expense and of organisation, but those difficulties can be and must be overcome. I have affirmed repeatedly in this House, in Committee, and in the Press that these difficulties can be overcome, and I have used, as an illustration, the case of the aeroplane. if an aerial pilot flying his machine under the most difficult conditions of nerve strain, and, possibly, fighting, if he, comparatively untrained in the use of wireless telegraphy, can exchange messages with his gums of his base with the accuracy required by the exigencies of war, then it is comparatively child's play for the operation to be carried out on board any ship under any conditions. I was very relieved to see in to-day's "Times" a remarkable statement by no less a person than Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, the manager of the Marconi Company. I would ask the House to bear in mind the great and unreasonable objection raised by shipowners on the ground of cost. He says:
    "There can be no question, I think, that wireless would lend considerable safety at sea if all ships were so equipped, so that even small boats within a radius of from SO to 100 miles could be summoned to render assistance in case of need. There can be 1:0 better evidence of this than the case of the 'Titanic'"
    Just think of the "Titanic" not being able to call up ships passing within ten miles of her. They had nothing on which to put the passengers, and 1,400 people in a ship that took three hours to sink in a smooth sea were drowned—
    "This expense could be avoided" —
    The expense of the operator—
    "if one of the ship's officers went through a short course of instruction. It would not be necessary for any watch to be kept, and his services would only be required in cases of distress. The apparatus could be so constructed as to respond only to the S.O.S. call, which would cause a bell to ring and so summon attention. Such an installation could be installed upon a ship and maintained at the cost of £60"
    That is a very remarkable statement, and to me a very encouraging statement. I never believed that they would go so far. It is a statement made deliberately and repeatedly by the greatest wireless authority that I know—the Marconi Company. It seems to me that it disposes completely and finally of any objection on the ground of cost. If there are still those who object on the ground of that
    2148
    small cost of £60 a year, I would just mention one item on the other side of the account. It is generally admitted—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has admitted it—that if wireless is generally used on ships it. will reduce the mortality of ships, and, if I know anything about insurance, that will reduce the premiums for insurance. Take a ship of five, six, or seven hundred tons and put her value at £20,000. Her insurance, probably is £0 per cent. per annum. If the reduced mortality brought about a reduction in the insurance premiums of only one-half per cent, per annum, it would be £100 on £20,000, and that would wipe out the whole cost of wireless. That, however, is only one item; there are many others that I could mention.
    With regard to my proposal to omit the word "seagoing" from this Clause, I moved this in Committee, but I want the Amendment to have a much more searching test than was possible in a Committee in which only twenty-six or twenty-seven members out of a total of seventy were present. The matter was galloped through in a couple of hours, and then it was only lost by one vote. I think 1 can get a better test of the Amendment this afternoon. If the word "seagoing" remains in this Bill there will be a large number of ships, carrying thousands of passengers round our coast, which will not come within the scope of the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has told us that there is no definite meaning to the expression "seagoing." He said:
    "I do not think it is a term actually used in any Act of Parliament, but it is generally understood to exclude vessels paying in smooth or partially smooth waters."
    I contend that every passenger ship should be brought within the scope of this Bill. Under the terms of the next paragraph in the Bill, the Board of Trade have the power to exempt certain classes of ships, but 1 say that every passenger ship should be brought within the scope of this Bill unless she can show either that she is a ferry boat or that under no circumstances would wireless be useful to her in an emergency. Imagine what might happen at any moment on the Clyde, on the Thames, in the Bristol Channel, in the case of these services of fast boats, very lightly built, carrying thousands of people over smooth or partially smooth water, under which definition they would not come within the scope of this Bill.

    2149
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Sir W. Raoburn), whose opinion I always value as one of the most experienced and leading shipping men in the country, particularly on the Clyde, made I last Friday in the Committee a most illuminating contribution to the discussion on this very subject. He said:
    "Take vessels like the 'Columba,' the 'King Edward,' and also the Clyde dredgers which go out to sea as far as Gairroch Head. All of these, unless they were exempted by the Board of Trade, would have to he fitted with wireless. But think of the Culumba,' with l,500 souls on board !"
    I ask the House to note this and to bear in mind that the hon. Member was resisting my Amendment. He went on to say:
    " if that vessel met with any accident that needed wireless, every soal would be at the bottom of the sea unless the rafts and lifebelts saved them. Where would you get wifeless to by of any use?…
    You cannot possibly have lifeboats for a ship of that kind you must have lifebelts."
    The hon. Member wishes to deprive these very people, whose only means of safety, he says, is a lifebelt, of the means of announcing their distress to the world and calling up any possible assistance that might be within reach. I consider that in passing this Bill as it stands, with the word "seagoing" in it, we have a most solemn responsibility, especially after the announcement that I have quoted to the House from the Marconi Company—a deliberate official announcement made by the greatest wireless authority in the world. They tell you that they can put on board your ship an instrument that will respond to an emergency call by ringing a bell, and will do away with the necessity of having an operator always listening in, and that the ship can receive a call in that way, and would merely require an officer who had passed through a course of training in wireless telegraphy.
    Mr. STURROCK: I have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow. I do so because I sincerely feel that, if this Amendment, and the other Amendments which follow in the sequel, are adopted, this measure is going to be as important to the future of life at sea as was the Plimsoll mark, which caused so much controversy in the days when it was fought in this House, and which met with exactly the same sort of opposition which I venture to say is manifested by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton. All that is proposed here is to make it obligatory upon vessels, whether plying
    2150
    on the deep seas or in the waterways of the country, to carry wireless, so that they may summon to their assistance any vessel which may be in the near neighbourhood. It is said that this is carrying the idea to a ridiculous extent. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said the other day in Committee that the Amendments on the Paper would compel tugs and trawlers, and craft of that type, to carry wireless, and, he asked, was there ever a more ridiculous idea than that? I have no doubt that my hon. and gallant Friend knows a good deal more about the sea than I do. but I do submit that this is a matter upon which either a landsman or a seaman may equally take a definite stand. If a large vessel such as the "Titanic'' is lying wounded at sea as the result of some disaster, and you are going to say that you will not have tugs and trawlers and other small craft fitted with wireless because they have only a few people on board, you are going to rule them out of the possibility of going to the aid of a large wounded liner which may be sinking rapidly within a few miles of where they are steaming quietly along, quite unconscious of the tragedy. I read the other day a statement which 1 venture to quote in proof of what my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow is standing for, in the official log of the "R34" on her return journey from America, on the voyage which is historic in our annals and which happily ended safely, but which might just as conceivably have ended otherwise in the Atlantic. In the log of the "R34" it is mentioned by the commanding officer that at one difficult point in the journey, when the navigators did not know where they were, they sighted two trawlers, and endeavoured to get into communication with them; but the log says, "As they were not fitted with wireless we got no response." I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton and others who are opposing this very fair and reasonable proposal, to indulge in a slight flight of imagination and try to realise that this matter of the universal installation of wireless is not only going to relate in years to come to scacraft, but is going to be of the utmost importance from the point of view of the development of air services here, there, and everywhere. I regard it as of the greatest importance that every vessel which goes to sea, no matter what her tonnage may be, or whether she plys on the deep sea or in

    2151
    waterways, should be fitted with such an installation as will render her able, even though she does not have the widest possible scope, anyhow to pick up a message from any vessel which may be in danger in the near neighbourhood.
    My hon. Friend has referred to the letter which appears in the Press to-day with regard to the question of the cost of a Marconi installation. I submit that in this House we have not only got to look at the question from the point of view of costs. I confess that I have the utmost sympathy with shipowners like my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton. We know how they have suffered from the' War in every way possible, and 1 am sure we extend a deep measure of sympathy to them. But when they come before us here or in Committee and say that by insisting on this humane proposal we are going to drive them into bankruptcy, all I can say is that 1 almost wish I could share their financial plight. [Laughter.] I do submit that we should support this proposal, which is really a businesslike proposal, and should say that we will do whatever lies in our power through the agency of this House to save life at sea. Hon. Gentlemen say that you cannot do it because you put too great a burden on the shipowner. I think the letter of Mr. Godfrey Isaacs in to-day's "Times" is a sufficient answer to that. I do feel that, standing as we are on the morrow of the great War, after we have said everything that wa3 kind and indulgent and appreciative of our seamen, whether of the Navy or of the Mercantile Marine, the points embodied in this and the other Amendments on the Paper are going to put to the acid test our sincerity in all those professions. I submit to the House most earnestly that, having in view the debt we owe to every man who has gone to sea during the trying course of the War—crews coming ashore one day from the lifeboats of their shipwrecked vessels and re-engaging next day to go back to sea again—if we are going to supplement in a sincere way all the professions of gratitude we have made to our seamen, we ought to accept this Amendment, and so do more than I believe has been done since the Plimsoll Mark was agreed to, to secure the safety not only of our sailors but of all those who go down to the sea in ships
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Lieut.-Colonel Leslie Wilson): I am sure
    2152
    the House will agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow in saying that the object of this Bill should be to bring the services of wireless telegraphy to the use of seamen in the widest possible sense. The Government fully agrees with that view, but they cannot accept the Amendment which the hon. Member has moved, and I will give what I believe to be really solid reasons why they cannot do so. I should like to refer to the letter which my hon. Friend quoted from the "Times" of this morning, signed by Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, than whom no one has the right to speak with greater authority on questions relating to wireless telegraphy. My hon. Friend suggests that this docs away practically with any argument in reference to the cost of it wireless installation in any ship. But I should like to point out to him that Mr. Godfrey Isaacs' letter does not state any way in which such an installation could be put in at a cost of £60. He says:
    "Such an installation could, I think, be installed upon a ship and maintained at a cost of about £60 a year…such an annual expenditure would not, I think, be a burden upon any owner."
    At the present time this low estimate is based on the assumption that there will be an efficient automatic calling device, and that it will not be necessary to have any person in attendance. In the second place, if an automatic device of a simple kind has been invented, certainly it will simplify the problem. But up to the present the Government Department concerned has no information that a satisfactory calling device has been produced. With reference to a further remark made in that letter, and alluded to by my hon. Friend, in which Mr. Isaacs said:
    "This expense—"
    that is. the cost of wirless equipment on board ship, and the necessity of expert wireless operators—
    "This expense could be avoided if one of the ship's officers went through a short course of instruction."
    it sounds very easy, but. in the first place, I understand that the shortest possible course of instruction to be of any value at all must be at least three months; and, m the second place, I speak with knowledge when I say there would be considerable opposition to these dual duties being placed on ships' officers, and I think that is a consideration which has to be taken into view when this problem is being considered.

    2153
    Coming to the Amendment, I think there is a considerable amount of misunderstanding as to what the word "seagoing" actually means. It is quite true that there is no statutory definition of the word "seagoing, "but it is a term which is clearly understood and generally accepted by every owner, by every officer, and, I believe, by every man in the Mercantile Service. May I speak from my own practical experience, which, after all, is useful? It has been part of my duty to deal with the question of wages of the merchant service, as chairman of the National Maritime Board, and in that connection we have to fix the standard rate of wages of seagoing ships, and for ships plying in smooth or partially smooth waters. I can assure the House that there is never any dispute as to where you should draw the line. It is clearly understood, and it is laid down in some cases what arc the seagoing snips and what are the ships which ply in smooth and partially smooth waters. I will take some concrete instances which I think will satisfy my hon. Friend. Take the case of the Clyde. In the Clyde, the smooth water limits mean within a line from Skipness Point round the Isle of Bute, but a ship that went as far as Ardrossan would go outside those limits, and would have to be fitted with wireless, or even if going from Ardrossan to Arran. But my hon. Friend would seem to think that any ship plying on Loch Lomond should have wireless.
    Mr. STURROCK: You would have the power of exemption.
    Colonel WILSON: But it is surely unnecessary. Take the case of the Mersey. Any passenger vessel which, in winter, goes beyond the Rock Lighthouse would have to be fitted with wireless. In the case of the Thames, any steamer going beyond Walton on one side or Margate on the other would have to be fitted with wireless. The effect of this Amendment really would be to extend the Bill to passenger steamers which ply entirely in smooth and partially smooth waters.
    Sir E. CARSON: Will it apply to coasting steamers?
    Colonel WILSON: That all depends whether they ply in smooth or partially smooth waters.
    Sir E. CARSON: How do you know whether the water is smooth?
    Mr. SEXTON: Take, for instance, the waters of the Atlantic just off Ireland.
    Mr. STURROCK: Surely the words
    "Provided that the Board of Trade may exempt from the obligations imposed by this Act any ships or classes of ships.
    cover the case of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks!
    Colonel WILSON: It is perfectly possible, of course, for the word to be omitted, but I suggest to the House that the Amendment is quite unnecessary. It would throw an enormous amount of work on the Board of Trade. Every ship plying in smooth or partially smooth waters would have to be exempted under this proviso in the Bill. It is, if I may say so. an unreasonable Amendment, because I do not understand what advantage would be gained by it. it would put another burden on the coasting trade in smooth waters, and I am sure the House agrees that at the present time the last thing we want to do is to put any additional burdens on the coasting trade, which is suffering under burdens already. We are most anxious to restore the coasting trade to work it did in pre-war days, and, if any extra burdens are added, it will be a very serious handicap bringing that trade to its pre-war service. My hon. Friend who spoke last spoke as if this Amendment would be opposed entirely by the shipowners on the ground of cost. I am in no way defending the shipowners, but there is no objection on the part of the shipowners on the question of cost. They are quite ready to meet any cost which may be necessary, if they think it reasonable or if life will be saved by the instalment of wireless on these ships; but I do maintain that it is not reasonable to insist upon the instalment of wireless on ships which ply absolutely within smooth or partially smooth waters, which are never out of sight of land, and the instalment of wireless on which would' not, I am convinced, save one single life at any time. As I say, these ships must always be in sight of land. [An HON. MEMBER: "In a fog?"] Of course, they would not be in sight of land in a fog, but, even if they were in a fog, would they be assisted if they had wireless? If they are absolutely in sight of land, or close to the land, they will always get assistance from the coast—from lifeboats or other means. Therefore, I do ask the House to reject this Amendment, as I believe it is unnecessary, and I can almost say unreasonable.
    Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: After the very plain and straightforward speech from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping, I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] First of all, let me ask the House not to be swayed by the "Titanic" disaster. Unfortunately, the "Titanic" relied too much on her wireless, and if she had used the old-fashioned minute-gun the ship which was within ten miles would have been called. I am as alive as anyone to the great advantages and uses in the future of wireless telegraphy, but the thing can be carried a little too far. This Amendment must be considered in connection with another Amendment lower down in the names of the same lion. Members and another hon. Member (Mr. Sexton), in which they wish to reduce the size of the ship to be fitted with wireless to 500 tons.
    Mr. CHADWICK: Is there any relationship between the two Amendments'?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think there is. I do | not see any objection to pointing out where the House may be landed if it accepts both Amendments.
    Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: I would ask the House to remember the reference which has been made to R. 34 communicating with trawlers by wireless. If every fishing vessel has to have wireless, I can see very considerable difficulty. In trawlers it is necessary to economise the personnel to the utmost. At the present moment there is a very unfortunate strike going on on the North-East coast among the fishing trawlers as to whether they shall carry an extra trimmer for the long Icelandic voyage. It must be observed that the Bill says that "passenger steamer" shall mean a steamer carrying more than twelve passengers, which is no doubt right and proper; but if we cut out the word seagoing, one result will be that any penny steamer running past this honourable House will be required to have wireless. The thing is absurd; we must be practical. I am as great a believer in wireless, and probably know as much about it as anyone in this House, but I must resist the Amendment. Coasters running between Newcastle and Leith are certainly seagoing vessels, and will come under the Bill, but this would hamper every vessel plying in the inland waters, and, as has been pointed out, it is most
    2156
    necessary that their trade should be revived. Certainly the Board of Trade can exempt them, but that means more officials, more inspectors, more harassing and hampering of the seafaring man who happens to be serving on a vessel plying on an estuary or river. He would need to have a licence exempting him from wireless, which would have to be vised by numerous officials. Life would be hardly worth living—it is hardly worth living now. And really, from the practical point of view, I hope the Committee will not accept this Amendment, and will not pay too much attention to that wireless expert, Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, who naturally is interested, and who would like to see wireles fitted by law to every Thames tug.
    Sir W. RAEBURN: I do not think I would have risen had I not been challenged by my hon. Friend. I desire to say only a single word about the suggested opposition of the shipowners. Wherever wireless is of any use I do not know of any shipowner who would begrudge the expense. But what is the use of going to the expense of putting in an installation if it is going to be futile? Take the case of the River Clyde. I think the hon. Member for Barrow had better come down and make the acquaintance of that river. Take vessels like the "Columba," the "King Edward," and other vessels of that typo which are plying in waters within a mile or so of the shore. Imagine something going wrong. This would all be in sight of the shore. There are all the other boats like the railway cross-channel and similar steamers which make a run of twenty minutes or thereabouts, or the vessels that ply on Loch Lomond, Lock Katrine, and so on. Is it really proposed to make shipowners use wireless for these places? My hon. Friend is entirely misinterpreting my arguments about lifeboats and life-rafts. What I meant to say was that the vessels to which I have referred ply on the waters of the Clyde in summer time, and they carry enormous numbers of passengers from Glasgow upwards. If wireless is to be of any use at all in the event of anything untoward happening, and in calling aid from a distance, the vessel must be able, or at any rate, presumed to be able, to keep afloat for some little time or else she must have lifeboats of some other means of preserving the lives of her passengers. If a vessel like the "Columba" was in collision, say, and

    2157
    did use her wireless, everyone on board would have a fair chance of being drowned before any aid arrived. That is, if that aid had to be called apart from the observation of any vessels near at hand. How on earth could aid arrive before everyone was drowned?
    Mr. CHADWICK: I do not want to take the lifeboats or the lifebelts out of these steamers.
    Sir W. RAEBURN: It is the extreme of sentimentality. In respect to the "Titanic," of which mention has been made, if my memory has not failed me, there was a ship near which could have rendered aid had it not been that the wireless operator was not in his cabin at the time the message came. But somewhat of a change has come over the scene to-day. A different sort of installation altogether is advocated. So far, however, as I can make out, the installation proposed is not one that the Board of Trade will pass. It is a strange thing that Mr. Godfrey Isaacs should now write a letter to the "Times" when the Chamber of Shipping and the Liverpool Shipowners' Association have been negotiating for over twelve months for a cheaper installation. If it could be proved that wireless fitted in these vessels would save life, the cost would be a secondary consideration in every man's mind. But when you are convinced, as I am, to the contrary in the case of vessels plying in calm waters, I say it is going to bring the whole idea into discredit. Put the installation where it will be useful, but do not spoil your case by having it fitted where it is of no particular use.
    With respect to the argument relating to the expense, my hon. Friend says it could be saved on the insurance. I should like him to tell me of any underwriter who will give one single copper of rebate for insurance because a wireless installation has been fitted on board. I was speaking today, in the precincts of this House, to a well-known underwriter at Lloyd's. I said, "When you heard the hon. Member for Barrow making that statement, 1 am surprised that you, whose firm has time and again refused to give any rebate, did not get up and contradict it." The excuse my hon. Friend gave was that he did not think underwriters should intervene. Do not let us run away with the fallacy that this is a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, or that, because this will cost money, that we are hiding from those who are opposed to
    2158
    us the fact that we can get such a rebate on our insurance premiums as will cover the whole cost. Then as to saving property. We will have wireless on to save life, but I do not see how it is going to save much in the way of property. Again, supposing the vessel fitted with wireless was in collision. She might be dismasted, and down would come the aerial, and your wireless would be of no avail.
    Mr. SEXTON: Not necessarily.
    Sir W. RAEBURN: Oh, yes. The hon. Member gave an instance of the boats taking people away on holiday trips, and suggesting that such boats would be exempt under the Board of Trade Regulations, seeing they plied in comparatively calm water. But applications for exemption to the Board of Trade or other Government Departments might probably be so prolonged that the holidays would be over before the exemption could be obtained. Generally, we are quite agreed as to the use and necessity for wireless in all cases where it may be properly fitted, but, as I said, do not let us spoil our case by putting wireless into vessels which are never in any danger, and making them apply to a Government Department for exemption, perhaps to be treated unreasonably, as sometimes we find to be the case.
    Mr. SEXTON: I have listened to the very ingenious defence of the right lion. Gentleman opposite. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull also has tried to throw ridicule upon this Amendment. Comparatively smooth water has been mentioned. What is meant by that? The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the installation of wireless telegraphy on coasters would be a great burden to the coasting trade? What does he moan by the coasting trade? There are some coasters which voyage about the coast and are never out of sight of land, where there is just as big a sea—I have seen it and experienced it as there is in any part of the Atlantic Ocean. Let me give cases in point,. Would the hon. Gentleman say that a journey from the Mersey to Llan-dnddno was in smooth water or otherwise? Would he say that a voyage from Liverpool to Portsmouth, thence to London, was in smooth water, although land is in sight practically all the time? You are only two or three miles from land, but you may be in a perpetual fog.
    Sir W. RAEBURN: These vessels are seagoing vessels.
    Mr. SEXTON: I want to be sure of that. As to comparatively smooth water, around the whole of the Anglesey coast and outside the bar of the Mersey, I have seen tall water there—as big as any I have seen even off the South Stack, Holyhead. As to the question of saving life by lifeboat stations, surely the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members are aware that there are hundreds of places on our coasts to-day where it is impossible to get lifeboat service; places where there is no lifeboat and where it is not possible to establish it. I say that the arguments put forward are very ingenious, but they are met by the fact that there is a Clause in the Bill that gives the Board of Trade power to exempt any vessel that they think does not require to carry this installation. That, in itself, surely ought to be a sufficient safeguard and meet all the obstacles that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen wish to place in our way. My one point is this: that such apparatus is in existence, no opportunity ought to be lost of generally making things safer.
    5.0.P.M.
    Mr. LINDSAY: This particular question was debated very thoroughly in -Committee, and very little more has been said to-day in support of it. I do not think it is realised what this Amendment means. It would make every passenger vessel, no matter what size, come inside the scope of this Bill. Obviously, to bring steamers that ply on the Thames, and even the boats that pass here, inside the scope of this Bill is an absurdity. I am. however, thinking more particularly of boats dealing with a small class of traffic in Ireland, such as those that ply on the Shannon, the Foyle, and similar waters. and to impose this condition in such cases would be a great inconvenience. With regard to the position of the Board of Trade, I do not think hon. Members can have road a letter in the "Times" of 16th July, by Lord Emmott, in which it was pointed out that the prevailing characteristic of Government officials was timidity. Under this proposal, if a question arises as to whether some vessels should or should not be, exempt, the official of the Board of Trade will always play for safety, because if he happened to be wrong he would be criticised. It would not matter to him whether he imposed an unfair burden on shipowners or not.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I think on the whole the hon. and gallant Gentleman
    2160
    who represents the Government in this matter has made out a good case for the retention of the word "seagoing." I wish, however, to ask him a, question. He said that everyone understood exactly what seagoing meant, and he referred to the Maritime Transport Committee, of which he was the chairman, and on which he said there never was any difficulty about finding out the meaning of seagoing. I would like to ask him if there is any legal definition of the word "seagoing"?
    Colonel WILSON: I said that there is no statutory definition of the. word "seagoing."
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: There appears to be a difference of opinion as to what smooth and partially smooth waters are, and as to what seagoing really means. As far as I can see, if this word is left in, it will lead to endless litigation, and I am not going to vote for anything that will lead to further litigation. We are rushing measures through this House at such a rate that they are not being properly considered, and I am sure the legislation which has gone through Parliament this year will lead to a crop of cases in the Courts in future years. I think that is an important point, and I hope the Government will he able to give me some answer on the point I have raised. I trust other hon. Members will be prepared to vote for the omission of the word "seagoing" from this Clause.
    Mr. RENWICK: I think the hon. Member's statement about the safety of these vessels is fully met by the Board of Trade certificate. Certain passenger vessels receive a certificate that they are not to go outside the estuary, while others are given what are called seagoing certificates. It is distinctly recognised that there are two classes of licences for steamers to carry passengers in certain waters.
    Colonel WILSON: I said there was no statutory definition of the word "seagoing," and that is strictly correct; but as regards seagoing vessels, it has been laid down very clearly by the Board of Trade under what limits they are to be allowed to sail. All this information is laid down in the regulations and instructions as to the certifying of passenger steamers, which give a list of places round the coast of the United Kingdom of those areas which come under smooth water limits, and, consequently, there can be no question of any litigation in regard to

    2161
    this matter, because the point has been laid down quite clearly. I gave only one or two instances, and I cannot attempt to deal with every smooth water limit round the coast of England, Scotland, and Ireland. There is no fear of litigation arising from this proposal, and in all these cases the word may be interpreted literally as smooth or partially smooth waters, and all those cases quoted by my
    hon. Friends opposite would naturally be seagoing boats, and would be installed with wireless, and no boats which go outside the smooth or partially smooth waters limit would be without wireless.
    Question put, "That the word 'seagoing stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 229; Noes,. 55.

    Division No. 81.

    AYES.

    [5.10 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral

    Dockrell, Sir M.

    McMicking. Major Gilbert

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Donald, T.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Maddocks, Henry

    Ainsworth, Captain C.

    Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Amery, Lieut.-Colonel L. c. M. s.

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Marriott, John Arthur R.

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Entwistle, Major C.

    Martin, A. E.

    Armitage, Robert

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander

    Mason, Robert

    Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

    Falcon, Captain M.

    Matthews, David

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Partick)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G

    Foxcroft, Captain C.

    Morison, T. B. (Inverness)

    Barker, Major R.

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

    Barnett, Captain Richard W.

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

    Mosley, Oswald

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Mount, William Arthur

    Barrand, A. R.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Gllmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

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

    Glyn, Major R.

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

    Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

    Grant, James Augustus

    Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)

    Bennett, T. J.

    Greame, Major P. Lloyd

    Murray, John (Leeds, W.)

    Bird, Alfred

    Green, A. (Derby)

    Murray, William (Dumfries)

    Blair, Major Reginald

    Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Blake. Sir Francis Douglas

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Neal, Arthur

    Berwick, Major G. 0.

    Gretton, Colonel John

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

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Griggs, Sir Peter

    Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

    Bowles, Col. H. F.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Guinness, Capt. Hon. (Southend)

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Brackenbury, Captain H. L.

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

    Oman, C. W. C.

    Bramsdon, Sir T.

    Hacking, Captain D. H.

    Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)

    Breese, Major C. E.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred. (Dulwich)

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

    Briant, F.

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Attrincham)

    Parker, James

    Bridgeman, William clive

    Hanson, Sir Charles

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Britton, G. B.

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

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Bull, Right Hon. Sir William James

    Haslam. Lewis

    Philipps, Sir 0. C. (Chester)

    Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Campbell, J. G. D.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Pratt, John William

    Campion, Colonel W. R.

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

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hope, John Deans (Berwick)

    purchase, H. G.

    Carr, W. T.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Rae, H. Norman

    Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)

    Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

    Raeburn, Sir William

    Casey, T. W.

    Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Rees, Captain. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)

    Chamberlain, N (Birm., Ladywood)

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

    Remnant, Col. Sir J. Farquharson

    Cheyne, Sir William Watson

    Inskip, T. W. H.

    Renwick, G.

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

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

    Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

    Clough, R.

    Jameson, Major J. G.

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Jesson, C.

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Jodrell. N. P.

    Robinson. T. Stretford, Lancs.)

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Johnstone, J.

    Rodger, A. K.

    Cohen, Major J. B. B.

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Rowlands, James

    Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander

    Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund

    Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Rutherford, Col Sir J. (Darwen)

    Courthope, Major George Loyd

    Kidd, James

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

    Craig, Lt.-Com. N. (Isle of Thanet)

    King, Commander Douglas

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Craik, Right Hon. Sir Henry

    Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement

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

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Knights, Captain H.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

    Dalziel, Sir Davison (Brixton)

    Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

    Seager, Sir William

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

    Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)

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

    Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.

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

    Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)

    Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

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

    Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)

    Lorden, John William

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Davies, T. (Cirencester)

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

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

    Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

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

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Dawes, J. A.

    M'Guffin. Samuel

    Stephenson. Colonel H. K.

    Dennis, J. W.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Stevens, Marshall

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Williams, A. (Conset, Durham)

    Sugden, W. H.

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

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

    Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)

    Waring, Major Walter

    Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)

    Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Yea, Sir Alfred William

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

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Young, William (Perth and Kinross)

    Townley, Maximilan G.

    White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Whitla, Sir William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Talbot and Captain F. Guest.

    Waddington, R.

    NOES.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

    Short, A. (Wednesbury)

    Atkey, A. R.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Simm, Colonel M. T.

    Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-

    Guest, J. (Hemsworth. York)

    Sitch, C. H.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Smith. W (Wellingborough)

    Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Spencer, George A.

    Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Spoor, E. G.

    Cairns, John

    Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Caps, Tom

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Sturrock, J. Leng-

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Swan, J. E. C.

    Carter, W. (Mansfield)

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

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

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Newbould, A. E.

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Onions, Alfred

    Thorne, G R. (Wolverhampton. E)

    Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Tootill, Robert

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

    Rapar. A. Baldwin

    Wignall, James

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

    Randall, Athelstan

    Wilson, w. T. (Westhoughton)

    Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)

    Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Finney, Samuel

    Rose, Frank H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Chadwick and Mr. Sexton.

    Graham. W. (Edinburgh)

    Royce, William stapleton

    Green, J. F. (Leicester)

    Resolutions agreed to.

    Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "sixteen hundred," and to insert instead thereof 'the words "one thousand."
    The object of this Amendment is to reduce the size of the vessels to which the attachment of wireless will be compulsory from 1,600 tons to 1,000. This will exempt at the present moment. 461 British merchant steamers that are less than 1,600 tons and not less than 1,000 tons. It will exempt a great number of small vessels where the placing of the wireless apparatus and an operator would involve a great burden, in view of the competition with which our shipping will be faced in the near future. Where obviously wireless is useful for merchant purposes the shipowner, who is a pretty good business man, may well be trusted to fit it. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent it being fitted on even motor launches, if it is so desired. I think my Amendment, however, to reduce the limit from 1,600 to 1.000 tons is reasonable. I have consulted a very important organisation of the Merchant Service Officers, and they agree with me that a 1,000-ton limit would be better than 1,600 tons, as suggested by the Department.
    Major ENTWISTLE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir OWEN PHIL1PPS: It should be remembered that the cost of fitting the
    2164
    wireless to small vessels is practically the same as in the. case of large vessels, and, therefore, the £700 a year or so that it will involve will be added for all time lo the running expenses of the small vessels, and will tell very heavily against them. We do not want to do anything at this time to penalise the owners of small vessels, in view of the fact that the whole country is now suffering because the number of small vessels has been so very greatly reduced during the War. Owners of small vessels even at the present time are discouraged from adding to their fleet by the mere expense of working them. They are in competition with railways, which arc carrying some 20,000,000 tons of cargo at the present time at the cost of the British taxpayer, and at less than proper freightage. At a time when this nation is spending this large amount of money on cargo freights over the railways at the cost of the taxpayers, it is very undesirable to do any thing to handicap the small vessels, which should be increasing in number in order to help to relieve the railways from the burden. I know it may be said—and, indeed, it has been said— that one foreign country at least—Spain—has made it compulsory to carry the wireless on vessels of less than 1,600 tons, but it is quite a different thing to enforce a Spanish order by moans of a British Act of Parliament. Even if the Spanish authothorities insisted on vessels of less than 1,600 tons being fitted with the wireless,

    2165
    I do not think it would lead to much expenditure by the owners of small Spanish vessels. It has been said, and may again be asserted, that the French have done something to apply the wireless to vessels of less than 1,600 tons, but I understand that that information is not accurate. If later on it is found that other nations are prepared to make the owners of quite small vessels incur this heavy annual expense, then it will be ample tune for us to apply the same regulations here. In my opinion, however, it would be a pure waste of money, even from a life-saving point of view, to insist on these small vessels incurring this great annual expense, and therefore I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment.
    Mr. SEXTON: I confess I have been unable to follow the argument of the last speaker. I want to point out to the House that if you retain the words "1,600" in the Bill you will practically exclude deep-sea sailing vessels, to which the wireless would be of as much importance, if, indeed, it would not be more important, than it is to vessels that have other pio-pelling forces than mere dependence on the weather. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill that there are hundreds of sailing vessels to-day of under 1,600 tons that make voyages even round Cape Horn. Those who have any experience of that particular neighbourhood will, I think, agree with me—and I have had my share of experience there— that a sailing vessel which has no other propelling force than more dependence on weather requires this protection much more than the steamer, and certainly ought to be fitted with the apparatus, so that it may call to its aid in emergency any vessel within the radius of its call. There are deep-seagoing tubs to-day— floating dry-docks, they are called—running between this country and America, and will it be said that they are not entitled to have the same facilities as are enjoyed by other vessels which go on deep-sea voyages? I submit that if this Bill is carried in the way it is worded, deep-sea vessels, which are really more in want of this apparatus than ordinary steamships, would be excluded from the operation of the Bill, and 1 think it will be admitted by anyone who has practical knowledge of the sea that the vessels of which I am speaking ought, above all others, to come within the category of those it is proposed to apply this provision to.
    Mr. CHADWICK: I did not quite catch what my hon. Friend opposite said just now with regard to the law in Spain, but I think I was responsible for the statement as to what other countries have done in this matter. I have some quotations here from the "Year Book of Wireless Telegraphy." In the first place, T find that in regard to Greek ships a law was passed in October, 1917, laying it down that Greek vessels of 300 tons dead-weight and cargo vessels of 1,000 tons dead-weight —which means probably a ship of 600 tons —must beequipped with wireless telegraphic apparatus possessing a range of 100 miles, and furnished with an emergency apparatus of not less than thirty miles range. I can make the same quotation from the law of Spain, where a Royal Decree was issued on the 20th February, 1917, providing that merchant ships of 500 tons and upwards which make long sea voyages or long coasting voyages must carry a wireless installation with an immediate range of 100 miles, as laid down in the international regulations. That is a quotation from a book published by the Marconi Company this year. What is all this hullabaloo about? We are asking that ships shall be equipped with an instrument which will cost, according to Mr. Godfrey Isaacs in the "Times" to-day, £60, and all our hands are held up in horror at the idea of saddling the poor shipowner with expense in that way. Before I was a shipowner I was a merchant sailor, and I am proud to be able to say that. To talk about £700 a year is the sheerest nonsense. If my hon. Friend tells me he is bound to do certain things according to the Merchant Shipping Act, and if the Merchant Shipping Act is wrong and this is right, then for heaven's sake let us put the Merchant Shipping Act right, but do not let us deprive the community of what is admittedly the greatest known life-saving medium at sea. I support the Amendment
    Colonel LAMBERT WARD: One of the most potent arguments which it is possible to advance in favour of this alteration is that it may, under certain circumstances, save life, and, if that argument is proved, it is abolutely unanswerable. But I am assured by people who really know what they are talking about that the truth of that argument is extremely problematical. On the other hand, I think, in these days of constantly shrinking trade, the cost of installing wireless-tele-

    2167
    graphy ought, at any rate, to be considered. The Amendment will bring within the scope of the Bill coasting steamers and others which, practically, never under any circumstances go out of sight of land. An hon. Member remarked that they would be out of sight of land in the event of a fog. But the only meteorological condition under which a fog is possible is a dead calm, and under those circumstances the crew would have lowered their boats and been safely ashore before any other ship could have picked up their S.O.S. So I do not consider they would have been any safer had their vessel been fitted with an expensive wire-Jess installation. What is the cost of this installation likely to be? I do not deal so much with the actual cost: of the installation itself; it is with the manning of it that I am principally concerned. The Rill says that at least one wireless operator must be carried, but I think, in the long run, it would be found that one was not sufficient and that at least two would be required. Wireless telegraphy is a very highly-skilled and technical calling. Not only must the operator be highly trained, but he must also be in constant practice, otherwise his ear loses its cunning. It is, therefore, out of the question to expect the donkey man or the second engineer to take also the duties of wireless operator, and it is almost equally out of the question to expect the wireless operator to take on the duties of donkey man during his spare time.
    That being the case, it means, at least, two additional hands, and on a vessel of 1.000 tons, upon which the normal crew is, perhaps, sixteen to eighteen, the additional two will be a very considerable item. Not only that, but wireless operators are certainly highly paid. I very much doubt whether, in the immediate future, especially if wages continue in their upward tendency, it will be possible to obtain wireless operators at less than about £16 a month, with all found, which is the equivalent of, at least, £25 a month of civilian wages. The cost of one operator would be approximately £300 a year and the cost of two, which I believe is the absolute minimum for effective wireless communication to be maintained, is at least £600 to £700 a year. Any additional burden which we place upon the shipping of this country is bound to be reflected in the cost of food. The only means of bringing food to this country is by means of ships
    2168
    If we put up the cost of running the ships. freights will go up. If freights go up the cost of food will go up in proportion. At this moment we art; absolutely at our wits end for some method of decreasing the cost of living. We are still subject to all kinds of vexatious control, although it is obvious that the attempt to control the price of food in this country is entirely dependent on our powers of controlling it at the source, which at present we do not possess. To place unnecessary and expensive restrictions upon shipping is bound in the long run to increase the cost of food, and of all commodities. Another point of view from which I should like the House to look at this, is that of the shipowner. In the opinion of many hon. Members he is a profiteer and a bloodsucker, and is not entitled to any consideration whatever. At the same time it is to the enterprise and knowledge of past generations of shipowners that this country owes its predominant position in the shipping trade which it occupied under pre-war conditions, and if we place too many restrictions upon the shipping trade it can only result in ships being sold or transferred to foreign flags. In that case the country stands to lose in every respect. The seafaring folk of this country will lose their employment because ships registered at Bergen or Hamburg will not employ Britishers but mixed crews of blacks, Dutchmen, and Dagoes, and the country will lose through the formation of shipping rings against this country, which it will be much easier for foreigners to form. In giving a very qualified blessing to this measure I ask the Government to reject this Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel WILSON: This Amendment was very luily disenssrd in Committee. I do not think the House fully realises that the Bill places an obligation on every seagoing passenger steamer, however small, to have wireless, and a passenger steamer is defined as one which carries twelve passengers or more. So we are not dealing, in this question of the reduction of tonnage, with passenger steamers, but simply with cargo tramp steamers. The Government would not hesitate for a moment to reduce the tonnage to 1,000 or to 500 if it was thought it would really be helpful in any way, either from a commercial point of view or from the point of view of assistance in saving life. The Bill draws the line at 1,600 tons because that is a well understood division between the ocean-going tramp and a ship which is not ocean-going. During the War

    2169
    the number of vessels which have been fitted with wireless has increased from 1,000 to 2,700, and much the greater part if not the whole of this increase will be made permanent under this Bill. If we were to reduce the tonnage from 1,600 to 1,000 the number of ships affected would be as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend, but it would, aftr all, affect ships the very large majority of which are never at sea for more than thirty hours. Vessels under 1,600 tons are practically never at sea for more than thirty hours. They are mostly vessels engaged either in the coastal trade or across the North Sea, to the coast of France or down as far as the coast of Spain. It is not a paying proposition to send these smaller ships on long voyages, and it is now the practice that even the majority of colliers are about 3,000 tons or over. If either of these Amendments was accepted the ships which would be affected would be those which really are never at sea for any lengthy period. It would merely catch purely cargo ships which seldom incur danger requiring wireless. What are the dangers? If they are ships engaged in the coastal trade they are practically always within the three-mile limit. They would have assistance from the coast if they go ashore, and if they run the risk of going ashore wireless would be of little assistance to them, because no ship would go to their assistance. The assistance must come from the shore, from the lifeboat service, and so on. The only other danger which they might meet would be the danger of collision, and as a general rule one of the two ships colliding is not so seriously damaged that it cannot come to the assistance of the other. The hon. Member for Hull spoke about the cost of the upkeep. I have already said something about that, but I would add that if you are to have wireless installed on ships such as those suggested now, it is essential that if it is to be used to the fullest possible purpose there should be two operators, two full-time men who do nothing else but look after the wireless instruments. It is not merely the cost of installation on board the ship, but it is the cost of the wages of these two officers. If the Amendment was accepted, ships of 1,000 to 1,600 tons, which seldom are more than thirty hours at sea, would practically carry their wireless operators as passengers.
    I would like to refer to a strong point I raised by the hon. Member for Barrow
    2170
    (Mr. Chadwick), which was made upstairs and repeated to-day. It was also referred to by the hon. Member for Cheshire. I refer to the legislation in other countries. When the hon. Member for Barrow made this point upstairs I had to acknowledge that I had not the information as to legislation in other countries, but I promised that I would get it before the Report stage. I have made the fullest possible inquiries in the matter. In regard to Spain, an Order was made.
    Colonel L. WARD: Does the hon. Member consider that the shipping trade of Spain is in such a flourishing condition that we can follow their example?
    Colonel WILSON: No; I am not saying that. I am dealing with the question of legislation. An Order was made in February requiring all Spanish vessels of more than 500 tons to carry wireless installations. In France during the War vessels of 500 tons and over were under the obligation to be fitted with wireless, and all vessels so fitted have to maintain it. But if they have not been fitted during the War they will not be required to carry wireless unless they have passengers on board. In regard to Greece, we have endeavoured to make the fullest inquiries, but up to the present moment I have received no report. It is quite true that we do not base whatever we do on the Spanish mercantile marine; but at the same time we do not wish to be behind any country in any necessary steps they may take. I do ask the House to look at this matter from the point of view of practical considerations. If this Amendment is accepted it would be essential to use the proviso which is given in Clause 1. Sub-section (1). of the Bill, in order to exempt a very large majority of these ships between 1,000 tons and 1,600 tons. This Amendment would mean a very great and very heavy added burden on the smaller coastal vessels. We are not living in ordinary times now. Freights at the present moment are high, perhaps higher than we wish, but they are not going to remain high. Undoubtedly they are liable to fall. I will not prophesy when, but I hope soon. When they do fall these coastal vessels, which work on a very narrow margin, will be very severely handicapped by this added burden which is put upon small coastal cargo boats, and they will be under a very serious handicap in carrying on their trade. I ask the

    2171
    House not to look at the immediate present when they see freights are high, but to look to the future when we shall have to meet very severe competition from the merchant service of the world, and when we shall have to cut our freights. Then, any additional burden which is put by this House upon these ships will be a great handicap. I believe we shall meet that competition successfully, but I view with great anxiety the putting of any burdens on the Mercantile Marine which one does not consider essential, and which to a large extent are not very reasonable. Therefore, I ask the House not to accept this Amendment, but to pass the Bill as it stands.
    Captain STANLEY WILSON: This Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken worthy), but it is strongly opposed by the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Colonel L. Ward). Therefore, it is not very easy for the average Member of Parliament to decide what course to take; but it seems to me that the advice given by the hon. Member for North-West Hull was much stronger than the advice given by the hon. Member for Central Hull.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was seconded by the hon. Member for East Hull.
    Captain WILSON: Hull seems to be very divided on the question. However, the advice given by the hon. Member for North-West Hull was sounder than that given by the other hon. Members for Hull. I wonder whether those two hon. Members have consulted the shipping industry of Hull, which they are supposed to represent in this House. I was glad to hear the attitude of the Government on this matter, and I hope the hon. Members for Hull will not press the Amendment to a Division. It is unquestionable that it will add very heavily to the expenditure imposed on the shipping industry. If it was to be carried out it would be quite impossible to find enough operators in wireless to work on ships that would have to be fitted with wireless.
    Amendment negatived.
    Colonel WILSON: I beg to move
    "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

    SUPPLY.

      CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1919–20.
      Considered in Committee.
      [The Deputy-Chairman, Sir EDWIN CORNWALL, in the Chair.]

    COLONIAL OFFICE.

      LIEUT-COLONEL AMERY'S STATEMENT.
      Motion made, and Question proposed
      "That a sum, not exceeding £57,025, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty s Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant for certain Expenses connected with Emigration."—[NOTE.—£37.000 has been voted on account.]
      Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I hope I shall have the indulgence of the Committee in my first attempt to deal with so vast and complicated a range of subjects as those which are covered by this Vote. In the limited time at the disposal of the Committee it will be hardly fair to hon. Members who have many points of importance to raise if I endeavoured to do so in any comprehensive or detailed fashion. I would rather, if I may, devote such time as I can reasonably take up to outlining a general point of view towards the great problems of reconstruction in the Empire, and a general attitude of mind towards those problems, more particularly the problems of reconstruction in those vast and undeveloped regions of the dependent Empire for the administration of which the Colonial Office and this House is directly responsible. It would be impossible for anyone in such a limit of time to deal with this subject without some reference, however brief, to the part borne by the Dominions and the Colonies in the War. Indeed, it is very hard to resist the temptation to devote the greater part of my time to the task of bringing home to the Committee the immensity of the patriotic efforts of our fellow citizens and fellow subjects beyond the seas, men and women of every race and every creed, who are-associated with us in that great league of the commonwealth of nations which for want of a better term we call the British) Empire.
      6.0 P.M.
      I need not give to the Committee figures to show what the Dominions have done. I will content myself with a single compari-

      2173
      son, and I make it in no spirit of depreciation of the immense value of the assistance afforded by the United States to the Alliance in the closing phases of the War, or of the immense effort that the United States were prepared to make if that War had continued any longer. Dealing with the actual sum total of military effort in the field, the sum total accomplished before 11th November of last year, whether you take as. your standard of measurement the number of lives sacrificed or the numbers of the enemy killed or captured, or the total number of hours spent in the trenches, it is a fact that both Canada and Australia alone, each of them, contributed a greater total military effort up to 11th November last in this War than the great United States of America, with their population of over 100,000,000 souls. In the Crown Colonies the conditions are naturally so different that there could be no question of a military effort on their part at all comparable in intensity with that of this country or of the Dominions, but that effort has been far greater than I think is usually realised. In every part of the Empire the white community, whether official or whether unofficial, has contributed as high a quota as any community in the world.
      Take, for instance, East Africa, which was the first community in the British Empire to impose conscription. More than two-thirds of the male inhabitants in that colony took the field. The white population of Rhodesia showed a similarly patriotic ardour. As regards native troops there again the combatant figures have been quite considerable, and their fighting value has been recognised by all the Generals under whom they served. The West African forces, the King's African Rifles, and the West Indies Regiment, between them put something like 80,000 combatant troops into the field, and very much more than half a million carriers and other auxiliaries were raised in the African Colonies to carry on the campaign in Africa and in other regions of the world. From every part of the Empire and every section of the population, from the native chiefs to the humblest of the people, gifts and contributions of every kind have flown lavishly towards the Red Cross and other funds. The Colonies themselves have in every instance contributed from their revenue a substantial sum towards the cost of the War. In many cases I am afraid that the liability which they have incurred
      2174
      is much larger than prudent finance would allow. I hope that that fact will not be lost sight of in this country when the question of development and reconstruction in the Colonies have to be considered.
      It is on those problems of repair and reconstruction that I would particularly like to speak to the Committee, I am speaking, of course, of the problems of repair and reconstruction in the Colonies and Protectorates for which the Imperial Parliament is directly responsible. In all these matters we have an immense amount of leeway to make up after the War. It is quite true that in some of the Colonies and Protectorates they have gained considerable advantages during the War by the immense demand for raw materials of all sorts; but we must never forget that right through the War the administration has been understaffed, the whole work of development has had to be put on one side, and in some cases, as for instance that of East Africa, the whole work of development has not only been retarded but has inevitably been set back and injured by the actual process of the campaign which took place in those regions. All this required great effort on the part of the Colonial: administration and of the Colonial Office. What I wish to impress on this Committee —and I know it is the intense conviction of the Secretary of State—is that much more than that is wanted. Reconstruction in the outer Empire, just as much as here at home, must mean something more than the restoration of pre-war conditions. It must mean that we must set up a new and more positive standard of our duty and obligation towards the peoples to whom this House is in the position of a trustee and to those territories whose boundless-potentialities call urgently for development in the interests of their own inhabitants, of the British Empire as a whole, and of the impoverished and wasted world.
      I can say without fear of contradiction that British Colonial administration formerly was the best in the world. I can say equally without fear of contradiction that British social and industrial legislation before the War, as far as it went, was the best in the world. But just as we are not content to accept the prewar standard in social legislation as our standard after the War, so, as far as the entire administration of our Colonies and Protectorates is concerned, the pre-war standard is not enough. We must have a new standard of effort and achievement

      2175
      and a new consciousness in regard to the task that lies before us. An additional reason for setting a. now standard in our task of reconstruction is that by the terms of the Treaty of Peace large territories will be assigned to us under a mandate. I do not think that that mandate is likely to impose upon us any conditions which we would not impose on ourselves or which we have not been in the habit of imposing upon ourselves whenever we dealt with subject peoples. We have always in very large measures treated native territories under our rule as a mandate to us in the interests of the inhabitants and of the world at large, and we have justified our authority hot merely in our own interests, but by the general consent of other nations with regard to our rule. It is our task now to do this work more successfully than ever, and to establish beyond doubt in the judgment of mankind that we are worthy of the trust reposed in us.
      The first essential in the task before us is to bring our machinery for reconstruction to the highest stage of efficiency. When I speak of machinery for reconstruction I mean the men who have got to carry out the task of reconstruction. I mean, for instance, that splendid Colonial service to whom the Empire owed so great a debt of gratitude during these long trying years. These men have done wonderful work. Thousands of them have volunteered for military service, and without their services, their knowledge of languages, their moral power over natives, it would have been impossible to expand our small native Armies to the extent to which they were expanded; but I wish to speak more particularly not of those who were allowed to go to the front, but of those whom in the interests of the Service it was necessary to forbid to go, men who have done their own work and the work of those who have gone to the front, who have been without leave year after year in most trying conditions of climate, and often with acute domestic anxiety due to a scale of pay which, not too generous I am afraid, was made miserably inadequate by the very heavy increase in the cost of living. This last evil has, of course, to a very considerable extent been remedied by the granting of war bonuses on a varying scale, but I think in most cases reasonably generous and ample in the different Colonies. But,
      2176
      of course, that is a purely temporary measure, and it is, 1 know, the conviction of the Secretary of State that the whole permanent scale of salaries in the Colonial Civil Service does need revision and will have to be most seriously considered in the near future.
      Of course, it is not only a question of money. It is a question of the whole conditions in which these men have to do their strenuous and difficult work and maintain their health, and that moral poise which is so necessary in dealing with a subject and often not very biddable tribe or race. There is one aspect of the question to which I know the Secretary of State attached the very greatest importance. That is the desirability of making married life more possible for members of the Civil Service and bringing about a condition of health and housing, even in those regions which have had in the past the worst reputation, so as to mass married lifts as far as possible the rule rather than the exception. I have spoken about the Civil servants, and primarily it is upon them we have to depend in our task of administration, but, of course, we do not want to depend upon them alone. We do wish to enlist in every way the co-operation of every other element in those Colonies, whether officially, as we do enlist them through legislative councils and executive councils, or unofficially through the advice and support that the independent members of the community can give to a Government which is prepared to trust and consult them?
      Of course in that matter, however great cur confidence and trust in the officials who have to carry out the work in this time of reconstruction, the ideal towards which we are aiming in the sphere for which the Colonial Office is responsible is the same ideal which is found throughout the rest of our Dominions, the ideal of self-government, the participation of the people of the country, in so far as they are capable of it, in the government of the country. The difficulties of advancing in that direction are very great in some cases these difficulties arise owing to the backward condition of the population, whom it would be a crime to allow to walk unassisted at the present time. In other cases, where the population is of the smallest and most scattered character you cannot decide that a community with a population equal to a second or third-class city in this country has all the

      2177
      attributes of self-government, even though in other respects it might be fit for it. Again you may have a case, as in Gibraltar or Malta, where the population live within the precincts of a military fortress or live immediately around a great military or naval fortress. All these things do make tile problem difficult and complex. Critics in this House may say sometimes that we are slow in making progress, that we see the difficulties rather mere clearly than they do, or that those difficulties seem more serious to us. But I would like to give them this assurance that, though we are not able to move as rapidly as they would wish us in some respects, at any rate we have the same ultimate goal in mind as they have.
      I come now to the actual task of reconstruction itself. One of the first and greatest problems of reconstruction in the outer Empire, as in the heart of the Empire here, is the problem of health. The whole problem of the development of the tropics is in fact largely a problem of coping with disease. Remember that the deadliness of the tropics is not merely the deadliness to the white man. If he suffers it is entirely, or almost entirely, because he catches diseases with which the native community ground him is already infected, and which lowers the vitality. Our problem is not merely to make East Africa and West Africa healthy to the white man, but to make them healthy to the whole population, to undertake out there, as here at home, a campaign for dealing with the diseases of those countries in a much more comprehensive and bolder spirit than we have ever undertaken it before. I do not wish to depreciate what we have done in the past. A great work was initiated under Mr. Joseph Chamberlain for dealing with tropical diseases, which has already borne rich fruit. I believe that the death-rate among white officials in the West African Colonies Is to-day less than one-eighth of what it was twenty years ago, and the death-rate among the natives has also gone down, if not absolutely pari passu, it has largely gone down; but there is an immense amount to be done. I was immensely impressed some twelve years ago when I was in Uganda with the appalling wholesale destruction of the population brought about, on the one side, by sleeping sickness, and, on the other hand, by venereal diseases. Whole districts were literally exterminated. A very effective
      2178
      campaign was begun to cope with these two problems, and a very large measure of success attended it. Up to the outbreak of war we could really look back with pride on what we had achieved. What happened then? A very high proportion of the medical officers in Uganda were required for military purposes and were taken away. Owing to the need for porters and carriers for the different expeditions marching up and down East Africa, there was a flow of population backwards and forwards from one end of the country to another, which brought that disease into districts which had practically been clear of it, and the state of the country to-day is one that calls for the very greatest effort to bring it back to the position we had reached before the outbreak of war. It is no easy problem. You have to get doctors, and they are very difficult to get at this time, even on quite reasonably substantial salaries. At any rate, I wish to bring that particular question of health before the, Committee. To my mind it is one of the greatest tasks which lie before us.
      Another problem closely connected with the problem of health is that of dealing with the liquor traffic. There, again, I think that, upon the whole, we have been in advance of oilier Administrations in our effort to keep that traffic within bounds, more particularly by imposing heavy duties upon it. In large areas, as in Northern Rhodesia, we have long had complete prohibition of imported spirits, but we felt that we were bound to make a distinct advance and to give a lead. The late Secretary of State for the Colonies last year did announce, without waiting for agreement between the Powers, that, as far as the British West African Colonies were concerned, complete prohibition of imported trade spirits was a settled policy decided on and to be carried out as rapidly as circumstances would permit. It was not an easy decision to take. It involved a loss to the Revenue of Nigeria alone of something like £1,000,000 a year, and a loss to the Revenue of the Gold Coast of £500,000. To a Government anxious to find money for railways, for schools, and for every other laudable object, it was no small thing to have to abandon a large and easy source of revenue, and to try in one way or another, possibly by a very much less popular form of taxation, to get that revenue back again. I am glad to say that since that decision was taken by the British great progress has been made with respect to the International Convention on

      2179
      these matters, and the British and French Governments between themselves have agreed to the raising of the minimum duty on trade spirits into their tropical Colonies to 17s. 6d. a gallon, which compares very favourably with the rate before the War.
      Another problem to be dealt with is that of the arms traffic. There is a very great danger that, with the enormous number of arms that are likely to be at the disposal of various Governments throughout the world, there may be a temptation to smuggle those arms into every uncivilised region, with a result which means not only great difficulty and possible expense to the ruling Power, but also means slaughter and misery to all those weaker tribes which happen to be beyond the limit and prompt reach of the Government. Another problem in the outer Empire, as here, is the problem of labour. There, again, we have to deal in a constructive spirit with the problem. It is not enough for the Government merely to try to hold an even balance between the desire of the planter to get plenty of cheap workmen and their duty towards seeing that the native is well treated and remunerated. More than that, we want to see that production is not hampered by the absence of willing and understanding, wishful workers in this field. Our main hope, at least a very large avenue of development, lies in inducing the native to become his own employer, his own cultivator—to make him realise the advantage and the profit of becoming an intelligent cultivator. That has been done with very considerable success in many parts of the world. In the Gold Coast, for instance, we have induced the natives to take up with great enthusiasm "on their own," not as workers in the plantations, the cultivation of cocoa, and the output of cocoa from the Gold Coast has gone up from 960 tons in 1901 to 120,000 tons now—about 'half the whole world's production of cocoa. The cultivation of cotton in Uganda, and of sugar in many of the West Indies, has developed very appreciably by what has been called the small farmer development, by getting the native himself to grow for profit. Of course, all that can succeed only if the native really understands and can be educated. There is always, a certain measure of danger that a crop which is not carefully cultivated may fall below the standard which will secure it a market. There is a great danger to the Gold Coast cocoa of the quality not being sufficiently high to command a good price in the
      2180
      world's markets. The natives may grow too much and too carelessly. A great part has been played there by the assistance of the Government, but a part, and a very useful part, can be played with the assistance of the white man's plantation. I am not one of those who believe that the white man's plantation with the hired coloured labour should cover the whole field. On the contrary, I wish to see the field of the small native cultivator extended as widely as possible. But there is plenty of room and plenty of need for both kinds of cultivation, the higher type of cultivation setting a standard which the others will follow. The old indenture system, I think on the whole carried out very reasonably and fairly, has yet brought up against itself a very strong feeling in India, and I do not think that on old lines we could hope to bring all the willing, helpful, Indian labour desired to those Colonies which would be glad to have it. What is wanted is to do what the Dominions have done—to offer settlement, offer opportunities to the men to come and make a home, to let the settler labour for himself if he likes for some of his time, but let him have his own choice in the matter.
      I spoke just now of the desirability of educating the native. That is one of the greatest problems before us, and one in respect to which we are only at the very beginning of what we ought to do. There is a very large task before us, both in general education and, perhaps more particularly, in practical education in agriculture. We want to strengthen all our Agricultural Departments. We want to start, for study and research, agricultural colleges, or universities, if you like, which will be the centres from which new ideas and better methods will be diffused to all the surrounding Colonies. It is a matter about which there was a good deal of talk before the War. but, like many other things, it inevitably had to wait. I hope now to take up the matter again, in the first instance with the West Indies, and I hope also elsewhere in the tropical Empire, so that in this respect, as in others, we may be able to give a lead to other Administrations. I may mention in this connection that we have been fortunate in securing from the Treasury a Grant of £20,000 a year for special research work in those Colonies which are not able to do research work themselves, on the lines on which very much larger sums have been granted for research work in this country.

      2181
      There is one subject as to which I should like to say a word, because it is the very key to all successful development, and that is the subject of railways. 1 confess I sometimes think that we have not done anything like what we ought to have done in the way of railway construction in our Crown Colonies and Protectorates. I think in that matter we have not had the courage of our convictions to the same extent as the Dominions, in the Dominions they have thousands of miles of railways through absolutely empty country, trusting that those railways would bring population and revenue with them. We have many regions in West Africa where we cannot lay down 100 miles of railway which is not paying its way within a few months. I tried to take out the figures to see how far our efforts in the Crown Colonies and Protectorates for which we are responsible compare in this matter with the efforts of the Dominions. They have no doubt been at it a good deal longer. The Dominions and Rhodesia had built altogether up to the outbreak of war something like 200.000 miles of railways, while the total of the railways in the Crown Colonies and Protectorates at that date was 3,700 miles. The total area of the Dominions is larger, but, even so, while there are thirteen miles of railway for every 1,000 square miles of territory in the Dominions, the figure for the Crown Colonies and Protectorates corresponding to that is 4.8. Or, to put the matter in another way, whereas in the, Dominions there is a mile of railway for every 220 inhabitants, in the Crown Colonies and Protectorates there is only a mile of railway for every 7,700 inhabitants. I think the Committee will agree that there is a primâ facie ease for a very great programme of railway construction. I know that that involves finding money, and I know the difficulties with regard to money with which the Government of this country and the industries of this country are faced. I do not want to put forward any undue claim for preference in the work of developing the Colonies, but I do wish to point it out, and I think it is well worth taking into consideration, and 1 believe that every pound spent would bring a manifold return in a very short period.
      Again, it seems to me that we have been too timid in capitalising the territories under our charge, and I think that certainly, as compared with the Dominions, the Crown Colonies and Protectorates are
      2182
      under-capitalised. I should like to give some figures which certainly convey that impression. 1 saw some figures the other day—they are not official; they are from the "Financier"—about the general investments in the Dominions and the Colonies. Up to 1914, all investments in this country of all kinds in the Dominions amounted to something like £1,300,000,000, and the sum total of the investments in the Crown Colonies and Protectorates was £120,000,000, or loss than a tenth of the investments in the 'Dominions. The amount of public loans raised in the Dominions is about £320,000,000, and in that I am not counting the loans raised during the War, while in the Crown Colonies and Protectorates the total is £22,000,000. I think, there again, there is on the face of it reasonable argument for thinking that we ought to invest more capital in the development of the Crown Colonies and Protectorates I give my own opinion for what it is worth. I think we have neverrealised sufficiently the immense economic possibilities of those Colonies and the immense wealth that could be created by science, energy, and organisation in those parts of the world. The prime object, of course, of that development must be the welfare of the inhabitants of those regions. Our first duty is to them; our object is not to exploit them, but to enable them materially, as well as in every other respect, to rise to a higher plane of living and civilisation. But I am as sure as I stand here that we cannot develop them and help them without an over-spill of wealth and prosperity that would be an immense help to this country in the difficult times that lie ahead. So much for the problem of reconstruction in. the Crown Colonies and Protectorates.
      I should like also to say a word or two about a matter which I think several hon. Members wish to raise—that is, about Rhodesia. There you have a peculiar form of government which is neither Crown Colony nor self-government, but government by a chartered company, a form of government that was more common in the old days. You have the great example of the East India Company. I think there is this difference. The East India Company was undoubtedly in its inception and in its intention a commercial and trading concern. In the case of the British South Africa Company I think the circumstances are different. What Mr. Rhodes had in his mind was the

      2183
      necessity of retaining for the British Empire and under the British Flag that great region of Southern Central Africa, and to prevent a fence of German and Boer territory being run right acoss the development of British South Africa. It was only because he could not enlist the support either of the Cape or Imperial Governments for his policy that he hoped by the device of a chartered company to get the necessary means and support to carry out the work, the importance of which in his mind lay in its Imperial significance. From his point of view I think his efforts were well justified. The fact that Rhodesia was British was invaluable in South Africa. The fact that Rhodesia lay between German South West and German East Africa, and that from Rhodesia we could co-operate effectively in the East African campaign, was invaluable to us. Looking at the matter from this point of view it is only a natural confirmation of Mr. Rhodes' intention that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should have reported that this commercial company in its dealings had only been acting as agents of the Imperial Government.
      That, of course, creates a new situation, because the Report of that Committee treats the chartered company as the agent of the Crown in dealing with these matters and lays it down that the company was, therefore, entitled to be reimbursed in respect of deficits incurred in connection with its administrative expenditure. It is obviously not easy to determine exactly what expenses the chartered company pay to administrative and to commercial expenses. Naturally, the company would wish to make its full claim. It seemed to us that the only way to settle that problem was to appoint a Commission which, whether from the judicial or financial side, should command such respect that its judgment upon the Report laid down by the Privy Council as compared with the facts presented to it here and in South Africa, would command universal respect. It is with this in view that we pressed and succeeded in inducing Lord Cave, in whom I think every Member of this House of every shade of opinion has great confidence, to accept the Chairmanship of that Commission, and joined with him is Lord Chalmers, whose experience in the Treasury, of course, qualifies him in the highest degree for that work, and Sir William Peat, head of the great firm of accountants, to go
      2184
      into the whole of this matter and to investigate here and on the spot the accounts presented and the statement made by the South Africa Company, and to make all such inquiries as may seem to them desirable in order to come to a finding which shall in their opinion correctly and truly represent the judgment of the Committee of the Privy Council. 1 will not say a word more on that subject beyond this, that of course their assessment we are prepared to accept as a final, definite assessment. We are also committed that before any payment is made or any settlement come to as to the method of payment, or other matters that may arise after the account has been settled, that we shall come to this House for the sanction of the House on those matters
      Major E. WOOD: Will that Commission do its work here or proceed to South Africa?
      Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: That Commission began its sittings in the House of Lords yesterday, and it is going to hold a series of sittings at the earliest possible moment, and next month go out to South Africa and take evidence and hear opinion out there. I should like also to say a word about the constitutional development in the relations between ourselves and the great self-governing Dominions, because that has been one of the most remarkable features in the development of the British Constitution during the last two years. We went into this War without having the time and without having the machinery through which we could take the opinion of the Empire as a whole on. our policy. We had to act on our own decision, and happily the whole of the Empire endorsed that decision. But it was obvious that was not satisfactory, and a clear pledge was given by Mr. Asquith's Government that in the settlement of the terms of Peace the Dominions would have the fullest opportunity, not only of considering, but have a voice in deciding. During the last two years, by the happy device of what came to be known as the Imperial Cabinet, we have had a machinery both for consultation and for decisions. I was privileged to act as the Secretary of that body during its sessions, and whatever may be said about the novelty of the peculiar constitutional form of a Cabinet which as far as execution goes has to act through a number of autonomous and separate bodies, the

      2185
      fact still remains that the common policy of the Empire, as regards the conduct of war, as regards the ever-pressing foreign questions that arose while the Imperial Cabinet was in session, as regards considering and laying down what we wished the terms of peace to be, was carried out as a single policy by a body of men who gamed a. single view of these matters and worked together as effectively as a Cabinet can work.
      That process has been carried on at the Conference in Paris, and it has had two sides. The one that has most impressed the outside world is the fact that at that Conference the full equality of the Dominions with ourselves as nations has been recognised, not only by us, but by the other Governments. They have been treated not only as equal nations within the brotherhood of the British Empire, but as equal nations with other nations outside the Empire, and I know that there are. some timid Imperialists, I might perhaps call them, who are rather startled by this, who think it is a beginning of the end of any effective Imperial unity. My conviction is exactly the contrary. I have always been convinced that closer imperial unity could only be based on the recognition of the fullest equality of status between ourselves and the other Dominions of the Empire, and that conviction has only been strengthened by what tans happened in the last few months, because while on the one hand that Conference has recognised equality in the national status of the Dominions, that Conference has seen the Dominions and ourselves working together on the British Empire Delegation, which for the time being took the place of the Imperial Cabinet, as a single body with one mind, one thought, and one policy. The policy which the Prime Minister of this country brought back from the Peace Conference was not the United Kingdom policy, but the policy hammered out by the whole Empire, and on every Committee of that Conference the Dominions were represented, not as representing the Dominions, but as representing the British Empire. It was as representing the British Empire that Mr. Hughes was chairman of the Commission on indemnities, and it was as representing the British Empire that Sir Robert Borden dealt with the problem of territorial delimitation in the Near East. The more the principle of equality is openly established to the world, the greater the effective unity of the British
      2186
      Empire. How that unity is to take a constitutional shape in the future no one can say. It has been agreed at the Conference of 1917 that as soon as may be after the conclusion of Peace a special constitutional conference is to assemble and to consider how, on the basis of those principles of autonomy and equality, effective common action can be taken in foreign policy and all cognate matters. 1 do not know whether that conference will be able to come to any definite conclusion, or what it may recommend. The difficulties in the way of any solution are enormous, but I do say this, that, difficult as the problem may be, it cannot be impossible, because no man has a right to call that impossible which for the last six months has been a reality in practice. The Empire has existed in fact and in practice as a unity for working purposes, and to my mind it is inconceivable that such a unity cannot somehow or other, by those patient and wise methods with which all our constitutional progress has been attained, be in some shape or form attained in the future.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: The Committee listened with the very greatest interest to the very able and lucid account which my hon. Friend has made of the stewardship of the Colonial Office, and I can only express regret that a very much larger number of Members were not present lo listen to what has been laid before Us. in the very short time that I shall occupy of the Committee's attention. I should like, first of all, to deal with the point with which my hon. Friend concluded his speech, and that was the constitutional development which has taken place in the relations between ourselves and our self-governing Dominions. He spoke with warmth of gratitude and with eloquence of what has transpired of late, and it is indeed interesting to note that what really comes through all that he said was the truth of the paradox, the greater the liberty the greater the tie, and it has been a distinguishing characteristic of what we call the British Empire that its foundations have been most well and truly laid when they have been laid in trust and in faith, in those principles of freedom and responsibility by which alone history has shown the Empire could have been held together. The latest demonstration of that, of course, has been a magnificent result of the application of those well-established doctrines to South Africa. The rally of South Africa to the side

      2187
      of this country was undoubtedly due to the application without fear of that great and fundamental principle. As to how far it will develop, I only say this: I am one who looks forward with hope, and, indeed, confidence, to the development in more definite shape of the co-ordination of common efforts between the Mother Country and the great self-governing Dominions, who are, as my hon. Friend has well said, in fact, sister nations. But this is the note of warning which, with all respect, I will put forward. We have done so well upon lines which are not so very clearly defined that it must be with the very greatest caution that we and our sister nations should approach any written Constitution—because I am afraid it must really come to that—which, by the mere fact that it is written and set, will lead undoubtedly to very great difficulties which have in the past been avoided owing to the fact that our relations were, I will not say ill-defined, but of so particularly fluid a nature as they have been. I am sure the whole question will be approached with the greatest desire to develop with, I am sure, all the caution that our experience of the past has taught us.
      7.0.P.M.
      Let me briefly say how much I and any other Member echoes the words which my hon. Friend has spoken of recognition, so far as words can recognise, although words fail us in the endeavour to recognise, the splendid joint services which were rendered by the Dominions beyond the seas, and also by our Crown Colonies, in the terrible War from which we have emerged. It is quite safe to say that without their efforts in the early days of the War no man can say what would have happened. Disaster which was following so swift upon us might easily have overtaken us, and the results might have been irrevocable, but the fact that they came in so speedily, with such enthusiasm and with such power, has been a contribution of which only historians of perhaps fifty years hence can adequately tell the tale— and not only in Europe and in the nearer East, but such a campaign as was carried on by General Botha in South-West Africa. I have no pretensions to any military knowledge, but I have heard it stated by those well qualified to judge that that campaign of General Botha's in South-West Africa will bear comparison with any campaign, either in strategy or the administrative work in its execution,
      2188
      which has been carried out in this world War from which we have just emerged Turning from that to another point upon which my hon. Friend touched, and that will lead me to what I have to say equally with regard to Rhodesia—the question of the mandated territories under the League of Nations. It will require, I am certain, great care, great breadth of mind, and wide generosity in handling those territories which may be mandated to us. What, after all, has been the distinguishing characteristic of our country in its dealings with what we may call subject populations? It has been the fact that, although they were subject populations and territories, we always regarded ourselves as trustees. That was the real distinction between the British Empire and the Roman Empire or the Spanish Empire, and the fact that these other Empires looked upon possessions scattered over the world far distant from their Imperial centre as assets to be exploited rather than as trusts to be sacredly carried out, led sooner or later to their downfall, and that idea, that Roman and Spanish idea, was quite clearly the idea in the extension of the Colonial Empire of Germany, and her fate overtook her in return for her ambition and selfishness nearer home, but clearly the same thing would have overtaken her, because she had the same idea, and I am not at all certain that a very material factor in;he world opprobrium which fell upon the German Empire in the last four or five years was not this fact, that her Colonial administration was marked by selfish adherence to mere material German interests, with little or no regard to the welfare of the territories over which she sought to exercise control We all listened with the deepest interest to what my hon. and gallant Friend had to say as to the sterilisation of development not only of the Dominions beyond the seas, but also of our Crown Colonies. What a lesson it is as to the devastating effects of war ! War is never limited in its effects to the immediate countries concerned. You cannot go to any part of our Empire, self-governing or governed more or less directly by us, without seeing evidences of the devastation of war. The development of our Crown Colonies and of our Dominions certainly has been retarded, and it will mean a loss of nearly twenty years. I am sure that is not an exaggeration. Five years have gone, and it only requires four times five to make twenty

      2189
      years. There is only one method of making a fresh start, and that is by severe, devoted, personal and national economy. It is the only way. There is no royal road to reconstruction except through self-sacrifice, and I hope we all, with our sister nations and those who are responsible for the administration of our Colonies, will realise that. There is no hope for the future except by strict attention, to a policy of reconstruction based upon sound finance, and sound finance only comes through the application of honesty and self-denial in all our individual dealings.
      The decision of the Sub-committee of the Privy Council under the chairmanship of Lord Sumner set at rest once and for all the question of the ownership of the un-unalienated lands, which amount to about that the Chartered Company holds these unalienated lands which amount to about 73,000,000 acres out of about 90,000,000 acres odd. They hold them as agents on behalf of the British Crown. That carries with it trusteeship for the natives. Some very eloquent words were spoken by my hon. and gallant Friend when, practically, he made the claim that the record of this country in regard to native races was one which gives us almost a moral leadership in the dealings of conquering peoples with native races. I should be very glad to think that is so, and let us hope that it is, but there are some very black chapters in our dealings with conquered territories and with native races, and I am not sure that there are not some discreditable chapters in our attitude towards the native races even in Rhodesia. I gladly say that I have now come to the conclusion that that great and complex character, Cecil Rhodes, was substantially animated by great and noble Imperial ideas—on the whole that is my opinion, for what it may be worth—but his career was accompanied by very blustering developments and his entourage was marked by the presence of some men whose characters will not bear the same investigation and the same light of history.
      My hon. and gallant Friend told us that the Chartered Company is a very different thing from the East India Company. The Chartered Company has been always regarded in this country as a very big and successful commercial undertaking. Our minds revert to the vast Stock Exchange transactions that have taken place in regard to its shares, and the idea that people rushed in to buy and sell shares in n company which was founded largely on
      2190
      a philanthropic basis is not the idea of the people of this country. With regard to very many of its acts, it did not live up to many of the splendid conditions and expressive works in its own character. I do not for a moment compare it with the old John Company. I only express the hope, whatever may be its future, that it will live up much more closely to its charter, with its clauses of trusteeship, and, if it does not, then it will be the duty of the Government to see that it does. What is the position of the natives at the present moment? With the exception of those who have acquired land by purchase or by some such transaction, not a single, native owns a foot of the land in which he lives. That being the case, and the revenues of the country and the future development of its natural riches depending upon the labour of its natives, surely this country, with the League of Nations shedding its new ray upon a world sadly needing enlightenment, will see that this territory which, after all, is being mandated to us owing to the circumstances of the past, is administered in a spirit of trusteeship not only for the white settlers, but also for the natives.
      The Government have set up a Commission of Inquiry to ascertain what compensation is to be given to the Chartered Company in respect of "necessary and proper administrative expenditure" since its initiation. I do not quite remember the terms of reference, but I suppose they are very wide. I should like to ask my hon. and gallant Friend one or two questions. Is it left to the Commission to decide whether the expenses incurred by the Chartered Company in the Matabele War were "necessary and proper administrative expenses"? I take that as an instance. If it is so found by the Commission, is the power of this House to express a difference of opinion absolutely unimpaired, or is their Report going to be adopted by the Government in its entirety and pressed upon the House with the weight of their majority? If so, we may take the document when it comes as almost literally inspired. We and Members sitting behind the Government Benches may protest, but if it is taken up by the Government in that way we know, of course, what will happen. It will be placed on the Statute Book, and that will be the end of the whole thing. Are we going to be allowed full and free opportunity of discussing the findings of the

      2191
      Commission, and of expressing agreement or disagreement with those findings? I understand that some disagreement is expressed as to the constitution of the Commission, and as to whether ft should be composed of only three members, in every one of whom I personally have great confidence, namely, Lord Cave, Lord Chalmers, and Sir William Peat. There it is, very limited in numbers and high in the character of its personnel. Still it is not representative of the House of Commons. It is going out to South Africa to take evidence on the spot, and, whatever its findings, the House of Commons should have full opportunity of expressing its opinion on its findings in whole or in part. I do not know whether the Commission is going to conduct the whole of its proceedings in South Africa in public or in private, or whether there will be wide powers of representation of the interests involved. The natives should, I think, have full opportunities of representation. That was discussed, if I remember rightly, before the Special Committee of the Privy Council, and I think Lord Sumner and his colleagues took a wise and broad view and admitted it. I hope the Commission will exercise the same broad and generous outlook with regard to the representations that may be laid before them by those who speak on behalf of the natives. I should like also to ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether the Commission will take account of the assets already in the hands of the Chartered Company or of those to whom they have given Grants— that is to say, will a valuation be made of the land which has been alienated by the Chartered Company or is in their hands, so that, while we are informed as to any debts which the Commission may find to be due to the Chartered Company, we may also have some idea of what the assets are worth which they now hold?
      I will conclude, as I began, by expressing our great pleasure at having the hon. and gallant Gentleman here for the first time in the capacity of Steward of the House of Commons as regards our great Dominions beyond the seas and our Crown Colonies. We wish him, as well as we can from this side of the House, a very happy tenure of office, although perhaps not quite so long as he might desire.
      Mr. SPOOR: I should like to associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in regard to the feeling of
      2192
      satisfaction with at any rate some parts of the speech we have just had from the hon. and gallant Member who represents the Colonial Office in this House. With a great deal of what he said regarding the men who form part of our Colonial Administration, one, of course, entirely agrees. We know that these men have given years of devoted service, often under trying conditions, and anybody who has any knowledge of the nature of their work will share the appreciation of it which has been expressed. At the same time, we are glad to hear from the hon. and gallant Member that, whilst pre-war standards may have been satisfactory up to a point in Colonial administration, he feels—and I take it that he is expressing the opinion of the Colonial Office and of the Government—that pre-war standards will not do for the days and years that lie immediately ahead.
      I should like to deal specifically with the question of the British South Africa Company and the claim that they are now making upon the Imperial Exchequer. 1 should like to say, first of all, that 1 regret very much that the Leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson), is not present to-night. The Motion to reduce the Vote stands in his name, and I know that he did desire to take part in this Debate, but, unfortunately, he is indisposed, and therefore cannot do so. I know that he has given this question considerable thought, and would have voiced with much greater authority than I can hope to do the point of view of the Labour party. We have been urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to practice the most rigid economy. I imagine that there will be general agreement amongst all sections of the House as to the wisdom of that advice, and as to the supreme necessity at this time, in our own interests and in the interests of our Colonies and of other parts of the world, of exereising the most rigid economy that is possible. It is because we believe that that the Labour party placed upon the Question Paper in. April last, and has since repeated on two or three occasions, a question relating to the claim that is being made by the British South Africa Company. What is it that we hear from the hon, and gallant Gentleman? It is a statement of the policy that the Government have adopted with regard to the setting up of this Commission and the agreement that has ap-

      2193
      parently been arrived at that the Commission's decisions shall be accepted as final. I would like to remind the House of the words used by the Leader of the House on the 16th April last, when he answered the Leader of the Labour party as to the claim that was made, and as to whether full opportunity would be given to this House to discuss that claim in all its bearings. The Leader of the House replied:
      "This claim clearly demands the closest scrutiny, and the Government will not commit themselves to any payment without the sanction of the House of Commons."
      After that, other questions were asked, and yesterday the question was repeated whether the recommendations of Lord Cave's Commission as to the amount to be paid to the Chartered Company would be binding. The answer given then, and repeated to-night, was in the affirmative. We are, apparently, to have an opportunity of discussing the final findings of Lord Cave's Commission, but we are to have no voice whatever in any modification of that decision or in any reduction or increase of the amount to be paid that this House may wish to suggest. As a matter of fact, our power is, for all practical purposes, going to be taken entirely from us. I suggest that the statement made yesterday and repeated to day is in flat contradiction of the statement made by the Leader of the House on the 16th April last. Certainly there was implicit in that statement the idea that this House would have a full opportunity of going thoroughly into the merits of that claim. A Commission has been established, and I agree with what has been said regarding the character of the gentlemen who have been selected for the work—regarding their supreme fitness for the task they have in hand. But I would respectfully suggest that, seeing that the British taxpayer is to be asked to foot this Bill, it is very desirable that this House should be represented on such a Commission. We are here in the interests of the British taxpayer, and yet a Commission has been appointed which, although its members may have all the qualifications that are claimed for them, can hardly be said to be representative of those who have finally to pay the bill. I have noticed, too, some rather interesting developments during recent days. Just recently the annual meeting was held of the British South Africa Company, and in the newspaper report of that meeting we are told that
      2194
      when this Commission goes to Rhodesia it will be accompanied by a member of the board. A member of the board will be in Rhodesia during the inquiry to watch over the presentation of the company's case, and he will have the assistance of the Attorney-General (Mr. Tredgold), who is fully conversant with all the legal questions involved. That little sentence does suggest that, although the Commission may go out with the best intentions in the world, there is evidently going to be an effort made to surround them with an atmosphere, to say nothing more, highly favourable to the case of the Chartered Company. I submit that, from any point of view, that is by no means desirable. I would like just to ask what really is this claim that we are being asked to meet? It has grown from £1,250,000 in 1898 to between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000 as a provisional amount at the present time.
      Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted; and, forty Members being found present—
      Mr. SPOOR: I would like the House to examine very briefly some of the details of this claim, which, as I have said, has grown very curiously since it was first made in 1898. Then its amount was £1,250,000; to-day, according to the statement of the Leader of the House in April, it is somewhere between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000, and we have been told, by the writer of a recent article in the "Times," that the ultimate amount of that claim will be nearer £18,000,000. Whatever its amount, apparently it has to be met by the British taxpayer. It is rather interesting to note that a year ago, at the annual meeting of the company, the chairman's statment included the following remark:
      "It is important to note that our claim has to be met directly by the Imperial Government, and not by the people of Rhodesia. [Cheers]"
      I think we can quite understand the reason for those cheers. The statement goes on:
      "We are accordingly assured of a very solvent debtor."
      Whether the British public, when they come into full possession of the facts, will share that view, is another matter. When we look into the details of this claim, we see that it is rather curiously made up. I notice that it includes the cost of the Matabele War of 1893. It includes administrative deficits up to November, 1917, of £3,728,000. It includes also a number of charges against the War. It includes 4 per

      2195
      cent. interest on, say, £5,000,000 for fifteen years, and further deficits. That, of course, is the larger claim of £18,000,000 to which reference has already been made. But the point I want to emphasise is this, that the claim of the company includes the cost of two wars—two wars which, I believe there is general agreement, were unnecessary. I want to ask this House whether, reasonably, the cost of the Matabele War and the £2,500,000 cost of the Mashona War can be properly regarded as administrative charges? I want to know whether the British taxpayer should be compelled to pay for enterprises as to which there was certainly little agreement in this country at the time they were embarked upon. I read here that Lord Ripon, for the Imperial Government, so late as 26th August, 1893, cabled
      "I should certainly prohibit any offensive movement in the interest of the South Africa Company."
      Twelve days earlier Dr. Starr Jameson had signed a secret agreement—no longer a secret agreement, I imagine, as most Members, no doubt, have a copy of it—to invade Matabeleland, setting forth the terms of service for the members of the force, including—to quote the words of the agreement—" half the loot."
      I do suggest—and I am sure this suggestion should be agreed to by all sections of this House—that before this claim can be even considered it has got to be very carefully investigated indeed. I suggest that that investigation should be carried out by the most competent and the most independent firm of chartered accountants that can be secured. As a matter of business efficiency, apart from any other consideration, I think we are entitled to that. So far as the Rhodesians themselves are concerned—and they live under the beneficent rule of the South Africa Company—they apparently have no intention of doing anything to meet this claim. I have already quoted the statement of the chairman of the company, and it would be quite possible, were it necessary, to quote the opinion of Rhodesians on the spot. With regard to the matter of loot to which I have referred, it is important to bear in mind that the loot captured by the company in 1893 included from 40,000 to 70,000 head of stock, and the question does arise as to whether, in ariving at the figure of the cost of the Matabele War, these assets were taken into consideration. That is only one more
      2196
      argument, I submit, in favour of the most thorough investigation that can possibly be given to this very complicated question, and, so far as the Labour party is concerned, we feel that not only should the character of the Commission be different from what it is, not only should this House be represented on that Commission, but we also feel that the most careful investigation should be persisted in be fore a single penny-piece be taken from the British taxpayers to finance a commercial concern that, apparently, has been rather unwisely administered, to say the least.
      There is, however, another side to this Rhodesian question, to which brief reference was made by the hon. and gallant-Gentleman who spoke first, and that is the treatment of the natives. He quite rightly said that our first duty iii Rhodesia, and in countries like it, is most obviously to the people who inherit the land. He repeated what has frequently been repeated in this House—and I only wish it had always been acted upon by some who have gone oversea—that it was not our intention or desire to exploit these people. I have in my hand a pamphlet that I imagine has been sent to every Member of this House. I notice it bears on the back the names of men well known in the public life of our country, and one or two who arc distinguished Members of the House of Commons. If the statements contained in this pamphlet, are true—if these statements are substantially true—I say that here we have a record of commercial criminality and of bad administration that it would indeed be very difficult to parallel. I would like to suggest that the terms of reference under which this Commission is going to work should be wider, so as to take in the whole question of administration in that country, and especially in so far as that affects the life of the nation. To take one or two sentences in this pamphlet:
      "The fact presented is that no single native of the Mashona and Matabele and kindred tribes owns, either personally or through membership of his tribe, a foot of land, a spring of water, a sacred graveyard, a patch of garden, or even a plot on which the native hut is erected."
      I say if that statement is true, this is obviously a case for very, very serious and close investigation, and for reformation as well. On the last page of this pamphlet we are told that, whilst this company could have its case prepared out of public funds,

      2197
      and the natives themselves were compelled through taxation to pay for preparing the case for the white settlers, they were not allowed to contribute towards funds to prepare their own case. If that statement is also true, it is high time we had an investigation of a very thorough kind. I do not want to go on quoting that pamphlet. 1 only hope it has been read by Members of the House who have received it, and I submit that the very closest investigation should be made into the allegations that are contained in it. I have in my hand the photograph of a certificate of registration supplied to the natives of Rhodesia. It is rather difficult to believe that certificates of this character—at all events framed as this particular one is—do exist in the- twentieth century and under the Union Jack. We have here the phrase, "For the protection of the employer," and we have the phrase, "In case of desertion."
      Mr. G. MURRAY: Would the hon. Member state what the certificate is? Is it a passport?
      Mr. SPOOR: This is a certificate of registration. I am quite willing to allow the hon. Member to look at it if he wishes to.
      Mr. MURRAY: Certificates and passports are rather different things.
      Mr. SPOOR: But the very phrases upon that permit are of a character quite out of harmony, I believe and hope, with our methods of government, and I suggest that we will shortly need in this Empire of ours a new Wilberforce to combat the tendency towards what might be described by many people, not as ordinary working conditions, but as very real slavery. I do not believe that this method of administering a country like Rhodesia is one that would commend itself for a single moment to the public of this country were they aware of the actual facts, and I believe—again, I say if the statements that have been made are true— I believe that the continuance of such a state of affairs will disgrace our national honour and lower our national prestige. Therefore, I would repeat that, having regard to the serious charges that have been made, the terms of reference of this Commission should be wide enough to include the most thorough investigation into the case. I should like to refer briefly to the case of the natives of South Africa. In South Africa we have, I believe, some-
      2198
      where about 3,500,000 native people, and about 1,500,000 whites. Prior, to the Act of Union, prior to the South African War, the natives of that country enjoyed privileges equally with whites, but since—
      Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Only in the British parts- not in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony.
      Mr. SPOOR: I certainly meant my words to be understood as referring only to what then was a British Colony. I know that so far as the Transvaal and all parts under Dutch control were concerned, the natives had no privileges at all. As a. matter of fact, that remark will really emphasise what I want to say next. Since the Act of Union there has grown up, as ail familiar with South Africa knew must inevitably happen, a considerable Boer ascendancy in all political matters. The result of that ascendancy is that the Boer point of view, so far as the native is concerned, is unduly emphasised, and from the moment of the passing of the Act of Union and the coming into existence of the-new South Africa, there has been a definite tendency to eliminate and destroy the rights of the natives. The natives feel this very strongly. They have petitioned this Government, so far without success. They have applied to the Colonial Office. The Colonial Secretary tells them that that is a question that cannot be dealt with here; they must fight their case out in South Africa. I want to ask how it is possible for the natives of South Africa to fight their case out in that country when in that country they are denied all constitutional rights? Those people consequently look to the Imperial Government, and I submit that this is a question in which the Imperial Government should exercise every power they have got in order to restore to the natives of that country the conditions which existed before the Act of Union, and in order to let them recognise that, so far as British rule is concerned, it is our desire that all classes and all colours s' hall live equally and freely together, enjoying common rights.
      I would, therefore, urge the Colonial Office to do everything in their power to remedy a state of affairs which is a die-grace to the Government of South Africa, and I cannot but believe that any representations made by the Imperial Government to South Africa would have some effect. At all events, I do think that, inasmuch as the natives in the British part of South Africa before the Act of Union

      2199
      enjoyed conditions of freedom and equality with the whites, it is our duty, an obligation rests upon us, to see that they enjoy no less privileges than they did then. It is a difficult question. One is not blind to the very, very complex character of the problem with which we have to deal. I would like to suggest to the Colonial Office —Ido not know whether or not it is a practical proposition—that an attempt should be made to bring about an exhaustive study of the native question in South Africt, if possible in conjunction with the Union Government, and the investigation might be, say, pretty much on the lines of the investigation which is now being conducted into Indian affairs. I do not know how far it would be possible to follow that line, but this is a question for which a certain primary responsibility rests upon the Imperial Government. It is because I feel this question of the treatment of the natives, which, after all, is one of supreme importance not only for our good name, but also in the interests of the maintenance of stability within the Empire —because, I say, I believe that, 1 offer the suggestion I have just made.
      Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Before I deal with the point that has been dealt with by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in regard to South Africa, I should like to express my appreciation of the wide survey which has been given by my hon. and gallant Friend who represents the Colonial Office here, and more particularly for the lead he has set to all Colonial administrators in holding aloft a standard— a standard which is high and new. Towards the end of his speech he referred to the remarkable development which has taken place during the War and during the Peace Conference of our Imperial organisation. I am very glad, in one way, that he put that first in the survey of the Crown Colonies and the Protectorates for which he is more directly responsible. I hope it means, in his own mind at any rate, that he contemplates the separation at an early date of the Dominions Department of the Colonial Office, and the handing of it over to some other Department altogether. The Colonial Office have quite enough to do without undertaking the very responsible task of the development and administration of the Crown Colonies and Protectorates. I hope that before many years are passed that we shall see the Dominions Department out of the hands of the hon. and
      2200
      gallant Gentleman altogether, and more directly under the Prime Minister. Take the question which was referred to by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down—the very important native question in the Union of South Africa. I do not think he exaggerated at all. I think the evils there are very great indeed. It is extremely difficult for the Colonial Office— which is hardly in a position, or perhaps is not in a position, to have the necessary weight behind it—to make an effective representation to the Dominion Governments and urge them to act in this matter; whereas if the Dominions Department were transferred to the Prime Minister it would have behind it the weight of authority of the Prime Minister in making any such representations. They would, I think, be received in quite a different manner by, say, the Dominion Government of South Africa, who would feel that, they were not on a level with the Crown Colonies and Protectorates, but that they were being addressed as equals; therefore, they would be more ready to listen to the representations put forward by this country in the interests of the native population.
      Having said that in general, I want to come, to the question which has been referred to by the Leader of the Liberal party and by the hon. Member who has just sat down—Rhodesia. I am sorry that my hon. Friend who sits beside me and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for one of the Divisions of Worcestershire have put their names to a pamphlet which has been issued to Members of this House, and which, to my mind, exaggerates, if it does not altogether misrepresent, the truth of the situation in regard to the natives in Rhodesia. I can only speak in this matter—I have nothing to do with the Chartered Company—as one who has visited Rhodesia—as one who has seen the natives in the country, has seen the white settlers, and travelled in both Northern and Southern Rhodesia, in Matabeleland, and Mashonaland. I assure the House that things in Rhodesia, as regards the treatment of the natives, arc immeasurably better than they are in any other part, certainly than in any part of the Union of South Africa, and, to my mind, considerably above the level of what they are in British East Africa. On investigation it will, I think, be found that the Chartered Company's treatment of the native population—certainly since 1893—has been most creditable.

      2201
      I want to refer at the outset to the question of the land. The right hon. Gentle man on the Front Opposition Bench said that the natives of Rhodesia, numbering 800,000, had no land. I have seen the magnificent native reserves. I have seen them and their land in Rhodesia being cultivated in their own way with their own flocks and herds. Apart, however, from the evidence of my own eyes, we have the evidence of a recent and very important impartial Imperial Commission on the subject. This phamphlet of Mr. Harris's must not obscure the fact that the Imperial Commission had nothing to do with the company, although one member of the Commission held office under the company. The Commission consisted, in addition to that man, of two of the most noted Imperial Native Commissioners— namely, the present Resident Commissioner of Uganda and the present Resident Commissioner of Basutoland, both directly under the Imperial Government. These formed the Native Reserve Commission in 1915. They issued a very important. Report on this very question. What was their finding? Their finding was that the original term of the charter, which made it incumbent upon the British South Africa Company to set aside sufficient native reserves had been amply fulfilled, and that there was 1,000,000 acres in excess of the immediate requirements laid aside for native reserves. That is a very important fact. I must say—and I want to be quite fair—that, in addition, the Commission recommended that certain alterations should be made in the delimitation of these reserves. I understand—and I hope to hear a reply from the Colonial Secretary on the point—that the Government have accepted these findings. I am perfectly certain that the Chartered Company is willing and anxious to carry out at the earliest possible moment those rearrangements of the native reserves recommended by that Imperial Commission. The real misconception at the root of Mr. Harris's pamphlet, which has been circulated to Members of this House, is the whole case which he tried to make out on the basis of the private ownership of land. Why, take the natives of Southern Rhodesia. Except where they have been in contact with the white settlers, they have not got the slightest conception of private ownership in land. Take the situation in Matabeleland before the Matabele War. That, if ever there was, was a military Socialistic State. Even the cattle belonged
      2202
      to Lobengula. The whole country belonged to Lobengula. As to the question of ownership, everything was held by the body of warriors which, in comparatively recent times, came up from Zululand, killed off the native population, and asserted themselves as a military aristocracy, or, rather, cleared off everybody, and became a militarist power in the western part of Southern Rhodesia. The Matabele were a very fine, warlike people. They had many of the virtues of the savage as well as many of his shortcomings. Their principal shortcoming was that they invariably raided all their neighbours, killed off the men, took all the women and cattle, and left the country in a pretty depopulated state. There is no doubt there is a case to be made out for the Matabele War which has not been put by my hon. Friend who has just sat down.
      8.0.P.M.
      There is no doubt that for many years it had been the practice of the Matabeles on every possible opportunity to raid the Mashonas, who were much inferior in stature and physique, and who were then under our protection, and whose country was then being developed by our enterprise. They looked to us to protect them. The warlike Matabele were held together on a war basis. They were a constant menace to the peaceful development of civilisation in that part of Africa, or anything near it. I think that for the final clearing out of the Matabele abundant justification has been made. I have sat under Lobengula's tree on a little rounded hill outside Buluwayo. Then, I suppose, it was surrounded by very small patches of cultivation, by a few kraals, and by a small number of cattle. Within a mile of that kraal you have now got a British railway junction and a town inhabited by a population well into four figures. The place is laid out with new water-places. Citrus fruit is growing, and there are all the signs of modern development and civilisation. The Matabele, instead of being a gentleman who killed his fellow men, is prevented from carrying out that practice. He discharges many functions, from that of a cultivator of the soil to a rickshaw runner, and various other occupations of the kind. The Mashonas are now largely developed and are increasing in numbers, and their herds are increasing. There is another side to the question to that which has been put by the hon. Member who has just sat down. I am positive that the more this-

      2203
      land question is investigated the more you will find that the Chartered Company, against which there seems to be a prejudice merely because it is the Chartered Company, and because it is a financial company, its administration, considering its difficulties and its great task, has been of a remarkably high order, and reflecting great credit upon the British pioneers who have gone out under the auspices of that company, and have developed the gold mines and other things.
      I will tell the House, from my own experience, that there is no better system of schools in the world than the few created by the Chartered Company in South Africa. They are some of the best in any continent. You get all kinds of people attending them, and very good they are. I was enormously impressed by the speed and the energy of the development I saw-going on in Rhodesia. I have been in German East Africa and other places, and what struck me was that you do not see cringing natives but they were really getting a good chance. I think 1 ought in justification of the Chartered Company to remind the House that as the hon Member quoted Lord Ripon he, after the Matabele War, completely exonerated in a letter Dr. Jameson from any responsibility for what has been made so much of in Mr. Harris's pamphlet.
      Every Imperial investigation into the conduct of the Chartered Company has vindicated the conduct of that company. I want the House to realise that in the case of the Chartered Company there is a system of diarchy, the commercial and the administrative side. I know nothing about the commercial side, and I am not a business man. 1 do not own any shares in any company, and therefore I am not qualified to judge as to how the commercial undertakings of this company have been managed, but from what I have seen on the administrative side I am confident that the administration of the Chartered Company will come out well in any investigation. I will quote Lord Selborne's view which was given when he was High Commissioner in 1906:
      "The shareholders have embarked an enormous capital on which they have not yet received a penny dividend, yet without their assistance, backing the imagination of Mr. Cecil J. Rhodes, the civilisation of Southern Rhodesia would not have existed, and the territory would probably have been lost to British South Africa, The people of Southern Rhodesia have had an extraordinary share of trials; they have had to pass through the ordeal
      2204
      of no less than three wars and of two periods of cattle disease of exceptional virulence, while with the rest of South Africa they have suffered from recurring years of drought. They have lived too close to the scene of action to appreciate, as I Can, going to Southern Rhodesia for the first time, the marvellous results of these sixteen years of self-sacrifice- and work. Sixteen years ago Mashonaland and thirteen years ago Matabeleland were absolutely uncivilised countries. To-day they reproduce on a small scale exactly the same sense of civilised and progressive industry in township, in farm, and in mine, as is to be found in the Cape Colony, Natal, the Orange River Colony, or the Transvaal. These results strike the newcomer as little short of marvellous, and the credit for these results must be divided between the shareholders of the British South Africa Company and the people of Southern Rhodesia."
      That is the tribute of a High, Commissioner which ought to weigh with this House. I have risen to defend the action of the British South Africa Company in regard to their treatment of the native, and I am glad that this House is showing, and I hope will continue to show, a deep interest in the progressive welfare of the natives of Africa. This is a thing we have to watch very carefully in East Africa particularly. Throughout the whole of the "Dark Continent the native problem is giving a good deal of anxiety, and rightly so, to all thinking men. The native problem has to be handled sympathetically, and I am perfectly certain that mere commercial and trade considerations are not enough nowadays in dealing with African development, because we have to develop the latent resources in such a manner that it will not be to the moral disadvantage either of the native or white settlers.
      I am perfectly confident that unless we are constantly making a great effort to raise the level of black civilisation the white civilisation in contact with it will go down and deteriorate. Unless the Colonial Office and all the agents of the Government are constantly setting a standard to the white settler and constantly reminding him of the great responsibilities of every white who is in contact with black races, that there will be a demoralisation of the white race, and there will be no real advancement or progress. The black will progress on very different lines to the white. The whole problem does deserve consideration and study. Some of the work the British Native Commissioners has been very good, and I will give as an instance Northern Rhodesia and the Easternparts of Cape Colony, which deserve the study of everybody throughout Africa. This is a difficult problem requir-

      2205
      ing careful study, and we must be careful how we handle it. We may raise up a great war of racial feeling if we are not careful. Hitherto, in many places, I am glad to think that the black race and the white race have shown that mutual respect for each other which alone can be the ground upon which mutual co-operation is to take place.
      There is a growing tendency to regard the native of Africa merely as a means for the development of commercial enterprises, but that is absolutely fatal. If in the rightful desire for commercial development you lose sight of the enormous moral responsibility you will make a mistake. Take German East Africa, which we understand comes under the mandate of this country. There you see a population of seven and a half million blacks. If you use these people in a mere commercial manner and not to assist in the development of their country without realising the great moral responsibility, and bringing elements of education—not necessarily Western education—to those natives, that will be a wrong policy. It is often the fashion to laugh at missionaries. I never laugh at them here. The missionaries have done a great deal, but unless something of the missionary spirit is behind the service of the Crown in dealing with the African natives, unless there is that sense of moral responsibility, I am afraid that looking over years in the future we may be raising up a great problem in Africa which may prove very difficult to handle. It is one of the greatest problems the Colonial Office have before them. I am particularly glad to hear the note that was struck by the Under-Secretary this afternoon, in which he set a higher standard than the pre-war standard. I hope that will always be so in our administration in Africa.
      Mr. G. MURRAY: I desired to take part in the Debate this afternoon with special reference to the question of Rhodesia and the various questions which have been raised in regard to the natives. I lived in that country some years and I administered a section of the Transvaal as a Commissioner. At the same time, it is not my intention to do so, because I wish to take she House to another part of the Empire which is hardly so much developed as South Africa, and which requires the special consideration of the Colonial Office to-day. Before doing so, I think it has given me the opportunity of saying how fortunate I believe the country is in having
      2206
      Lord Milner at the head of the Colonial Office to-day. I served under him for five or six years in South Africa, and I had a very full opportunity of observing the work that he did and the immense good which he achieved for South Africa. I will mention only this one fact, that his policy after the war in the Transvaal especially was to promote agriculture, which he believed in as the backbone of the prosperity of that country; and he raised revenues through railway rates and other unpopular methods in order to set up an agricultural department in the Transvaal which was unrivalled then and, I think, has been unrivalled ever since. As a result of that, a spirit of emulation was established in Cape Colony, Natal, and other British States in South Africa during the ten years preceding the outbreak of this last great War, with the result that the agricultural exports and production in South Africa have doubled themselves.
      I should also like to congratulate the Under-Secretary for the Colonies upon the very eloquent and able speech which he has delivered this afternoon. He carried us to many countries and over many subjects, and he showed by that speech that he has a great grasp of what is necessary to develop the Empire, and a great grasp not only of the direct problems, but of the more abstract problems, like health and education, which have to be solved. I believe that under the guidance of Lord Milner and the present Under-Secretary for the Colonies our Colonial policy will be based on a broad and practical spirit.
      The part of the Empire to which I wish to take the Committee this afternoon is British West India. British West India is some 2,000 miles from here. It consists of a chain of islands which reach in a semicircular form from Jamaica to Trinidad and on to British Guiana. It comprises a very large area. There are many problems in connection with these islands which it would not be possible for me to attempt to deal with in this Debate; in fact, I could not deal with one-eighth of the problems which concern these places. I would like to mention particularly, with regard to the islands themselves, that perhaps the most important matters which concern them at present are, first of all, the steamship services from the United Kingdom and from Canada, and, secondly, the cable service, which has been referred to in this House at Question Time during the last two or three weeks. These are matters which are

      2207
      of special importance to the West Indies at the present moment; and in connection with the cable service, I do think, from the point of view of promoting British trade, it is extremely important that as soon as possible the charges for cables between the United Kingdom and the British West Indies, and between Canada and those Colonies, should be so reduced as to make them as cheap, if not cheaper, than cables to the United States. In South America we have this very large territory of British Guiana. It is the only British Colony in South America, and it is, therefore, our special duty to do all we can to promote its development in order to indicate to the South American Republics that we believe in the possibilities of South America, and that we do not consider the South American Republics are able to do more for their countries than we can do for British Guiana.
      British Guiana, I believe, is a great deal larger than Uruguay, although the population of the latter place, and the trade also, is four or five times larger than that of British Guiana. What is the reason that British Guiana has not been developed as it should have been? Here is a huge country, 90,000 square miles in ex tent, with only some 300 square miles of it developed for the production of rice, sugar, and other tropical produce. This huge hinterland of 90,000 square miles includes 70,000 square miles of magnificent forests of hard and soft wood, including the hard wood which was utilised in connection with the construction of the Panama Canal. It has huge waterways with a sufficient volume of water to give all the power that is necessary for every kind of industry that can be developed in the country. In the olden days I believe British Guiana was the El Dorado of Sir Walter Raleigh. We know that diamonds and gold are there, we know that bauxite is there, and here is this magnificent territory, with all these wondrous properties, with only its fringe on the coast line developed! I am not going to suggest that the Colonial Office or that the Colonial authorities in British Guiana have not attempted in one way or another in past years to develop this Colony. There have been many schemes with this object, but they have always remained on paper.
      Just before the War the Imperial Government and the Colonial Office took this matter seriously in hand, in conjunction with the Colonial Governor and the
      2208
      Colonial authorities, and they devised a scheme for a railway which was to start from the capital town of British Guiana, Georgetown, a place with 50,000 inhabitants, and was to be taken right through to the Brazilian border, a distance of 300 miles, with the object of developing the timber property, the gold and silver mines, and so on. But the trouble in British Guiana is, and that trouble will remain until some definite steps are taken, that there is a very small population compared with the size of the country. It is a population of about 320,000, composed partly of East Indians, and the remainder of Negroes and Chinamen, with a comparatively few Whites. It is perfectly obvious that with this small population it would not be possible to develop this huge territory unless the Imperial Government came forward with special assistance towards that end. The point arose, supposing that the Imperial Government does give assistance—suppose it conies forward with a loan at easy rates of interest—what control will it have over the expenditure of the Colony? I should mention that the Constitution of the Colony consists of a combined Court. That Court has power over the finances of the Colony, and any matter that arises out of those finances has to be submitted to that Court, which would have almost complete control over it. For a year or two before the War broke out a controversy raged round this question of Constitution because the Imperial Government suggested, and, I think, very rightly, that if they were to come forward and make loans to the British Guiana Government, either for the purpose of developing the railways or for the purpose of improving the harbour in Georgetown, they should have a great deal more control over that expenditure than it was possible to have through the present Constitution or with the advice of the Government of the Colony. I contend that the whole basis of the trouble centres round the small number of the population of the Colony—320,000, the great majority of them taking 2s. or 3s. a day as their taxable limit. It does not matter what you do with regard to the Constitution; you will ultimately, if the people of the Colony have to assist in a large degree in the development of the Colony, have to come back to this point, What is the number of the population of the Colony and what is their taxable capacity? If that is the case, in view of the very strong

      2209
      objection which I feel would still be taken when this scheme of development arises afresh, would it not be wiser to devise some scheme whereby the Constitution of the Colony were left untouched, in so far as that part of it is concerned in which the greatest development has taken place and concerning which the combined Court has most of its work to do.
      A very reasonable solution of this question would be to cut off the strip of British Guiana which is already developed—1,000 or 2,000 square miles—and to leave that as the Colony of British Guiana, ruled, as at present, through a Colonial Government, including the Council and the combined Court, and that the Imperial Government should themselves set up, at the back of this developed strip, a High Commission; that the Imperial Government should have full powers over this High Commission; that all this vast territory of some 90,000 square miles, with all its possibilities, should, just as Mr. Chamberlain did when he put through that railway through British East Africa to Uganda, be taken over by the Imperial Government and developed to the very best measure that is possible. I believe that is a feasible scheme, and 1 believe it is a reasonable solution. I believe, further, that that solution would not find great opposition, if any at all, in the Colony of British Guiana today, because I do not suggest it as an eternal solution, but as a temporary measure which would go on for such number of years as might be necessary to develop that huge territory. It would not be requisite to set up a different administration altogether. That territory might be administered through the Governor of British Guiana, with the help of the Executive Council, which has unofficial members on it, to keep a sort of liaison between the Colony of British Guiana and the new High Commission. I think if that were done it would untie the hands of the Imperial Government, it would free the hands of the Colonial Government from the responsibility which they know is theirs, but which they are unable to face because they have not got the money, they have not got the population, their taxable capacity is limited—it would do all this, and I put it forward not as a new proposal, but as one that has been made before, but which I believe appears to-day in the practical arena.
      The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the question of the machinery
      2210
      of reconstruction which he hopes to set up in various Colonies and Protectorates for which we are responsible. I welcome his remarks because, from my knowledge of those places, I agree with him that it is just as necessary to reconstruct in health, education, general development, and so on, in those places as it is in this country. But as I listened to him I could not help feeling that, perhaps due to a sense of modesty, he had not referred to what ought to be the fountain-head of reconstruction of the Colonies and Protectorates. I refer to the Colonial Office. As one who has served for some twenty years under the Colonial Office, I do not wish to be thought to have any desire to attack that Office or to say anything which would hurt their feelings, because I had, and I hope I still have, a number of friends in that Office. My association has been so close with its work that it would be impossible for me to regard it with any other feeling than one of the greatest respect and regard. But at the same time, even friends may be allowed to criticise friends, and I feel that the Colonial Office is out of gear, and is not sufficiently modern for the requirements of the present day. I admit that during the past ten or fifteen years much has been done to modernise and to bring up to date the machinery of the Colonial Office, but I believe, in these days of reconstruction, a great deal remains to be done. I have been very glad to read speeches made by Lord Milner, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which he has foreshadowed the separation of the Dominions Department of the Colonial Office from the Colonial Office. I believe in that way by cutting off this limb—by cutting off a limb we very often strengthen the rest of the body—it would leave the way clear and open for a greater concentration upon the very great problems of development and otherwise which concern our Crown Colonies and Protectorates. Today the Colonial Office- is understaffed and overworked.
      Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Hear, hear.
      Mr. MURRAY: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees with me. I have a deliberate reason for making this statement. I make it from my own knowledge and experience, having worked in the Colonial Office for two years. Any office which is understaffed and overworked cannot conduct its duties properly, because it is not possible for the heads of the Department,

      2211
      the principal clerks and others to give sufficient time to the greater problems that ought to be and have to be dealt with all the time. Bundles of paper rush through the Office—I am speaking now of my own experience—from morning till night, going up to the principal clerks, who have to give attention to small details instead of the large problems. They go on rushing through and rushing through and there seems no relief. What we require in the Colonial Office is, first of all, more expenditure on staff. 1 say this almost under my breath, because 1 fully realise that economy must be the order of the day. But there is such a thing as false economy. The expenditure of £2,000 or £3,000 a year extra in providing more clerks would relieve the congestion and enable the principal clerks to give more attention to the larger problems. The result of the present system has been that you have the Colonial Office divided into separate Departments, and it is only occasionally, owing to the stress of work, that the heads of the various Departments—when I speak of Departments in this connection I mean one Department representing the African Colonies, another Department representing the West Indian Colonies, another representing Fiji, and so on—are able to meet and discuss the various problems that are pressing in different parts of the Empire, and to attempt to co-ordinate the policy.
      I suggest for the consideration of the Under-Secretary that if it were possible it could or might be done by the formation of Committees within the Colonial Office: Committees formed of principal desks who would discuss weekly or fortnightly or at whatever period was most convenient, the different important problems affecting the particular Department with which they are specially concerned. If such Committees were set up much good would accrue to the Colonies. I would further like to see committees formed of business people concerned in operations in the different Colonies to act in an advisory capacity to the Colonial Office. I do not suggest that it would be possible—in fact, I know that it would not be possible—on questions of policy to take the decision of these Advisory Committees. Our policy must be directed and guided by the Secretary of State, responsible to this House, but I do believe that such Advisory Committees would be able to give a great deal of sound and excellent advice in connection with questions especially affecting develop-
      2212
      ment with regard to agriculture, shipping, harbours, railways, and so on. I put forward this proposal in the hope that it may be given consideration. I cannot pass from this subject without saying that we ought to get that spirit inculcated into the development of our Colonies and Protectorates which has shown itself in the Dominions for many years. the Dominions have always shown that they do not recognise difficulties and that they believe in vigorous and prompt action. That is the spirit which ought to permeate the Colonial Office, and the Colonial authorities. I know it permeates in a larger degree than either many settlers and others who have gone overseas to take up their abode.
      Reverting to the question or British Guiana, I am convinced that the most important problem with which we have to deal there is the question of population. No scheme of development with regard to railways, harbours, or anything else can possibly be of avail there unless it runs concurrently or is accompanied by a scheme for the further colonisation of that Colony. The Under-Secretary, in his admirable speech, has recognised that something is necessary in this regard, and I urge that every step should be taken by means of approaching the India Office or any other country which is likely to be able to provide population for this huge undeveloped territory, because unless that is done any 6cheme that can be devised will be quite futile. What objection can there be in India, for instance, to a scheme which cut out the old indenture system as we have known it, though in the West Indies that indenture system has been exceedingly well carried out and has done a great deal of good? A tribute to this effect was paid by a Commission consisting of an eminent Civil servant and an eminent native of India who visited the West-Indies about four or five years ago. That system has been of great assistance in the West Indies? It has been administered to the best advantage and everything was done for the good of the Indians who were brought over. But I understand that this indenture system is doomed. Therefore we have to face the facts as they are. As a substitute, I believe that it would be possible, by means of a colonisation scheme, of bringing whole families across—I will not say how many—to colonise that huge territory without in any way hurting the feelings of India or upsetting the prejudices which they have formed upon this

      2213
      subject. In conclusion, may I say that we have a much greater responsibility now towards our Colonies and Protectorates than we had before the War by reason of the help which they have given us during the War, the great sacrifices they have made, and the manner in which they have ranged themselves at our side.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I hope that the Under-Secretary will allow me to thank him heartily for that portion of his admirable speech which he devoted to the need of education. A better system of education is, indeed, a crying need of the tropical Colonies. Some years ago I drew the attention of the Colonial Secretary to the need of a better system of Colonial education. It was too much to expect the Government to pay attention to that in the middle of a great war, but I am glad that, now that Peace has come, the Government are going to take the matter up, because there is urgent need for a university system of education, of scientific investigations and of better instructors, particularly in agricultural education, both British and native. But I wish most earnestly to emphasise that though you may improve your education system and your railway system as much as you like, yet you will never get the highest production and the greatest contentment in the Empire unless you recognise the right of this native to security of tenure in his land. I was particularly pleased to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Captain Ormsby-Gore) said on this question. Security of tenure is the very keystone, not only of loyalty and contentment, but also of commercial prosperity. So long as you treat the native merely as a hewer of wood and a drawer of water, as a person destined to labour merely for the white man, so long as you deny him equal privileges with the white, so long will you have discontent and disloyalty, and so long will you omit the means of obtaining the highest amount of produce from your Colonial territories.
      What are the most prosperous portions of tropical and South Africa? Is not your export of cocoa from the Gold Coast enormous? The producers of this enormous output of cocoa are the native producers. Natives are the owners and cultivators of their own land. It is not plantations, but it is the smallholders that are the cheapest producers. Take again Basuto-land, which is the most prosperous and financially the strongest portion of South
      2214
      Africa. They never have a deficit and they are now in a position to lend money to other places. There is nothing more splendid than the way in which the natives have come to our assistance in this War, and there is nothing more pathetic than the way in which they place their faith in all the splendid announcements of ideals which we have made from time to time during the War. They really have believed that we fought this War for liberty, and for the weak and small nations. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that what is going on in the mind of the black worker is what has been going on in the mind of the white worker. The white worker is tired of being treated as a mere cog in the wheel. He is asking the fullest development both spiritually and morally. The black worker is doing exactly the same thing.
      That brings me to the question of the treatment of the natives of Rhodesia. I have got no particular vendetta against the Chartered Company. I am not sure that I have not got some shares in the company myself, though as they do not pay a dividend it does not matter much whether I have or not, but I do not think that my hon. Friend who spoke will deny the fact that whereas in days gone by the natives had security for their own private tenure they now have no security whatever. On unalienated lands they are merely there on sufferance at the present moment. They may be evicted out of their ancestral lands at any moment. In fact, I am not sure that Commissioners are not going round warning them that they will be turned out. I am also not sure that the Government at the present moment are not preparing an edict to evict them. It is idle to tell me that the natives in those conditions are being governed in the best possible way. Neither can it be asserted that in the reserves they have security of tenure. Only a few years ago the reserves were cut down by 6,000,000 acres. What guarantee have these natives of Rhodesia that the reserves will not be again cut down? My hon. Friend said that was perfectly true when he stated that the natives in Rhodesia were a good deal better off than the native under the Union Government, and than those in British East Africa. That is not saying very much The natives in the Union territory are most shamefully misgoverned. It is true that they are given reserves, but whereas

      2215
      5,000,000 natives are given only 13 per cent. of the land, 87 per cent. of the land is given to the whites, who number only one and a half millions. I am informed that these natives are working under a system which is more or less veiled slavery. They are subject to the law of passes. If they wish to leave an employer they have to get from him a pass, and, of course, they are entirely subject to his will and caprice and sense of fairness. If an employer wishes to keep his servant on the land, he has only to refuse him a licence. If they migrate to the towns they are met by a threat to take away from them all the right of engaging in trade or holding property. If a white man strikes, he gets an increase in wages, but if a black man strikes with the object of increasing his 6d. or 8d. per day, he is fined or imprisoned.
      An HON. MEMBER: British liberty that
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: One cannot say that things are in a satisfactory state as far as the natives are concerned. Of course it is a delicate subject. My hon. Friend may tell me that we have no right to interfere, but you will never persuade the natives of that; you will never persuade them that His Majesty the King and the Imperial Government and Imperial Parliament have not the power to get them justice. They point out that the Indian Government can get at least an improvement in the conditions of the Indian, and they ask why the Imperial Government cannot get an improvement in their conditions. An hon. Gentleman opposite made the very good suggestion that there should be a joint commission to inquire into the condition of the natives. I would urge the necessity of that very strongly. It is a very favourable opportunity for interfering on the part of the natives. I would strongly object to a single inch of territory being handed over to the Union Government unless they set their house in order.
      9.0.P.M.
      I am not sure whether British East Africa is not governed a great deal too much in the interests of the white and too little in the interests of the native. I should like to know whether it is not a fact that no native has any right to an inch of land in British East Africa except along a strip ten miles from the sea. He is allowed only a small garden—not
      2216
      enough land to keep himself. The object of that is to make him go out and earn wages, in order to provide the white settler with an adequate supply of cheap labour. I am not surprised to hear that there is extreme discontent in British East Africa among the natives. The resident magistrates, I am told, are expected to act as veiled recruiting officers. They go to the local chiefs and tell them they have to provide so much labour. That is an entirely wrong position for a magistrate to hold. He ought not to be made the servant of the white settler and a sort of recruiting officer for labour.
      Those are the points which I wish to place before my hon. Friend. I am glad to think that we have in him a sincere friend of the native fellow members of the British Empire, and I am sure that we may rely on him to do his best to make their conditions as prosperous as possible and to give them the most favourable conditions for loyalty.
      Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: In the first place,. I want to associate myself with previous speakers in congratulating the hon. Member (Lieut.-Colonel Amery) on the interesting and instructive speech he delivered. The speakers have dealt with South Africa, Rhodesia, and some parts of India. I want to call attention to Gibraltar. Probably the hon. Member is aware that among the population of Gibraltar there is great discontent. Some time ago I introduced to the hon. Gentleman a deputation of the workmen. from Gibraltar. I have had some experience in the trade union movement; I have taken deputations with me to meet employers; but I am sure that the hon. Member will agree with me that he never had a deputation more intelligent, or one which it could state its case better, than those workmen did on that occasion-. Their grievance is that they are controlled by the military. They have no local representative Government there, and that is causing a great amount of discontent. We say in this country that taxation and representation go together. If that is so in this country and in the Dominions, I cannot see why it cannot be extended to these people in Gibraltar. They have no system of education. I do not know whether they have a Cowper-Temple Clause, as in this country, or whether they have a religious controversy. I understood that was confined to Wales and Ireland. In Gibraltar I find the children go to school in the

      2217
      morning, and every half-hour they get a religious service or a religious prayer. If children object to those services they are permitted to go out and play cricket and football in the intervals during the school hours. The population has to contribute to keep up this system. I also find here. according to a circular, that the people there have to pay heavily for drinking-water. These people have no representative on the local authority, and this is carried through by a sanitary committee and by the naval and military people. Surely if the workmen there are of the same type as the workmen who composed the deputation to which I have referred, the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that they are able to control or govern their own destiny. I hope that the Colonial Office will see to it that some kind of representative Government is going to foe extended to this small population.
      Another thing that struck me was this. You send engineers from this country to Gibraltar, and the trade union rate of wages is fixed in this country. You also extend to them all the laws of this country so far as Workmen's Compensation and other matters are concerned. If one of those is injured in an accident at work he receives his 25s. exactly the same as in this country. A native of Gibraltar working on the same spot who meets with an accident has to live on charity. Surely you ought to insure those workmen in exactly the same way as you compel employers in this country to insure their workmen. If one of the men from this country is killed his widow receives £300, but the widow of the native workman nothing at all. Surely those people ought to receive better treatment than that. I hope from the very high standard of the hon. Gentleman's speech that he will give those people an opportunity of developing their social, moral, and intellectual faculties and a chance to share the gains and honours of advancing civilisation. The hon Gentleman has struck a very high note, and I hope that the spirit of his remarks will be extended to the people of Gibraltar.
      There is one other matter to which I desire to refer. The Labour party of this country has received a communication from the Australian Labour party—it is a delicate question, and I will put it as briefly and as nicely as I can—complaining about the Governor-General, Sir E. M. Ferguson showing partisanship in the administration of affairs in Australia. This resolution was not sent from a trade
      2218
      union branch meeting or a meeting of a co-operative society, but by the National Labour Party of Australia. A question was put to the Colonial Office by one of my colleagues on Thursday, 3rd July, and the answer we received was:
      "The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the last two parts is in the negative."
      Surely that is not an answer that will satisfy the National Labour Party when they have a grievance against the Governor-General of Australia. I do hope, seeing that the hon. Gentleman has got some information in reference to this matter, that he will give us some explanation, when replying, as to the complaint that the Australian Labour Party has sent across here, so that we will be able to give them some definite reply. I must say that the Labour party here resent that reply, and the Australian Labour Party feel quite indignant about it. They think that, as a strong party in Australia, they deserve better treatment, especially after the comradeship that has been shown between their people and our people during the War; and we want to cement that good feeling and preserve it in the future. Therefore, I hope the hon. Gentleman will give us some satisfactory reply, so that we can send it back to our colleagues.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: This Colonial Office Vote is of peculiar importance this year. It is the first time that we have had, in my Parliamentary experience, a Conservative Administration in this country in charge of the Colonial Office. During the last fourteen years we have had a Liberal Administration, which has, on the whole, dealt with the Crown Colonies of the British Empire on liberal and enlightened lines, and we are all naturally nervous now lest there should be a change. of policy. I did not gather from the portion of the speech of the Under-Secretary which I heard that he was quite clear on the point which I wish to make. Hitherto we have tried to administer the Crown Colonies, particularly in Africa, for the advantage of the natives of the territory and in their interest. I do not say that we have always followed that policy, but certainly of late years every question that has come up has been judged in the Colonial Office on these lines as to whether the suggestion was really in the interests of the natives or not. Now, especially after this very expensive War, there is a temptation on the part of the Colonial Office and on the part of capitalists of

      2219
      this country to look upon our Crown Colonies in Africa from a somewhat different point of view, and from the point of view of how much raw material and how much dividends we can get out of them. That point of view is diametrically opposed to the principles on which the Colonial Office has been carried on in recent years. I take, as an example, Nigeria. It is the latest of the Crown Colonies. It has a large Mahomedan population, but it gave this country no trouble during the War, and, on the contrary, provided some excellent troops for work in East Africa, and also supplied us with very valuable war material. In Nigeria and to a certain extent on the Gold Coast the natives, cultivating the land for themselves, have supplied an ever-increasing export trade of cocoa and of oil from the coconut-oil trees. That has all been done as a native industry worked by the natives for the interests of the natives. In Nigeria we have gone so far as to prevent any white man acquiring land in the Colony at all, so that there shall be no interference with the natives' rights to the land. The country has increased in prosperity and in revenue under that administration. Nigeria, which ten years ago used to receive very large Grants every year from this country to make both ends meet, amounting, I believe, to £100,000 a year, is now a self-paying proposition, and the country itself meets all its expenses. The people there all have their own piece of land and cultivate it in perfect peace and comfort, and that system is one which we wish to see, not only in Nigeria, but in each of the other Crown Colonies as well.
      If we look at the government of those countries purely from the point of view of the natives, what we want to see is an independent people on their own land, whether held communally or individually, supplying us with the products of their toil. The new doctrine that has already started to creep in is that the native should not produce for himself but for a master. All through the ages there have been attempts to make the black people work for white masters. They tried first of all chattel slavery, and then the conscience of the world revolted against that and chattel slavery was put down, and they tried indentured labour, and only recently, I will not call them atrocities, but the cruelties and injustices associated with indentured labour so changed public
      2220
      opinion in this country and in India that indentured labour also has become a thing of the past over the greater part of the, British Empire. Then, seeing that indentured labour was no longer available to provide labour for the exploiters, they tried the poll tax, taxing natives so that they had to work in order to find the money to pay the tax. All these methods have been tried, but the best method, as-has been discovered recently, is to take the land away from the natives under the guise of sales by the chiefs of tribes to white exploiters. The chief is easily got round. A bottle of whisky does it in many cases, or the suave tongue of a lawyer and cash down does it in other cases, and the chief parts with the land, which is not properly his land, but the land of the tribe. That is done, and some company for growing coconut palms acquires the estate, and all the natives who used to live on that land have perforce to become labourers for that company. That is what has taken place very largely on the Gold Coast and in Sierra Leone, and indeed in nearly all the Colonies of France, Germany, and elsewhere. It is very simple to expropriate the native, and then the native has to become a labourer at any wage you may choose to offer him.
      It is true that we have not always preserved the rights of the natives. The Noble Lord opposite gave the case or British East Africa. I have many good friends in British East Africa, and it did not seem to me that the native of East Africa was at all a cringing native. What struck me most about the country was that the black man expected you to shake hands with him, which is certainly not the case in many British Colonies that I know of, but, although the native has a certain amount of self-respect, and although the white man respects the native, there is an enormous pressure to deprive the natives of their Reserves. If the natives are left with the Reserves they have at present, they have sufficient to cultivate and support themselves, but with the result, particularly after the very heavy death-rate of this War, that there is not enough labour for the white plantations, and the cure is obvious to the eyes of all the white inhabitants of British East Africa. They say, "There is a labour shortage, and we cannot get our plantations cultivated, at least not at the old wage that we used to pay, and, therefore, we must cut down the native Reserves, so

      2221
      that the natives will have to come and work." It is all perfectly simple if you look at it from the point of view of the exploiter, but the Colonial Office in the past has looked at it from the point of view of the native and has said, "it is not our business to provide labour, but to see that the natives have sufficient Reserves left to support them and their families," and we want to see that, even with a Conservative Administration at the Colonial Office, the interests of natives are still looked after, although pressure is brought to bear by all those who own shares or plantations in East Africa in order to get cheaper labour on the plantations. The same refers, of course, to Rhodesia and South Africa,. Indeed, as the Noble Lord opposite said, in South Africa the position of the black man is worse than it is in any Colony of the British Crown. Indeed, I think the Government should dissociate themselves in some sort of way from any responsibility for the only very thinly veiled slavery that is maintained under the Union Government of South Africa to-day. The land there is being rapidly taken away from the natives. The Commission of white men, with interests all on one side, allocate so much land to the natives and so much land to the whites. The natives, with an overwhelming majority of population— 5,000,000 to 1,500,000—they have allowed 13 per cent. of the land, and the whites they have allowed 87 per cent, of the land, and the 13 per cent. is the bush land, which is very difficult to cultivate and expensive to clear.
      But we are not responsible for the government of South Africa. We washed our hands of that when we gave them self-government, and, except for Basutoland and Bechuanaland, the natives have only an appeal to the Union Government, and I do not see that anything we can do, beyond expressing our opinion as Englishmen as to the way in which the natives are enslaved in that country, can be of very great service; but in Rhodesia we have the problem still before us in a peculiarly acute state at the present moment. The Government has appointed a Commission to consider what compensation is due to the Chartered Company for their government of Rhodesia during the past twenty-five or thirty years, and this Commission, we are informed, will name a figure which the Government will feel bound to pay. When they have paid that, Rhodesia will cease to be under the Chartered Company, and will become either a Crown Colony or
      2222
      annexed to the Union of South Africa. It is of the utmost importance that, before we surrender that country to the Union of South Africa, we should safeguard far more fully than we have in the case of the natives of South Africa the interests of the black people in that country. It is absolutely essential, for the Reserves that have been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford (Captain Ormsby-Gore) as being a native charter are absolutely at the mercy of the Chartered Company whenever the Chartered Company decides to cut down those Reserves. It is absolutely essential that these Reserves should be preserved for the natives themselves. Every pressure will be brought to bear upon the Government to leave the question of these Reserves to the South African Government. Every white settler in that country, human nature being what it is, is almost bound to be in favour of further curtailment of those Reserves. Not only is land put upon the market in that way at a cheap price, which white settlers can then buy, but also the very curtailment of those native Reserves throws the natives on to the labour market and cuts down the rate of wages which the white settlers have to pay. Therefore every influence on the spot will be used to cut down those Reserves, and it is more the duty of the Colonial Office to look at the question from the old traditional point of view of the interests of the natives first, and not in the interests of the prosperity and development of the country. Prosperity and development of the country very often means forced labour, and that men who were content to do little are forced to do much. We do not want to force anybody to work who is able to support himself and his family without doing more than he cares to do. It is all very well to talk about teaching men the dignity of labour, but, when that lesson is taught by the people who are going to benefit from that labour, I think we want to look at it very closely before we allow ourselves to be carried away by that sort of argument. What is the position in relation to the Chartered Company at the present time? The Chartered Company puts in n claim for £7,000,000 of our money. Of course, now a sum of £7,000,000 seems a mere trifle. We spend £100,000,000 in encouraging civil war in Russia, or £00,000,000 or £80,000,000 on building-houses at a loss. We think nothing of a million or two one way or another now. But still, £7,000,000 of our money in order

      2223
      to buy out the shareholders in the Chartered Company seems to me a proposition which will require some explanation to the electors of this country, not only at by-elections, but at the next General Election. I think it will be found very difficult to explain why the taxpayer is forced to pay these millions in order to buy out the Chartered Company, which, after all, has not been famed in the past for the method and the manner in which it has governed Rhodesia. The hon. and gallant Member opposite went back to the Matabele War. When the Matabele War was started, what the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I think, called the "Victoria incident" occurred in 1893. Dr. Jameson, who organised this expedition against Lobengula, recruited his army in this way, and this is the way in which the liability was built up which we are now asked to liquidate. Each member who joined the force was to be entitled to mark out a farm of 300 morgen (that is about 6,000 acres) in any part of Matabeleland No occupation was to be required, but a quit rent was to be. charged on each farm of 10s. per annum—not 10s. per acre but 10s. for a farm of 6,000 acres. Clause 5 of this excellent Agreement, which was entered into by the Chartered Company with every man who joined that force, conferred the right at any time to purchase farms from the members at the rate of £3 per morgen and compensation for all improvements, and they were given to understand that those farms would be paid for. Any member of the force was to be entitled to fifteen claims on the reef and five alluvial claims, the protection works to be 30 ft. of shaft within six months, and so on. Then Clause 7, which is the most delightful of all, was to the effect that the loot should be divided, one-half going to the B.S.A., and the remainder to the officers and men in equal shares. This was the Army which was going to fight the Matabele, as we were told by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, in order to protect the Mashona. I cannot help thinking that there were more solid considerations behind that expedition. But because there were those solid considerations given in 1893, I do not see why the British elector should now be called upon to liquidate the promise made by Dr. Jameson so long ago as that. I feel that it is putting an unfair charge upon the British taxpayer that he should have to meet claims of that sort, which are all
      2224
      lumped into this £7,000,000. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, going into most interesting biographical details, told us that he owned no shares in any company. That would account for his not appreciating the very important fact that the British South Africa Company has to keep its administration account and its commercial account separate. Knowing full well that this claim was to be presented, they managed very skilfully to interweave those accounts in such a way that it would require the genius of a Solomon to make out whether a given expenditure was on commercial account or whether it was on administrative account. During the War, for instance, they spent probably £100,000 or more on roads—in connection with the War. Are those commercial or are they administration? They helped from a development point of view as well as from an administrative point of view. How is it possible to distinguish between the items in a commercial account and the items in an administration account? The British North Borneo Company, which is a somewhat similar company, only has, naturally, one account, with administration and commercial items running into one, and then it is possible to audit the accounts and see where you are; but with these two rival accounts running side by side, run by directors whose natural interest it is to confuse the issue in order to enhance the amount claimed from the British public, I think hon. Members will see that there may be, in this £7,000,000 which we are asked to pay, items which upon no possible ground ought to be paid by the British public. To be told, as we arc, that when this Commission of Lord Cave's comes to a decision, however many millions it decides that we are to pay, we shall have to pay that money without the House of Commons being consulted, seems to be not only flouting Parliament but to be absolutely contrary to the intentions and wishes of ninety-nine out of every 100 taxpayers in this country. If this sum, or any sum, has to be paid, let it be paid by South Africa or someone who is nearer to the spot. We are not responsible for the losses made by the Chartered Company, nor to the shareholders who put their money into a gambling counter like that and then expect to avoid all loss by putting the burden on the back of the British Exchequer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite said that the native reserves are well protected and that the Chartered Company had the

      2225
      interests of the natives at heart. He told us about the Commission that went to inquire into those reserves. He knows probably, as well as I do that the Chartered Company were asked by the Colonial Office to nominate one of their native Commissioners who had the natives' interest at heart. They refused, and nominated the man who had been the chief in the agitation for the reduction of the reserves. The other two independent men, one from Uganda and the other, I think, from Basutoland, were old officials of the Chartered Company, and had the same interest. What can you expect from a Commission like that? It took no native evidence whatever, and it naturally decided, as a Noble Lord said, that the reserves should be cut down by 6,000,000 acres. A certain number of natives were deprived of their land without a penny of compensation, and were either forced to go into other already restricted reserves or to emigrate elsewhere, and go, as they probably did, on to the labour market and work for us. I say that a company which operates on those lines, without any cheek from the Colonial Office here, is not a body which can be fairly trusted either with the interests of the natives as a whole or with the good name of the English people, and still less with running up a bill which we have to pay. I do hope that the Colonial Office will remember right through that our good reputation throughout the world depends entirely on the fact that we have tried, although with many failures, to run our Crown Colonies in the interests of the native inhabitants. If we continue on those lines we shall be of some use in the League of Nations and in guiding other people in the same direction.
      We shall be able to keep up the high standards that satisfied our ancestors in the past. If, on the other hand, we are going to try to use our ownership of the Crown Colonies all over Africa and elsewhere, Guiana for instance, as a means of increasing the wealth and prosperity of England, as a means of increasing the shares in the various companies which deal in these Colonies and in many of which I am myself interested. [Laughter.] Yes, I take an interest in the countries in which I have investments, but 1 do not want to exploit the blacks in order to increase my dividends—if we are going to measure the success of our Colonial administration by seeing a rise in the price of the shares of the British South Africa Corporation or an enormous
      2226
      increase in the exports of tin from Nigeria or of copper from Rhodesia, then we may add to the wealth of England, but we shall destroy the good name of our Colonial administration.
      Mr. ROYCE: I have had the honour of living in one of these remote countries and of reading with considerable interest the Debates that take place from time to time in this House, and I must say that living under different conditions certainly induces a different state of mind. It may be that the free air of this country breeds a greater desire for freedom, and that we realise it to a greater degree than it can be realised elsewhere. Certain of the ordinary expressions that find favour in this House do not always find the tame degree of favour when read on the other side of the water. My hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down (Colonel Wedgwood) has had an opportunity of living in these countries and of coining into contact with the natives whom he so much desires to benefit. I wonder whether his opinions and feelings were precisely the same when he lived in those countries as they are at the present moment. I should hardly think so. I am sure that he is in deep earnest in his desire to benefit the native peoples. I have lived with these natives and worked with them for nearly forty years. I know the South African native very well and like him very much. I have the kindest feelings with regard to him.
      I should like to say one or two words with regard to South Africa and the Commission that is now going out. I am wondering what will be the ultimate result of the Commission's work. I should like to ask whether it is the intention of the Government in any way to facilitate the transfer of Rhodesia to the Union of South Africa. I was in South Africa when the celebrations took place on the occasion of the inauguration of the Union, and I know quite well the feelings of the South Africans. On that particular occasion they had an allegorical figure pointing to the North. Their progress is in that direction. Both General Smuts and General Botha have already made the necessary arrangements, and you have now an opportunity of making something in the nature of a bargain so far as the protection of the native is concerned. The Union of South Africa has not treated the natives as they ought to be treated. 1 know quite well that there are difficulties

      2227
      and great difficulties, but since these people persist in increasing in numbers, and they will persist in. increasing in numbers, you have to find some solution of the problem of how to deal with them. They are not always going to be kept as helots or under-dogs. You must make some provision for their expansion; they desire to progress.
      I think it is possible that their progression can take place alongside European progression though not in the same manner. It will have to be in an entirely different manner. The Undersecretary of State for the Colonies touched the right spot when he spoke of the progress and emancipation of the natives as taking place on an agricultural basis. It is in agriculture and agriculture alone that there is any hope of the progress and improvement of the native races in South Africa. A good many well-meaning people, including the Noble Lord opposite (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck), who wants to inaugurate universities and all that kind of thing, wish to go a little bit faster than the native mind is capable of proceeding. I have known a native whose father was a barbarian who took the highest degrees of his year in a university. T know that the native is capable of great things, but you must think of the question as a whole, and you must elevate the natives in the mass. It does not do to pick out isolated instances and educate him to a degree which renders him altogether unfit to associate with the tribe from which he sprang, because the white people will not have him.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does my hon. Friend say that we shall be overdoing it if we have one university for the whole of tropical Africa?
      Mr. ROYCE: No, I make no such assertion; but you must be careful in your method of progression. A good many institutions have been set up among the native peoples, and they have given them a good education and a trade. What has been the result? Their own people have not made sufficient progress to require the products of trade, whether boots, shoes, clothing, or houses. They build their own houses, and they do not need any boots. Their clothes consist of a blanket. Consequently, they neither warn, bootmakers, tailors, nor house-builders. The man who has been taught a trade of
      2228
      this description is, therefore, brought in conflict with European labour. European labour will not have him, and, having no-market for his products among his own. people, he drifts back again, a discontented man. 1 believe the regeneration of the people can be effected on an agricultural basis if you will make provision for them on the land, but it means a great deal more than providing them with the-ownership of the land. In many instances-it requires irrigation. In other instances it requires communication, railways, and markets. It is no use growing stuff unless you produce a markes for it, and herein lies the difficulty. My hon. and gallant Friend protests against the exploitation of the natives. You have got to do one of two things—either leave the natives alone or, if you come into contact with them, you have to bring them somewhat into line with European civilisation. There you are met with your difficulties. It is no use standing on a pedestal and saying, "We will not exploit the natives; we will not use their labour."' The very first thing the Colonists want is labour, and you never get enough of it. I have had a good many years' experience and never been in a position to turn away labour. I have always wanted a little more. After all, the labour employed by the Colonist is not quite the slavery that has been described by hon. Gentlemen in this House. I should like to say in this connection that, so far as my experience of labour is concerned, the price I paid for labour was very considerably higher than the price paid for labour in the agricultural districts in England, both in the quantity of money and in other adjuncts is the way of food and shelter. As to the wages ten years ago in Africa paid to the natives engaged on railway work and in mines, I do not know in any case where they were the miserable rates of a few pence per day. The wages there were higher than the wages paid to agricultural labourers in this country, and I believe it is very considerably better to-day than it was ten years ago, so that there was no great exploitation in that respect.
      But, coming back to the position of the native, I do agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that he must have an opportunity of making progress. He cannot be kept down. How is that progress to be effected? You must educate him. He must have a system of education that must

      2229
      be provided for him, and he must have an opportunity of something in the nature of representation. He had that opportunity under the old Cape Colonial Government, and in the Union of South Africa this House of Commons gave his rights away. You permitted those rights to be taken from him. It is no use grumbling now. You might have preserved his rights if you had fought for them, but you let them go, and now to-day he is in a position of having no representation of any description. I know quite well the white man who lives in South Africa with his wife and family realises that he has to live with these people. It is a trouble to him. Their number is greatly in excess of his own, and he is always possessed of very considerable fear. In that connection may I compliment the Colonial Office on the steps they are taking to prevent the surplus arms from this country reaching savage or partially civilised people? That is a step in the right direction, and another step in the right direction, also communicated by the Under-Secretary, is the partial prohibition of the importation of liquor. If he would make that prohibition absolute, he would do a great deal more than by putting 17s. 6d. on a gallon.
      Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Perhaps my hon. Friend did not understand me. We have made it absolute so far as our Colonies are concerned, but the international agreement between ourselves and the French fixes a minimum duty of 17s. 6d. We are prepared to go beyond that and to make prohibition absolute.
      Mr. ROYCE: I hope he will make it absolute, because, if it is not made absolute, it is an encouragement to unscrupulous traders to sell liquor diluted with most pernicious mixtures, and the native, once he has a taste for it, will not let it go. But it is more dangerous to put a high duty upon it than to make it free, because the liquor is so much worse. At any rate, I do congratulate the Colonial Office on the steps they are taking in this direction. I was greatly interested in the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. I congratulate him upon that statement. I congratulate him and the country on the Noble Lord who is at the head of the Colonial Office. I am not concerned whether the Noble Lord is a Unionist, Conservative, or Liberal. I have had opportunities of judging of his capacity and knowledge, and I am quite safe in assert-
      2230
      ing that, with the direction of the Colonial Office in his hands, and assisted by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, we need have no fear of any retrograde movement in the administration of that office.
      Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I certainly cannot complain of the very kind and sympathetic reception of what I had to say, and I only hope I may succeed in giving an adequate and a more or less connected answer to the very many interesting points which have been raised in this discussion. I should like to begin by expressing my appreciation of the remarks which have just fallen from the hon. Member for the Holland Division (Mr. Royce)—remarks informed by practical knowledge and shrewd common sense, and by an understanding of the difficulties of the very complex problem which arises when white and native civilisation come in touch with each other, as they inevitably must in the development of the world. I should like to begin by dealing with the question of Rhodesia, which has been raised by a large number of Members. I think it is necessary to point out, first of all, exactly what the situation is with which the Government and this Committee, is faced. It struck me, in listening to a great many of the speeches made by hon. Members, that they were under the impression that the Chartered Company were asking us to take them over or to pay the bill they have run up, and were coming to us for compensation, and that we, instead of deciding for ourselves, were leaving the matter blindly to a Commission. That is not the position. If the Chartered Company had come a year or two ago to the Colonial Office or to this House to ask to be taken-over, we should undoubtedly have endeavoured to make the very hardest bargain we could in the interest of the taxpayer of the country, and undoubtedly it would have been open to the House to raise any and every question that seemed fit to the House with regard to the reasons why the Chartered Company had not been successful financially, why it had administrative deficits, and why they wanted us to make good those deficits. But, of course, that is not the question.
      The question with which we are confronted is this: The issue was brought before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as to whom the land of Rhodesia belonged. The result of their findings was that it belonged, not to the parties who in

      2231
      the first instance raised the issue, that is the Chartered Company, or the Rhodesian settlers, but that as a matter of fact the land was the property of the Crown, and that the Chartered Company's occupancy was not that of a commercial venture in land, but that of an administrative agent of His Majesty's Government. Therefore, they were entitled as an agent to have the actual deficit and loss made up by the principal whose agent they had been throughout. This was the legal finding of the highest Tribunal of the Empire, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If it had been a matter purely of legal interpretation, one might have gone to the Law Officers of the Crown. But to find out exactly what that decision involves in pounds, shillings, and pence, you must get the opinion, not only of eminent lawyers who have to keep in mind the legal aspect of the findings of the Commission, but also of eminent experts on the financial, actuarial, and accounting sides of the question. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said that the most important thing was a careful investigation, and that the investigators should be men whose standing was unimpeachable as accountants. I do not think any standing could be higher in this respect than that of Sir William Peat, the third member of the Commission. It seems to me entirely beside the point, and a misunderstanding of the situation to make the suggestion which both the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal party, have made, namely, that the House of Commons should be represented on a Commission whose only object is to interpret the conclusions of the Judicial Committee. That confusion was again shown by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, who suggested that the Commission should go further and inquire into the question of the administration of the Chartered Company. If that were the question at issue I should certainly wish Members of this House to sit upon that Commission and to consider the policy under which that administration has been carried out. That is not the case. The issue is how to translate into actual cash terms the findings of the Privy Council. I believe, from that point of view, the Commission we have chosen is the very best we can possibly secure. The Government are absolutely prepared to trust the judgment of that
      2232
      Commission as to what has been the proper and necessary expenditure of the Chartered Company in accordance with the findings of the Privy Council.
      10.0.P.M.
      My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked me one or two specific questions in regard to the Commission, which I had better answer in the order which they were put. He inquired if it would be left to the Commission to decide whether the expenditure of the Matabele War was necessary and proper expenditure. These expenses were actually in the statement of claim put in by the Chartered Company. Obviously a Commission which has to examine statements of claim by the Chartered Company ought to consider, and will consider, whether the Matabele War expenditure was proper and necessary. As to his second question I hope, not without success, I have endeavoured to make matters clear. The Government is prepared to accept the assessment of the Commission as a correct and final interpretation in terms of money of the Privy Council judgment. But the whole question as to what action is to be taken, whether this House decides upon the policy of indemnification, and what has to be the future of these various matters, will have to have the fullest discussion before this House is asked to vote any sum of money. I think the answer I gave yesterday to the Leader of the Labour Party perfectly reasonable in this connection. The Report of the Commission will, of course, be laid before Parliament to enable the fullest discussion to take place. I am also asked whether the meetings of the Commission will be in public or in private. The procedure is for the Commission to decide, but I understand that certainly the evidence which is given and taken upon the spot in Southern Rhodesia will be evidence taken and given in public. Another question has been put as to the representations to the Commission on behalf of the natives. Telegrams have already been sent to the High Commissioner in South Africa telling him to inform the elected members of the Legislative Council in Rhodesia of the appointment of the Commission, and to give full publicity to the matter, so as to enable all parties interested in any way to see that their representations are heard.
      An HON. MEMBER: At whose expense?
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman apprehend that the charitable people of this country have to pay the bill for the native case put before the Privy Council?
      Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes, Sir. I am aware, at any rate, that the cost of the Aborigines Protection Society before the Privy Council was contributed by their friends, but I do not see that that necessarily involves the payment either by the Chartered Company or the Imperial Government of witnesses who may individually appear to represent their views to the Commission. Then there was the further question as to whether the Commission will take account of the land which the Company are now developing in their commercial capacity, or of the lands which they have alienated. I certainly assume that all receipts by the Company for lands which they have alienated will be taken into account, as well as the value of the lands which the Company are now developing in their commercial capacity.
      I should like to say one or two things as to the general question of the position of the natives in Rhodesia, and as to the attack which has been made upon the administration of the Chartered Company, in that rather lurid and, I think, highly inaccurate appeal which has been circulated to hon. Members. That attack is largely made up of an attempt to revive the controversies of more than twenty-five years ago which turned on the original acquisition of Rhodesia by the Chartered Company. Those matters were discussed very fully at the time, and I do not think any verdict we could arrive at by reopening those discussions would differ very much from the verdict of Lord Ripon, who in 1894 expressed his sincere satisfaction that the result of the inquiry had been to exonerate Dr. Jameson and the officers of the Chartered Company generally from the serious charges made against them. If we are, however, to go back to the history of this question, it is quite right to remind the Committee of what the position was before the Chartered: Company. The appeal is full of references to the "ancestral" lands of which it alleges the natives now no longer own a foot, even for the purposes of a burying ground. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition even spoke of lands which they had occupied for hundreds, if not thousands of years! What are the facts? The Matabele
      2234
      invaded the country that is now Southern Rhodesia even in oar own lifetime. I have-talked myself to village headmen about. their own recollection of that invasion. They were defeated by the Boers, who found them ravaging and plundering the country which afterwards became the Transvaal, and drove them across the Limpopo. Here they camped and made their headquarters among the weaker Mashona tribes, and harried and raided and subjected them to tribute as it seemed good to them. It may have been a happy position for the Matabele warriors. But certainly the position of the great majority of the inhabitants of that country was anything but a happy one. They had no security of tenure either in their lands, their cattle, their wives, or their lives. It is quite true that the expedition which in the end broke the Matabele power, was induced to do so, among other reasons, by the offer of farms, of mining rights, of a share in the looted cattle. Those were the inducements which were required to get the force together. 1 admit that it would have been very much better if the Imperial Government itself had been willing to extend its responsibility by putting an end to the misrule of the Matabele, I think Mr. Rhodes took the best instrument near to his hand by the formation of the Chartered Company to bring about results which he desired, not for the sake of gain, but for the sake of Imperial security.
      But I would remind the House that no sooner had those events taken place and the whole thing been inquired into than the Imperial Government did take very effective steps to look after the interests of the natives. I remember that Sir Marshal Clarke was appointed especially to watch over the interests of the natives, and from that date the general control of the work of the native Commissioners has been under the closest supervision of the Imperial Government, through the Imperial High Commissioner in South Africa. My hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken when he says that there is no check upon the treatment of the natives.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: I said there was no check upon the exploitation of the natives.
      Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: There has been supervision, and the Chartered Company has in all these matters been acting as the agent, and the closely supervised agent, of the Imperial Government. Take

      2235
      the question of the land. The Commission which inquired into that subject was appointed by the High Commissioner, and two out of the three were members of the Imperial Civil Service serving in the Chartered Company, and they were responsible to the Imperial Government.
      Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the two principal members from Basutoland and Uganda were Imperial servants under the High Commissioner or actually servants of the Chartered Company?
      Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: One of them, the present Governor of Uganda, was at one time administrator of North-Eastern Rhodesia. The other, Major Garraway, may have been with the Chartered Company at some time or other for all I know. But if so, it was an incident in a long career of Imperial service, in Bechuanaland, on the High Commissioner's staff at Pretoria, and as administrator of Basutoland. I know that administration has won the highest praise of those who are anxious to safeguard the welfare of the natives. In any case it would be an entire mistake to say that the natives in Rhodesia have been expropriated and own not a foot of land. Outside the reserves they have the right to acquire land and have, I believe, done so in some instances. As regards the reserves they are in the same position as the natives in Nigeria or other parts where we have not countenanced the establishment of individual ownership of land and have recognised communal tenure of land. These reserves, which are very large in extent, were subject to alteration only in the sense that if a Commission appointed by the Imperial Commissioner after full consideration of all the interests involved thought there should be some modification, that might be sanctioned by the Government. As a matter of fact it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government that these reserves, now comprising nearly 20,000,000 acres—a reduction not of 6,000,000 but of 1,000,000 acres on their former area—shall be varied or diminished in the future, at any rate if the needs of the native population remain what they are to-day.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will you make it part of the bargain with the South African Government?
      Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: In the possible transfer of Rhodesia to the Union the interests of the natives would certainly have to be safeguarded and considered by the Government. In this connection I will say that the whole question of what form the government of Rhodesia shall take in the future when and if the Chartered Company terminates is a matter in which we must be guided by the opinion of the people themselves. The Imperial Government have to take, as far as the natives are concerned, the initiative in safeguarding and protecting their interests. But as far as the interests of the white people are concerned, as to the conditions under which they may wish to join the Union, or live under some other form of government, the Colonial Office will naturally have regard to their views.
      There has been a good deal of criticism of the position of the natives under the South African Union. It is very difficult for me to say anything on that subject, as also it must be difficult for the House. But there has been something said by more than one hon. Member that I am bound to correct. It has been assorted that the rights enjoyed by the natives in the old British Colonies before the Union have been abolished, superseded and done away with. That is not the case. The only right enjoyed by the natives in the Cape Colony before the Union that can be regarded as modified is this that before the Union they had a right not only to vote for the Cape Parliament but, if elected, to sit in it. They now have the right to vote for the Union Parliament, but not to sit in it, but they retain the right to sit in the Cape Provincial Assembly.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that they have lost the right to own land?
      Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I am not aware of it, but I will certainly look into the point.
      Mr. SPOOR: Have the natives not represented their grievances to the Colonial Office?
      Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes, I myself received a deputation and heard their full case. I am bound to tell this House what I told that deputation, that having set up the principle of responsible self-government in South Africa we are bound by it. My hon. Friend said, in a tone of regret, that the Boer point of view has tended to

      2237
      predominate in the administration of native affairs in South Africa. All I can say is that I put against that the statement of the Leader of the Opposition who singled out the giving of wholly responsible self-government to South Africa as the most successful vindication of British principles of liberty. You have to take the thing as a whole. We have set up in South Africa responsible self-government. Some of us may hold different views as to the many difficult problems arising out of the presence, side by side of a white community and a large native community with very limited political rights, and in some parts with no rights at all. But I might mention that the grievances which the natives voiced to me with the greatest indignation were grievances arising not out of the action of the Union Government but out of the action of organised white labour in South Africa which refuses to allow the natives to take part in skilled work. I do not see how we can, consistently with the broad principles which govern the British Empire, interfere in an issue of that sort. There must be a certain measure of faith in these matters. We may feel that were we in the place of those entrusted with the direction of these matters, we could solve these problems better than they do, and more quickly. That is as may be. We must trust in the same principles of liberty which in this country have seen one class after another which had no power, no vote, no social advantages, gradually rising up to a better and- a stronger position. We must hope that in South Africa, too, in the same way those principles will in the end lead to a solution of the very difficult problem of the relations between the races.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Did not the Government of India intervene on behalf of the British Indians in Africa with marked success?
      Lieut-Colonel AMERY: It depends much what is meant by the word intervention.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: They interceded.
      Lieut-Colonel AMERY: They interceded, but the most successful intervention was that of an individual Indian, Mr. Gandhi, who by his own personality, his persistence and his courage got much farther in the solution of the problem of the Indians in the Transvaal than any official
      2238
      representations could have done. To come to the general question of the natives in our Colonies, the essence of our principle of government in the vast areas under our charge is to govern in the interest of the native inhabitants and for their welfare, and in particular with regard to the question of labour, the solution which we look to is that of interesting the native in the possibility of working his own land for his own benefit as an independent cultivator. I am entirely with my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood) on that. But there is the suspicion in his mind that we wish to develop these countries for the benefit of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom. Our object in bringing about development is to raise the condition of the inhabitants and provide opportunities for a better and a higher scale of living. We want reconstruction in regard to health, in regard to liquor, in regard to education, in regard to all the things which will make those countries hotter worth living in for their inhabitants. But in doing so there is undoubtedly an overflow of benefit and wealth and opportunity for the people of this country. I do not see how you can create wealth and prosperity in one part of the Empire without creating it in another, and I am not prepared to accept in the least the doctrine that there is a diametric opposition in governing in the interest of the natives, and attempting to develop the country from the Imperial point of view. It you build 100 miles of railway in Nigeria that is directly in the interest of the natives. I defy you to build that railway and to benefit the natives without bringing further opportunities of trade for the people of this country, a free flow of materials to this country, and in all probability a free flow of goods from this country for the natives to purchase.
      I cannot pass over the very interesting speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Murray). The causes of the neglect of the West Indies are not' difficult to understand. The area of the Colonies is small in most cases. They are scattered. Under our principle of leaving each particular Colony to look after itself it is not easy to get development. The hon. Member quoted British Guiana, and compared it with Uruguay. I quite agree that British Guiana is just as rich as Uruguay, but I would draw the hon. Member's attention to certain differences which are reasons against easy

      2239
      development, and which offer an explanation why British Guiana has not been developed before, in Uruguay you have open country, but in British Guiana, immediately behind the coast, you have dense forests, primeval forests.
      Mr. G. MURRAY: Uruguay is not as accessible as British Guiana. I was thinking of Paraguay.
      Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I was thinking of Uruguay, not Paraguay, but in either case you are dealing with open country, easily opened up for cultivation or stock-raising. In British Guiana you get a long way inland before you get to the open Savannah country, and you have to face immense cost in cutting down timber. In Uruguay you are on the estuary of the greatest river for navigation. Even in Paraguay you are within easy access of some of the biggest steamers. In British Guiana it is true that we have very fine rivers, but they tumble over cataracts fairly close to the coast, and navigation has not been established. In order to develop British Guiana properly you need large capital and initiative, which has hitherto not been within the scope of a small Colony of 300.000 inhabitants. My hon. Friend (Mr. G. Murray) made a vary interesting suggestion when he advised the Colonial Office to separate the undeveloped interior of British Guiana from the little coastal strip, which should continue to be governed as at present, and that in the undeveloped interior the Imperial Government should set up a High Commission, with Imperial funds or private funds, for the purpose of developing that part of the country, leaving the Colony to carry on its own local work as in the past. It is a suggestion well worthy of consideration. I agree entirely that in the West Indies we want a progressive policy of development, of railway building, etc. All these things require a great deal of capital, and I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's coadjutor (Mr. Baldwin) would by any means smile upon any suggestion from me that we should have a few extra millions for British Guiana. But we shall have to find eventually from public or private sources capital to develop any part of the Empire which is not developed as it should be, and the country would be well repaid. After all, the development of the Empire
      2240
      in the long run, as is true of the Government of the Empire, cannot rest only on the shoulders of the people of this country. It must be a common task for all the self-governing Dominions. I hope the time is rapidly approaching, and it is approaching, when Canada will take a continually increasing interest in the economic development and welfare of the West Indies. She has already done a good deal through the mutual preferential tariff, which has been in existence for some years, through the development of shipping lines, and through the interest which Canadian capital has begun to take in the West Indies. I only hope that that interest will go on increasing and that Canada will take an ever-increasing share in developing and helping forward not only the West Indies but every part of the dependent Empire, which at present is so largely dependent on this country alone not only for its Government but also for its economic development.
      Before I close I would like to answer some other points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Mon-mouth (Mr. Griffiths) raised very interesting and very difficult questions as to the position of the inhabitants of Gibraltar. I met the deputation of Gibraltar workmen which he introduced. They stated their case very ably. I would not for a moment suggest that they were not representative of a population which is in the matter of quality a people capable of self-government. But we are confronted with the difficulty of a population of less than 20,000, who live not merely adjacent to but actually inside a fortress, which is closed at sunset every day and into which there is no ingress and from which there is no egress during the night. It has practically no water of its own. Therefore it requires most careful measures to secure any drinking water in the ease of a siege. One of the complaints of the deputation was that drinking water costs them 2½d. a gallon. The only water that can be got from pumps or wells in Gibraltar itself is brackish. That is the water which they get free or for a minimum charge for washing purposes. The only drinking water is got by means of an elaborate system of corrugated iron roofs from which it is collected. It is the absolute standby for the garrison, and it is as essential that the garrison should have control of the water as to have control of its ammunition. That is one of the difficulties

      2241
      of entrusting the water supply of the place to a locally elected body. I agree with my hon. Friend that certainly, when it comes to measures of social reform, in dealing with such things as workmen's compensation and education, where you have got a little European community which for overwhelming military reasons you cannot treat as a self-governing community, you are, at any rate, under a very serious obligation to try and bring it up as nearly as you can to your own level in this country: and since that deputation has been received the Secretary of State has communicated with the Governor with a view to seeing what can be done to introduce a more efficient system of education and also to deal with the question of workmen's compensation and other similar questions.
      Another point which the hon. Member raised was the question of the protest of the Australian Labour party with regard to the action of the Governor-General, and he suggested that the Australian Labour party was very much disappointed by the answer which I gave in this House, indicating that the Secretary of State would not be able to take action in the matter. If there is one principle of self-government which is universally admitted to be necessary for the effective co-operation of all parts of the British Empire, it is that one Government of the Empire, in dealing with another part of the Empire, does accept the Government of the day as expressing the view of the nation and cannot go behind the back of the Government of the day to deal with the Opposition. 1 mean it is impossible for His Majesty's Government to carry on negotiations, as regards, for instance, native questions in South Africa or in any of the Dominions, with anybody but the Government of the day, and it seems to me that that principle must remain. We can deal only with constituted Governments. If another Government should be returned, and that Government, as a Government, likes to make representations to us on any subject, then, naturally, we shall be bound to listen to those representations and to consider them.
      I am afraid that, one way or another, I have taken up a good deal of the time of the Committee this evening. I know I cannot satisfy entirely all the different critics of the administration of the Colonial Office. I remember, in passing, that I never answered the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr.
      2242
      G. Murray) on the deficiencies of the Colonial Office itself. I hope I may be allowed, at any rate for to-night, to pass over those deficiencies, if they exist. I admit frankly the shortage of staff and the overwork of the officials in that Office. Perhaps I may be allowed to pass them over for the occasion, and perhaps also to deal with that particular criticism again, if the prayers of the Leader of the Opposition be not fulfilled, and I am still in the same place a year hence.
      Mr. ACLAND: In thanking the hon. Gentleman for his most interesting speech, which we all appreciated, there are two things I want to mention. One is, did I understand, in reference to the Cave Commission, that they would be willing to take evidence in this country?
      Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: They began taking evidence yesterday.
      Mr. ACLAND: They will be willing to take evidence if there is any offered to them. I think the hon. Member made a rather important statement with regard to the natives in Rhodesia. I understood that he said quite definitely that in any transactions which may in future take place with regard to Rhodesia the position of the natives with regard to their land would be safeguarded and secured. That is a quite important statement, and very satisfactory to those Members of the House who are interested in that question. I take note of that statement, and, of course, we shall be certain that it will be faithfully carried out when the time comes.
      Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: I would like to add my small meed of praise for the very interesting speech which the hon. Gentleman made. I want to say a word or two about the inhabitants, of Gibraltar. I was one of the garrison there, and I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's plea that, because Gibraltar is a fortress, therefore the inhabitants cannot be given any measure of local self-government for absolutely local needs. Without in any way interfering with the safety of the fortress, the British workmen in Gibraltar and the native-born Spanish working classes could be given some say in the purely local matters of the fortress. At present they complain that they are badly exploited by the commercial classes which have control of the markets and the commercial arrangements of the port, and that they have no say or means of repre-

      2243
      seating their grievances to the Governor. They say that the Governor pays more attention and lends a more sympathetic ear to the rich commercial men than to the poor working man of British or native descent. I do ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to reconsider this matter, because I am convinced that a measure of local self-government would be healthy, would make them contented, and would raise our prestige in Gibraltar, especially in the eyes of the inhabitants of Spain, and we must remember that the Andalusians are rather advanced in politics. I would also refer to the position of Malta. When we had driven out the Andalusian garrison we promised the Maltese that their customs and institutions would be preserved. We all know that there has been trouble and discontent there, but I hope that the Constitution will be re-established as soon as possible, and I am sure that Malta will be as loyal as it has been for a hundred years.
      Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again. To-morrow.

    GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS BILL.
    Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

    SUPPLY [29th July].
    Resolution reported,
    "That a further sum, not exceeding £107.000 000, be granted to His Majesty on Account for defraying the Charges for Army Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920."

    SUPPLY [14th July].
    Resolution reported,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £2,113,254. be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments, including certain Special Services arising out of the War.

    SUPPLY.

      STANDING COMMITTEE (1st JULY.
      Resolutions reported,

      "1. That a sum, not exceeding £190,000. be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will coma in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of "March. 1920. for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Oversea. Trade.

      (2)That a sum, not exceeding £15,213, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Office of His Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues.

      (3)That a sum, not exceeding £170,890, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."

    SUPPLY.

      STANDING COMMITTEE C [10th July].
      Resolutions reported.

      "1. That a sum, not excelling ££0,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, to meet Expenditure arising from the Government Control of Railways in Great Britain and Ireland under the Regulations of the Forces Act, 1871.

      (2)That a sum, not exceeding £1,183,337, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1920, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the Contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary, and other Grants in respect of Police Expenditure.

      (3)That a sum, not exceeding £473,000, be granted to Hit Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920 for the Expenses of the Prisons in England, Wales, and the Colonies, including a Grant in Aid of certain Expenses connected with Discharged Prisoners.

      (4)That a sum, not exceeding £285,332, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Inspector of Reformatories, and for the Expense of the Maintenance of Juvenile Offenders in Reformatory, Industrial, and Day Industrial Schools and in Places of Detention under the Children Act, in Great Britain.

      2245

      5. That a sum, not exceeding £46,875, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expense of the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Criminal Lunatic Asylums at Broadmoor and Rampton."

      SUPPLY [17th JULY].
      Resolution reported,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £25,273,922, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office. including Telegraphs and Telephones."

    SUPPLY.

      STANDING COMMITTEE C [9th JULY].
      Resolutions reported,

      "1. That a sum, not exceeding £112,751, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920. for the Salaries and Expenses of certain services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund, and other services connected with the Mercantile Marine, including Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions.

      2. That a sum, not exceeding £6, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for meeting the Deficiency of income from Fees, etc., for the requirements of the Board of Trade, under the Bankruptcy Act, 1914."

    SUPPLY.

      STANDING COMMITTEE C [23rd JULY].
      Resolutions reported,
      "1. That a sum, not exceeding £1,164,797, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses in connection with His Majesty s Embassies, Missions, and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other Expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote.

      Class II.
      2. That a sum, not exceeding £1,312, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland.

      3. That a sum, not exceeding £34,757, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."

      The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
      ADJOURMENT.—Resolved,
      "That the House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Sanders.]
      Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes before Eleven o'clock

  EX-SERVICE MEN (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT).
  IMPORTS (RESTRICTIONS).
  IMPORTS (RESTRICTIONS).
  VICTORY LOAN.
  VICTORY LOAN.
  SURPLUS GERMAN ASSETS (CLAIMS).
  SURPLUS GERMAN ASSETS (CLAIMS).
  PROBATE REGISTRY CLERKS (PENSIONS).
  PROBATE REGISTRY CLERKS (PENSIONS).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (APPOINTMENTS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (APPOINTMENTS).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  HERRINGS.
  HERRINGS.
  PROFITEERING.
  PROFITEERING.
  TEA.
  TEA.
  MEAT.
  MEAT.
  THAMES PAGEANT.
  THAMES PAGEANT.
  YACHT PATROL SERVICE.
  YACHT PATROL SERVICE.
  INCOME TAX (NAVAL PENSIONS).
  INCOME TAX (NAVAL PENSIONS).
DEMOBILISATION.
  REINSTATEMENT IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT.
  REINSTATEMENT IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  TROOPS IN NORTH RUSSIA.
  TROOPS IN NORTH RUSSIA.
  VOLUNTEER FORCE (STAFFS).
  VOLUNTEER FORCE (STAFFS).
  HAY.
  HAY.
  ROYAL ARMY ORDNANCE DEPART MENT, WEEDON.
  ROYAL ARMY ORDNANCE DEPART MENT, WEEDON.
  ARMY SERVICE CORPS, GROVE PARK.
  ARMY SERVICE CORPS, GROVE PARK.
  RIFLE CLUBS (AMMUNITION).
  RIFLE CLUBS (AMMUNITION).
  GAS MASKS.
  GAS MASKS.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  COMMISSIONS.
  COMMISSIONS.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  PAYMENT IN CANADA.
  PAYMENT IN CANADA.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  SERVICE VETERANS (BONUS).
  SERVICE VETERANS (BONUS).
  HOLLOWAY JOINT COMMITTEE.
  HOLLOWAY JOINT COMMITTEE.
  WAR GRATUITY.
  WAR GRATUITY.
  WAR WORKERS' SERVICES (MEMORIAL).
  WAR WORKERS' SERVICES (MEMORIAL).
INDIA.
  NORTH-WEST FRONTIER EXPEDITION (CHOLEEA).
  NORTH-WEST FRONTIER EXPEDITION (CHOLEEA).
  ALI MASJID CAMP (WATER SUPPLY).
  ALI MASJID CAMP (WATER SUPPLY).
  ARMY MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  ARMY MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (GOVERNING (BODIES).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (GOVERNING (BODIES).
  SIGNPOSTS (LUMINOUS PAINT).
  SIGNPOSTS (LUMINOUS PAINT).
  WELFARE OF BLIND.
  WELFARE OF BLIND.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES (RATE).
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES (RATE).
  LONDON RATES (EQUALISATION).
  LONDON RATES (EQUALISATION).
HOUSING.
  BUILDING MATERIALS.
  BUILDING MATERIALS.
  MACHINERY (RATING).
  MACHINERY (RATING).
  FORGED CURRENCY.
  FORGED CURRENCY.
  DRUG RESTRICTIONS.
  DRUG RESTRICTIONS.
  BURGLARIES, METROPOLITAN AREA.
  BURGLARIES, METROPOLITAN AREA.
  LABOUR CONDITIONS, UNITED STATES.
  LABOUR CONDITIONS, UNITED STATES.
  TRADING VESSELS (WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY).
  TRADING VESSELS (WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY).
  WOOL (GOVERNMENT STOCKS).
  WOOL (GOVERNMENT STOCKS).
POST OFFICE.
  SUB-OFFICERS (WAGES).
  SUB-OFFICERS (WAGES).
  TELEGRAMS (SENDER'S ADDRESS).
  TELEGRAMS (SENDER'S ADDRESS).
  WALLASEY (STATUS).
  WALLASEY (STATUS).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT (MEN IN TRAINING).
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT (MEN IN TRAINING).
  VOTERS' REGISTER.
  VOTERS' REGISTER.
  AGRICULTURAL SUBJECTS (LECTURES).
  AGRICULTURAL SUBJECTS (LECTURES).
  BRITISH SOLDIEES' GRAVES (VISITS OF RELATIVES).
  BRITISH SOLDIEES' GRAVES (VISITS OF RELATIVES).
  ENEMY DEBTS (COLLECTION).
  ENEMY DEBTS (COLLECTION).
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION).
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON.
Thomas Wortley, Lord Bishop of RIPON—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a.
SWINTON AND MEXBOROUGH GAS BOARD BILL.
Read 2a.
COMMONS REGULATION (COITY WALLIA) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not know whether I might be allowed to put a question to the Government before we begin—a question affecting public business, which I ask for the convenience of the House. The Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill stands for Committee to-day, but rather low down upon the list, and it would be convenient to your Lordships if we knew what day the Committee will stand adjourned to in the event of our not finishing, or getting near finishing, the Committee stage this evening.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): Your Lordships will observe that we have a number of Orders on the Paper to-day, but I fancy some of them will not take very long. Two or three speeches, I understand, are to be delivered on the Finance Bill. The Committee stage of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Bill, which is in charge of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, is not to be taken to-day. The Report stage of the Local Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill will, I gather, be very short.
LORD PARMOOR: Quite formal.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Then we come to the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There are three Motions on the Paper as well.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not think Lord Stanhope's Motion is likely to take very long, and in any event we have to face the fact that we have to begin the Ministry of Ways and Com-
4
munications Bill, and I hope that we shall sit reasonably late to make as much progress as possible. With regard to a second day, I suggest that the Bill be put down to-morrow. To-morrow we shall have the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Bill carried over from today; the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill, in the name of the Lord Chancellor, which I do not think is likely to run very long; the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill, in Committee, and the National Health Insurance Bill, in Committee, neither of which Bills raise matters of acute contention. Lord Weardale has his Checkweighing in Various Industries Bill, which will be very short and formal, and the Land Settlement (Facilities) Bill, which is down for Second Reading, will perhaps excite a certain amount of discussion. After that, I propose that we shall continue to-morrow evening with the Amendments on the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill. I do not think I can express any opinion as to the day next week, should it be necessary, on which that Bill will be put down.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Will the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Bill keep its place to-morrow?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It takes its place in the Paper to-morrow.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Are you going to sit after dinner?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes tonight, and to-morrow I think.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is the noble Earl aware that at the end of business yesterday Lord Selborne asked the Leader of the House if the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Bill would be taken to-day, and he said "Yes"?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If that is correct—and I have no doubt that the noble Marquess is right—I am afraid Lord Curzon did not appreciate the point. I do not know whether Lord Selborne is coming down this afternoon on the understanding that the Bill is to be taken.
LORD STRACHIE: I heard distinctly the statement which the noble Marquess has alluded to, that the Acquisition of Land Bill was going to be taken to-day, and that is why I am here.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Then I apologise to your Lordships for having to announce that it is not to be taken to-day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is the circumstance that the Leader of the House told us that the Acquisition of Land Bill was to be taken to-day which has naturally misled the House.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It will be a matter of great regret to the Leader of the House, as it is to myself, that any inconvenience should have been caused to your Lordships.

THE CASE OF MISS DOUGLAS-PENNANT.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE rose to move—
"That whereas His Majesty's Government have refused to grant a judicial inquiry, this House do appoint a Select Committee to examine the circumstances connected with the dismissal of Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant from the Women's Royal Air Force, and that the said Committee have power to call witnesses, to take evidence on oath, and to ask for the production of documents."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the case of Miss Douglas-Pennant was debated at considerable length in your Lordships' House just two months ago. 'Therefore I do not propose to weary your Lordships by recapitulating the arguments then put forward, but I will state as briefly as I can the salient facts in this case. Then it will be my duty to lay before your Lordships some additional information which you did not have on the last occasion, and also to ask the noble Lord, Lord Weir, who is present in the House to-day, certain definite questions of which I have given him private notice. Yesterday the Leader of your Lordships' House lectured your Lordships somewhat severely upon the respect due from one House to another. The last occasion on which this subject was discussed in your Lordships' House you decided by a majority of more than three to one that a judicial Inquiry should be held. And what was the result of your Lordships' decision? The Government merely announced in reply to the question of a private member in another place that they did not intend to hold this inquiry. Obviously I should be neglecting my duty to your Lordships' House, and stultifying the decision that you came to, if I did not give
6
your Lordships an opportunity of taking such action as lay in your power. It is for that amongst other reasons—much more serious reasons—that I have again put the Motion on the Paper to-day.
I will draw your Lordships' attention to a second White Paper containing correspondence in regard to this case, and to a somewhat curious coincidence. The first White Paper was placed in your Lordships' hands on the morning of the debate in this House on the last occasion, May 29th, and the second White Paper was issued to your Lordships on the morning on which this Motion originally was to have come on, July 14. What is the reason? Why should those two Papers have been issued on the morning on which this question was to be debated in your Lordships' House? I think that if your Lordships will examine the Papers you will see the reason. If you examine them cursorily they appear to be a somewhat strong indictment against Miss Pennant, but the more you examine them the more you realise that they bear out her case and make it stronger than it was before; and I am bound to add it is somewhat hard on one of the ladies mentioned in this case, Miss Leonard, who claims to have reorganised the office of the Air Force and to have practically completed her work in April, for not a single one of the letters issued before Miss Pennant became Commandant has been signed. It may be that the office is not so well organised as Miss Leonard imagines, and therefore no signatures were put to these letters. It may also be that those signatures may be extremely inconvenient. I will tell your Lordships why. The Selection Board which chose candidates was composed amongst others of Mrs. Beatty, Miss Pratt and Miss Andrew. Those are the three women officers who resigned on July 1st. As your Lordships know I stated on the last occasion, and it appears to be fairly clear from a study of this White Paper, that the real reason why they resigned was because Miss Pennant refused to appoint five ladies to very important positions for which she thought they had not sufficient experience. Your Lordships will see that the dates in the case tally.
I turn to the bare outline of this case. On August 7 of last year the Under-Secretary of State for the Air Force, in reply to a question in another place, said—
"The Air Council have every confidence in Miss Pennant's ability and discretion.… She

7
was appointed to her present position (Commandant of the Women's Royal Air Force) because her experience and qualifications render her, in the view of the Air Council, the most suitable person available to carry out the duties attaching to it."
Quite obviously that statement must have been issued with the authority of Lord Weir. On August 16 Miss Pennant tendered her resignation as Commandant of the Royal Air Force, and the reasons she gave for her resignation were almost identical with those given by Miss Pratt (49A of the second White Paper). Miss Pennant's resignation was refused, and Colonel Bersey, who was the chief stumbling block to progress, was relieved of his appointment. On August 28, only eleven days after Miss Pennant's resignation had been refused, Miss Pennant was summarily dismissed.
I asked the noble Lord, Lord Weir, what it was that caused him to change his views from those stated on August 7 in another place—only three weeks before—and what it was that caused him to refuse her resignation on August 17, and to have her summarily dismissed on August 28, eleven days after? Had he changed his mind because an adverse report in writing had been made on Miss Pennant by General Paine or General Brancker, the only two officers under whose direction she served? We know there was no adverse report. In the letter of General Seely to Miss Pennant on February 11 (No. 26 first White Paper) General Seely writes—
"No written reports were made. Lord Weir satisfied himself as the result of very careful inquiry that you were not so well suited to carry out the duties of the appointment as other candidates who had more experience of that class of work."
Yet only three weeks before August 7 Lord Weir stated—or it was stated on behalf of Lord Weir—that Miss Pennant was appointed for those very reasons. What caused him to change his mind?
Let me read to your Lordships a paragraph in the King's Regulations for the Royal Air Force—paragraph 133. It is laid down there that an adverse report will be made out in the first instance by the C.O. or other immediate superior of the officer reported upon, and will be communicated to the officer concerned who will initial the report at the place assigned to him for the purpose to show that he has
8
seen it. Why was that policy not carried out in regard to Miss Pennant? There was no report to show and no report to initial. Then on whose report was she dismissed? What were the reasons for her dismissal? Three reasons were given, the first by General Brancker. He told her, "You are dismissed not because you are inefficient—you are very efficient—but because you are so grossly unpopular with all who come in contact with you that no one can work with you." I will have something to say with regard to the question of popularity presently.
The second reason is that given by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, himself in the letter to Miss Pennant of September 6, in which he writes—
"I had definitely come to the conclusion that you would not be successful in solving the difficulties which confronted you … and in particular in obtaining the sympathetic co-operation of the other women's organisations."
The chief obstacle and the chief difficulty with which Miss Pennant had to contend in order to make satisfactory progress was the blocking of Colonel Bersey, and Lord Weir appears to agree with that, because he approved of Colonel Bersey being replaced by another officer. He gave Miss Pennant exactly eleven days to get Colonel Bersey's successor instructed in his work, and to see whether she was found capable of solving these difficulties or not. Obviously the real reason is the second part of Lord Weir's statement that Miss Pennant was unable to gain the sympathetic cooperation of the other women's organisations. Did he ask Miss Pennant whether that was the case? What evidence did he take? Miss Pennant was never asked by Lord Weir, or as far as I can find out by anyone else, whether she had got on satisfactorily with the other organisations or not.
Now I come to the third reason. It is contained in Lady Rhondda's report (72a of the second White Paper). It is a remarkable document. In the first place she makes a comparison between the Women's Royal Naval Service and the Women's Royal Air Force. It was Lady Rhondda's duty to know, and undoubtedly Lord Weir also must have known, that no possible comparison could be made between those two Forces, and for this reason. The Women's Royal Naval Service started from small beginnings and gradually grew. It always had its proper complement of

9
officers, and therefore the organisation was comparatively easy. The Women's Royal Air Force started in this way. Fourteen thousand women and 53 women officers were transferred from Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps, and 2,000 women and 20 officers were transferred from the Women's Royal Naval Service. When Miss Pennant was appointed Commandant she found 16,000 women and only 73 women officers. I ask you how any comparison can be made between the Force which gradually grew, and one which started under such conditions.
The point which Lady Rhondda makes is this. She says there is a paucity of women officers; Miss Pennant complained of exactly the same thing. As Lord Weir knows, it was by her personal efforts that she succeeded in obtaining accommodation from the London County Council to be able to train women officers in batches of 200 at a time. That was not due to other people in the Office, who apparently thought that accommodation for 25 officers was sufficient. Miss Pennant realised the necessity and arranged accommodation for the 200.
What is the third reason in Lady Rhondda's Report? The foundation of her charge is really this, that Miss Pennant refused or had failed to appoint senior women officers. Those of your Lordships who have seen something of the organisation of the Army and of other military forces in this war will realise what a proposal that was to make. What would you do if you were appointed as a Major-General to command several thousand men scattered about over a very wide area, without a single regimental officer or noncommissioned officer to assist you? What in the world would you do, and what would be the use of you if you were so appointed? The first thing quite obviously is to appoint women to each unit, and when you have got those women officers appointed to each unit, then, and only then, can you appoint senior officers to supervise and help them in their work. But to reverse the position is merely a question of making jobs, and not helping the organisation of the Force.
I turn to the question of the dismissal itself. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when this case came before your Lordships on the last occasion stated that this was not an individual case, and he gave your Lordships to understand that if you agreed to an Inquiry in this case you
10
would be flooded with a multiplicity of other cases. It is news to me that justice should be refused to any individual, or a large number of individuals, because the cases are numerous. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor is now going to advise His Majesty's Judges to shorten their hours of labour and demand increased salaries, or refuse to take any cases at all because they are too numerous, but I should be surprised if he said that was so.
But, as a matter of fact, these cases are not numerous. The noble and learned Lord did not give any very great proof of his knowledge of military law and military customs when he visited the Expeditionary Force during the war, and I am not sure whether he can tell me what are the Regulations under which an officer can be dismissed from the Army. I have had considerable experience of the Army and I will tell you, and I am reinforced in my opinion by replies which were given in another place on July 15. No officer can be dismissed from the Army or the Air Force under any section of the Army Act except by sentence of a general Court-Martial. Miss Pennant was not given a Court-Martial. But officers may be asked to resign or to retire under several sections of the Pay Warrant and under one section of the Pay Warrant they may be dismissed from the Army. The wording of that one section, No. 525, is this—
"An officer shall be liable to be removed from Our Army at any time for misconduct."
Miss Pennant was not called upon to resign her commission. She was dismissed, and therefore, as the direct and, as I submit, as the natural result of Lord Weir's action in dismissing Miss Pennant from the Air Force, a stigma attached to her name, and every sort of scandal as regards her personal character was spread. Any officer who is dismissed from the Service in that way is invariably turned out of any club to which he belongs. He must have done some disgraceful act. It was quite natural that those who heard Miss Pennant had been dismissed from the Air Force should conclude that she too had done a disgraceful act. She has been described as the mistress of various people, and every sort of charge of the worst description has been made against her personal character. But I am quite prepared to grant that the Air Council and Lord Weir himself stated that there was no charge against Miss Pennant's personal character. If that be the case,

11
how was it that she was dismissed from the Army for misconduct? Quite obviously, the noble Lord set aside the King's Regulations, and disregarded the law.
There is one other argument that might be put forward, that Miss Pennant was not an officer in the Air Force, and therefore she would not come under any of the Regulations of that Force. I put it to the Government—can they produce a single other case of an individual who is not an officer being ordered to wear the uniform of that Force? Only this year His Majesty's Government passed a clause in the Army Annual Act enabling them to prosecute individuals for selling even articles of equipment to those who were not entitled to wear them. If you prosecute individuals, men in the street, for wearing uniform when they are not entitled to it, why was Miss Pennant not Court-martialled for wearing uniform when she was not entitled to it? And why was not General Paine, who ordered her to wear it, not Court-martialied? And why are the Air Ministry, who advanced the money to buy that uniform, not dealt with for expenditure which obviously was illegal? Whichever way you like to take it, if Miss Pennant was an officer of the Air Force then she was dismissed contrary to Regulations; if she was not an officer of the Air Force what right had she to wear uniform, and why did His Majesty's Government permit it? They prosecute the individual in the street; they are not prepared to take action with regard to themselves when they break the law.
Miss Pennant, although she had been injured in this way, does not demand reparation. What she asks is that an Inquiry should be made and His Majesty's Government have refused to grant that Inquiry. May I read to you a passage out of Magna Charta, which appears to me absolutely to meet the case—
"No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or be disseised of his freehold or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or any otherwise damaged, nor will we pass upon him nor send upon him, but by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land."
Does any noble Lord contend that Miss Pennant has not been "otherwise damaged," and contrary to the law of the land? How was this great Charter obtained? We read that "the oppressions of a tyrannical Sovereign compelled a confederation of the Barons to take up
12
arms for the redress of grievances." His Majesty's Government have refused an Inquiry. The House of Commons—the elected House—is totally uninterested in safeguarding the rights of people to a trial; it is left to the Peers of this Realm to take action against oppressions, this time of a tyrannical bureaucracy, in order that they should insist on a right of trial.
Why does His Majesty's Government refuse an Inquiry? One reason put forward is the score of expense—expense from the most profligate Government this country has ever had. The second reason is that Miss Pennant occupies an influential position. You cannot do sixteen years in the public service without getting an influential position. I have here a few quotations from a very large number of letters which have been received—I am flooded with letters even here. I should like to read you to start with one telegram that I received as I came to this House which was sent to me by Commissioner Lamb of the Salvation Army. He says—
"Elementary justice and need for sustaining organised discipline in national life in these days of unrest call for compliance in Miss Douglas-Pennant's request. God speed."
I have also resolutions passed by the Court of Governors of the University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire, from the City Council of Bangor, from a meeting representing 3,000 members of Anglesea workers, from the Bangor Trades and Labour Council, from the Holyhead Trades and Labour Council, and from the Association of Women Clerks and Secretaries in London. Here is a letter from a person who says—
"I have worked on many committees with Miss Douglas-Pennant and was much impressed by her wise judgment., and high sense of public duty."
Here is another written by one who in 1914–1915 had the privilege of working on a committee under Miss Douglas-Pennant and who "appreciated her wonderfully clear brain, reasoning powers, sympathy, and tact." Truly reasons why she should not be appointed Commandant of the Women's Royal Air Force! The last quotation with which I will trouble your Lordships is from the North Wales Quarrymen's Union—
"From our knowledge of Miss Pennant, and our experience of her work as Insurance Commissioner, we can assure you that all societies in North Wales have the highest regard for her administrative capacity, fair dealing, and her efficiency as a public official."

13
That is the sort of influence Miss Douglas-Pennant exercises, and that is put forward as a reason why she should not have an Inquiry.
Now, what is the real reason? The real reason—I say it with a full realisation of the charge I am about to make—is because His Majesty's Government fear the scandals which will come to light when this Inquiry is held. I will give your Lordships only one instance, but it happens to be an instance of which I have seen almost the whole of the evidence and several of the witnesses. I am convinced in my own mind that their statements are true. Grave scandals began to occur in a large Royal Air Force depôt near London. The lady in charge of the women's hostel wrote several letters to the Air Ministry complaining of the situation, but not one of those letters was delivered to Miss Pennant. Eventually, however, rumours reached Miss Pennant's ears; she sent for the officer and had an interview with her. She then found out that the colonel in charge of that camp was giving all-night leave to the girls who were training as motor drivers at that depôt; that they were constantly returning from London, very often drunk, at four o'clock in the morning in Government motor-cars. She found that there were grave scandals in regard to that officer, this colonel, and two women officers in the camp. What did Miss Pennant do? She decided at once to remove those two women officers—about whom at that time there was nothing more than scandal—to two separate camps well away from where they were before. She decided to replace the lady who was in charge of the hostel—whose health threatened to break down, and who obviously needed an urgent rest—by some one who was in a better state of health to undertake so heavy a task. Further, she reported the matter to her superior.
Then Miss Douglas-Pennant was dismissed. What happened? Miss Pennant's successor, I imagine, was kept in the dark in the same way as had been Miss Pennant; she knew nothing of what had gone on before. The colonel in charge of that camp was not court-martialled, but a system of "general post" in regard to commanders of various depôts took place for his benefit. First of all he was sent down to a depôt some distance from London, and then he was moved back again to a depôt near London—the very
14
depot at which one of the women, about whom there had been these previous scandals, was quartered. This colonel and this woman occupied the same house, and, finally, they were discovered by their landlady in the same room, in flagrante delicto, at three o'clock in the morning. That is the sort of thing that was going on, and that is the sort of thing which the Government fear will come out at this Inquiry.
I would remind your Lordships that it is not Miss Pennant who is refusing this Inquiry; it is His Majesty's Government; and, in the words of Robert Burns—
"There's none ever feared that the truth should
be heard
Save those whom the truth would indict."
I do not ask your Lordships to say when you vote whether you consider that Miss Douglas-Pennant was a good or bad commandant of the Women's Royal Air Force. That is not the question before the House. All I ask is that your Lordships should feel that this is a case in which an Inquiry should be held.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL STANHOPE: I press it far less on the ground that justice should be done to Miss Pennant than I do on wider grounds. I ask those of your Lordships who desire to uphold the purity of the public service, or those of you who are not content that a Minister should set himself above the Regulations, or those of you who still uphold the rights of every freeman of this country to a trial—those of you who support one or all of those great principles should vote for my Motion; and I ask still further that those of your Lordships who disapprove of those principles will vote against it. This is not a case where any noble Lord can say, "I do not know, and therefore I cannot vote." The issue is quite clear—an Inquiry should be held or should not be held; and that issue is in your Lordships' hands. I beg to move.
Moved, That whereas His Majesty's Government have refused to grant a judicial inquiry, this House do appoint a Select-Committee to examine the circumstances connected with the dismissal of Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant from the Women's Royal Air Force, and that the said Committee have power to call witnesses, to take evidence on oath, and to ask for the production of documents.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD WEIR: My Lords, in the first place I am fully conscious of the necessity for expressing my deep and sincere regret at my inability until now to appear in this House for the purpose of amplifying the explanations contained in my correspondence with the Prime Minister and with the Secretary of State for Air in regard to this case of Miss Douglas-Pennant. My inability to be present at the first debate in this House was due to my absence in France. My absence on May 29 was due to the fact that I had arranged to sail from Liverpool to New York on May 28, and, although at the last moment this sailing was postponed to May 31, I was personally unable to take advantage of the postponement at very short notice due to my being in Scotland. Accordingly, I venture to ask your Lordships to absolve me from any charge of either lack of sense of duty or of courtesy. At the same time, may I say that my regret in this matter is a very genuine one, as I feel that my absence has contributed somewhat to the atmosphere of mystery, suspicion, and complexity which has come to surround this case quite unnecessarily, as I hope to show to your Lordships' satisfaction.
I propose to come at once to the three points in the case which appear to me really fundamental. These points are, first, Did I act within my powers in terminating Miss Douglas-Pennant's service in the Women's Royal Air Force? Secondly, What caused me to give the order for the termination of that service, and whether my decision was genuinely my own or was arrived at as a result of influence or pressure of others either outside the Air Ministry or in it? Thirdly, What caused me to recommend the Prime Minister to refuse an Inquiry after he had received Mr. Harmsworth's Report? These three points appear to me fundamental. I desire, first, to make quite clear that I claim no special consideration in this matter on account of my inexperience of She functions of a Secretary of State, or of Government Departments, or of their administration. I have a clear conviction that I arrived at my decision in the best interests of the Service and in the fulfilment of my duty and of my responsibility.
Dealing with the first point on which the noble Earl who opened the debate has laid so much stress, he says, in effect, that Miss Douglas-Pennant was arbitrarily dismissed from the service in defiance of King's Regulations and without regard to the procedure
16
laid down for cases of dismissal, and that my action really implied misconduct on Miss Douglas-Pennant's part. My answer to that is that I was competently advised that Miss Douglas-Pennant was not an enrolled member of the Women's Royal Air Force, that she was not paid from Air Force funds, and that I was acting entirely within my rights. In effect, Miss Douglas-Pennant was temporarily loaned from another Department, and the result of my decision was to cause her re-transfer to that Department, and no reflection whatever on her personal character was either implied or suggested.
Dealing now with the factors which, taken together, caused me to arrive at the conclusion that Miss Douglas-Pennant was not the right woman to solve the difficult problems of putting the Womens Royal Air Force on a proper basis, I will recite them as definitely and clearly as I can, while asking you to appreciate the difficulty of re-creating the atmosphere and circumstances surrounding a decision of eleven months ago. The two White Papers which have been published make clear the conditions on which the Welsh Insurance Commission put the services of Miss Douglas-Pennant at the disposal of the Air Council. The Papers indicate also that my policy was to give her full support in the task entrusted to her, and that this policy was continued up to a date towards the end of August last year.
I must now refer to certain incidents recorded in the published correspondence. First there was the resignation of three senior officers serving under Miss DouglasPennant—Miss Pratt, Mrs. Beatty, and Miss Andrew. The correspondence shows, and Miss Douglas-Pennant agrees, that I supported her unqualifiedly in that particular instance. I regretted, however, the loss of these officers at a time when capable senior officers were very badly needed, and the incident undoubtedly slightly weakened my confidence in Miss Douglas-Pennant. I saw Miss Andrew personally, and her criticism of the organisation caused me to have some misgivings. The next incident to which I refer was the communication to me by General Paine of his conclusion that Colonel Bersey must be superseded, and that Miss Douglas-Pennant and the officer appointed to replace Colonel Bersey should be tried for a month and, if matters were not put right, whoever was to blame must go. This incident further

17
increased my misgivings. General Paine was the member of the Air Council responsible to me for the personnel of the Royal Air Force and for the organisation and running of the Women's Royal Air Force. General Paine consistently supported Miss Douglas-Pennant, but at the same time he never failed to tell me that things were not going well or that the difficulties appeared to increase, and he always left me with the definite impression that he had some doubt as to whether Miss Douglas-Pennant was going to be able to pull the Department round successfully. Further, he referred on several occasions to difficulties in cooperation with other women's organisations. My position, accordingly, towards the end of August was that I had supported Miss Douglas-Pennant and, through General Paine, had given her every chance; but I was conscious of a feeling of distinct uneasiness.
At this stage I must explain the state of the Royal Air Force in regard to manpower at the particular time in question. At this time we had in hand an enormous programme of expansion involving a very serious demand on the War Cabinet for additional man-power, and it is no secret that there was a very strong disinclination to grant us what was required. Briefly, we were told to make better use of the men we had and to use more women. In this situation I received a letter from the Ministry of National Service covering the Report of Lady Rhondda which is published in the White Paper, and if had an intimation that the Ministry of National Service could no longer undertake the responsibility of allocating women to the Royal Air Force unless radical improvements were effected. The authority of the Ministry of National Service to speak in this matter was fully dealt with by the noble Marquess, the Finance Member of the Air Council, on May 29.
In the presence of this intimation I felt that the position in regard to the Force was much more critical than General Paine had represented it to be and that immediate remedies must be found. As I have explained, I had misgivings about the Commandant, and I now found the situation to be more exacting and difficult than I had supposed. At about the same time I had decided that it would be in the interests of the Air Force to make use of General Paine's peculiarly suitable qualities in the important post, the newly-created
18
post, of Inspector-General of the Royal Air Force, and to appoint General Brawler to succeed him as Master-General of Personnel. Accordingly, I considered the situation as a whole and I came to the definite conclusion that what had to be done was to give the new Master-General of Personnel a fresh start as regards the control of what was one of his most difficult Departments—the Women's Royal Air Force. This involved the return of Miss Pennant to her duties in the Department which had placed her services at the disposal of the Air Council and where, I understand, she had rendered distinguished service and would be welcome. All that Miss Pennant had to do was to resume her work in the Department which had lent her and that point was made quite clear to her at the time, as may be seen by the letter of September 2 on pages 5 and 6 of the first White Paper.
Summing up at this stage, the broad reason I give for the termination of Miss Pennant's services was that I felt she was not the right woman for the job. The Force was not going well. My faith in her was shaken. We were at a critical period in regard to the whole Air Force. I made my decision. I acted on that decision. I appointed a successor. Matters improved, and I am personally convinced that I did the right thing. I have done my best to discover why the bona fides of my action have been questioned. Perhaps something of this may be due to the fact that, as a rule, a Minister does not act by himself. Generally, the executive head of the Department concerned seeks the Minister's approval for his proposed action. In the case we are discussing the executive head of the Department, General Paine, had himself been transferred to another position, added to which he was overseas and his successor did not know the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, under these conditions and in the atmosphere which I have attempted to define to you, I acted myself and the whole responsibility is mine. It may be alleged that I should have instituted some special Inquiry before acting in that manner. I can only say that that is foreign to my methods of working. Such an investigation would have taken a long time and I preferred the course of appointing a. new Commandant, trusting her to find out what the difficulties were and to put those difficulties right; and, fortunately, such was the course of events.

19
In regard to outside influence, I wish to deny as explicitly as I am able that my decision was influenced by pressure of any individual, or group of individuals, outside or inside of the Air Ministry, other than the part played by the recruiting difficulty of the Ministry of National Service. As to the existence of any intrigue or conspiracy in the Air Ministry itself, or outside of it, I wish to make it clear that I was never told by General Paine of the existence, or of any rumour of the existence, of any such intrigue or conspiracy against Miss Pennant. Nor did General Paine ever tell me of Miss Pennant herself having brought forward any such allegation; nor did Miss Pennant herself indicate in any way to me, prior to her supersession, the existence of any conspiracy. At this stage I wish to clear up a matter which would appear to show a degree of inconsistency on my part. On August 7, in the House of Commons, Major Baird, the Under-Secretary for Air, stated that the Air Council had every confidence in Miss Pennant's ability and discretion. I wish to say that at that date I had not communicated to Major Baird the misgivings which I felt about Miss Pennant. As it happened, I was out of London when the statement was made in the House, and I was not personally consulted in regard to it.
Coming to my third fundamental question—my recommendation to the Prime Minister to refuse an Inquiry—while Mr. Harmsworth was conducting his investigation with a view to advising the Prime Minister, I saw Mr. Harmsworth on several occasions, and after he had made his Report he told me of his recommendation that an Inquiry should be held. We spoke together quite frankly of the whole matter, and he informed me that his reason was that the best and easiest course was to have an Inquiry as he saw no other means of satisfying Miss Pennant. We discussed together the nature of any such Inquiry and the possible form it might take, without either of us seeing any sound, practicable or useful course of action. Together we went to see the Prime Minister and I explained that I had no personal objections whatever to the Inquiry being held, but I failed to see the existence of any genuine basis for it, or any definite scheme under which the Inquiry could be conducted, or, finally, any real good which could eventuate from that Inquiry. At this time and with the whole circumstances fairly fresh in my mind, the view of an Inquiry which I ex-
20
pressed to the Prime Minister and to Mr. Harmsworth was that it would last ten minutes and that I would be the only witness. As neither the Prime Minister nor Mr. Harmsworth nor myself could satisfy himself on those points which I have mentioned, the matter was left with the Prime Minister to settle, after he had received a letter which I promised to send him and which is contained in the first Paper, dated December 4.
There is one statement made by Miss Douglas-Pennant to which I wish to make specific reference. It is to the effect that the termination of her services was the result of an intrigue which had as its object the appointment of Mrs. Chalmers Watson to succeed her; in other words, it is a charge of jobbery. I wish to make it quite clear that I dealt with the question of Miss Douglas-Pennant's successor to a very large extent personally. As a matter of fact it was my personal desire to have as her successor a lady whose name has not even been mentioned by Miss Pennant, and without any disrespect to the present admirable Commandant of the Women's Royal Air Force I feel that the Force would have been in very good hands if I had been able to induce this particular lady to accept the position.
As it was, this lady could not be induced to come to the Force, and at my request a list of I believe six names was put before me. I put my pen at once through three of the names. Mrs. Chalmers Watson, who was one of three remaining names, was not offered the position, and I understood at the time that Mrs. Chalmers Watson could not have accepted the position even if it had been offered to her. Miss Rachel Crowdy was offered the position, but the authorities would not release her, and Mrs. Gwynne Vaughan was asked and accepted. The position with regard to Dame Katherine Furse is, that I personally sounded her in regard to the post but she felt that she preferred to remain with the Admiralty, and in any case the Admiralty would not release her. I fail to trace any exercise of influence, or any basis whatever on which to found a charge of jobbery in connection with that appointment.
Miss Douglas-Pennant's case, as your Lordships will have seen from the White Paper, has undergone a striking modification since it was first made. The essence of it now is that she was prevented from succeeding in her work by the activities

21
of a clique inside and outside the Air Ministry conspiring and intriguing to prevent her introducing the much-needed reforms, which no one queries or questions, into the organisation of the Women's Royal Air Force. I am not in a position to state whether or not such a conspiracy existed. I can only express my profound disbelief with the existence of such a tremendously far-reaching scheme as she has portrayed, but I do wish to point out that practically none of the persons charged by Miss Douglas-Pennant in this connection had any sort or part whatever in leading me to arrive at the decision to terminate her services, the actual grounds of which I have already covered and explained.
If intrigue did exist it is a matter of surprise to me that Miss Douglas-Pennant, who had direct access by my own original orders to the Master-General of Personnel—there was only General Paine between Miss Douglas Pennant and myself—did not reveal its existence through him to me, provided always that she could not crush it herself. What, in fact, we required in the "Women's Royal Air Force at that time was a Commandant who could clear difficulties even of that character out of the way, and by the action we took we succeeded in obtaining one.
I have given your Lordships the factors and the elements which caused me to make the decision which has brought about this controversy. I know of no other factor which weighed with me, and on reflection I am convinced that I would take the same course to-morrow under the same circumstances. I would ask you to believe that the interest of the Service was the sole factor which weighed with me; the need for an efficient women's service was very great indeed; the war situation was very exacting, and promptness in action counted for a very great deal.
There is one matter as to which I feel a real and genuine regret. It is that to which I have referred in my letter to the Prime Minister. I am conscious of a hick of consideration shown to Miss Douglas-Pennant in connection with the full month's trial promised by General Paine. As a reason for that I can only plead forgetfulness at the moment. I also feel that I might have been rather more definite and clear with Miss Douglas-Pennant, and have put it to her quite frankly that in my opinion she had not been successful in her work,
22
instead of telling her that I did not think she was going to be successful quick enough. That is the difference.
Your Lordships will probably desire that I should reply definitely to the questions put to me by the noble Earl, other than those which I have covered in my explanation. He asks, if I was informed on August 17 that Miss Douglas-Pennant had tendered her resignation, and why I refused to accept the resignation? My answer is that General Paine informed me of his action in refusing to accept Miss Douglas-Pennant's resignation, and his decision released Colonel Bersey from those duties. The two things were concurrent. At that time I had not come to my decision in regard to a change of Commandant. I am asked, if any report was made in writing or verbally by General Paine or General Brancker recommending that Miss Douglas-Pennant be dismissed. The answer is in the negative. In regard to the question as to the specific reasons for the supersession, I have done my best to give your Lordships the reasons contributing to my decision. The noble Earl also in his note to me inquires if I have already apologised. I presume he refers to my admitted lack of consideration in connection with the month's notice. I have expressed my regret for this in my letter to the Prime Minister; that expression of regret has been conveyed to Miss Douglas-Pennant, but if any further apology is thought necessary by the noble Earl I now, and here, tender that apology.
In all these circumstances your Lordships will appreciate that, although I have not the slightest personal objection to the holding of an Inquiry, I am still unable to understand what possible good could come from it. As I see it, no Inquiry and no possible findings could substantially improve Miss Douglas-Pennant's position. None of the official Statements with which I have been connected contained any personal reflection upon Miss Douglas-Pennant's character. In effect I have said that she is a capable and efficient woman, but in my opinion she was not suitable for pulling the particular job round quick enough. I ask your Lordships to believe in the possibility of a lady being a wholly admirable Welsh Insurance Commissioner and yet being unable rapidly to achieve good results as Commandant of the Women's Royal Air Force. A Committee of Inquiry might

23
say I was wrong in coming to that opinion, and that I did not give her a long enough trial. After all that would only mean a difference of opinion between the Committee and myself. An Inquiry might establish the existence in the Department of a great deal of petty intrigue, but I utterly fail to understand how such a finding could do any more than disclose the admitted difficulties with which Miss Douglas-Pennant had to contend in her Department.
I appreciate the point of view of many of your Lordships, who would support the holding of an Inquiry in order to give an opportunity of being heard to the large number of people against whom Miss Douglas-Pennant has now made charges and allegations, but I consider that this would not warrant the waste of public money and the loss of time involved in such an Inquiry, which could disclose nothing of any real value to the country. Surely the important principle involved far outweighs such considerations. By the concession of an Inquiry an extremely dangerous precedent would be created, having grave reaction on the exercise by Ministers of the Crown of the discretion necessarily vested in them in the interests of the country. Your Lordships will appreciate the importance of that factor, and realise the duty which rests upon a Minister to do the best he can for the State, to make the best possible arrangements, to choose the right people, and not to hesitate to change people, even if it gives pain to them and raises difficulties for himself. Nothing matters except, in this case, the welfare of the service; and at that time nothing much mattered but the prosecution of the war. It is a hard burden laid upon a Minister, to have to decide in cases like this. If he shirks that burden he fails in his duty. I have stated to your Lordships as clearly and shortly as I am able the grounds for my action, in pursuance of that responsibility and of that duty.
LORD PONTYPRIDD: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the speech of the noble Lord who has just addressed the House, and I had hoped that he would have said something which would have given us a reason for not pressing this Motion. I cannot conceive it possible to make a stronger case in favour of an Inquiry than was the speech which Lord Weir has
24
just addressed to us. He spoke of the conduct and ability of Miss Douglas-Pennant, and he said he regretted that she was not more successful in her work. I would ask how she could possibly be successful in the circumstances of which we have already heard? Whether the noble Lord believes in a conspiracy or not a good many people do believe in it, and they believe that everything possible was done so that this lady should not be successful. I say that after his speech an Inquiry is demanded. When he brings up the work and the character of so many officials we want to know something more about those officials. Of course it is impossible to go through a great war without a great many mistakes being made, and we have heard of some in the speech of the noble Lord. People are very anxious to find out why it is that this Inquiry has not been granted. Lord Weir said that he personally had no objection to an Inquiry, but he thought no good could come from it. I think a great deal of good could come from it. It would at any rate stop a great deal of the nonsense of which we have heard so much, both inside and outside this House. I had intended to say something of a more formal character. I will not refer to my personal observations of Miss Douglas-Pennant's work as a commissioner at Cardiff, my native place. I happened to ask a leading citizen there, who was well acquainted with her and her work, what he thought of her, and the reply was, "She is a most gracious lady." That testimony not only comes from one man but it is endorsed by every one who has been associated with her. Her unassuming demeanour and kindness of heart and her desire for the social welfare of the people have won for her unbounded esteem and confidence. I will say no more. We have had several debates on this question and I trust that we are going to make a good job of it on this occasion. I think it is time to end this question and see what there is in it, anyhow. It is a question which appeals to our chivalry, and I believe it shall not appeal in vain.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I cannot help feeling, in spite of the speech made by Lord Weir in defence of himself and his Department, that it is quite essential that this Inquiry should be held. I think the thing has gone far beyond the personal claims or grievances of Miss

25
Douglas-Pennant. The question, it now seems to me, is not whether the noble Lord at the head of the Department may have made mistakes, though he acted for the best in the emergency of the moment. If that is so, let us concede it, and if this Inquiry were being asked for in the height of the war your Lordships might well say that you must not disturb the work of the Department, even though some injustice might be inflicted upon some individual. We are now in times of peace and able at leisure to overhaul the way that Department was conducted.
I am rather surprised that the noble Lord, in his carefully prepared defence, did not touch upon the very serious allegation made by the noble Earl who brought forward this Motion. He may say that he had not notice of it. Perhaps he had not, but the allegation is—I am talking with reference to the Colonel and those women going out all night with permits from him and returning early in the morning in Government lorries. Either that matter came before the noble Lord or it did not, and if it did not it means that very important and serious charges were being made against high persons in his Department of which he knew nothing. If it is so, that rather points to grave mismanagement and neglect, and I might almost say connivance, on the part of somebody with the persons accused to keep the noble Lord uninformed. If the noble Lord did know of this, I am surprised that he did not touch upon it to-day.
We are not asked to-day to decide whether this lady was justly or unjustly dismissed. What we are asked to do is to appoint a Committee to inquire whether it was so or not. We are not now trying the issue; we are merely asked to say whether there is any suit to be tried. The noble Lord in his defence seemed to say that there might have been intrigue, there might have been manœuvres, and there might have been jealousies, but that they did not come to his knowledge and they did not influence his action. But in a great Department, if there were not only intrigues and jealousies, but if there was, as is alleged, grave misconduct, and if that misconduct was hushed up by the colonel who was put to another place and presently was brought back and enabled to be in close touch with one of these women against whom grave misconduct was alleged, then I say the efficiency of the Department was
26
in danger, and it is essential that the whole thing should be gone into. The suggestion is that there was an Augean stable. If there was one it should be cleansed. If there was not one, then the person against whom there was suspicion ought to be cleared of the suspicion.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I oppose this Motion on the broad ground that if you grant this Inquiry you will open the door to scores of persons with grievances just as acute as those under which Miss Douglas-Pennant is labouring, and they will ask you to give them the same tribunal. And how can you? Surely if Miss Douglas-Pennant wishes to have mole light thrown on her case she has only to publish some of those accusations and statements that we see in the White Paper, and if they have not sufficient bite in them, I suggest that she should supply a little more ginger to bring them up to the requisite standard of libel. Moreover, I am not satisfied that this case would ever have reached the prominence it has, had not Miss Douglas-Pennant been the happy possessor of very good friends. I quite recognise that her extraordinary pluck and moral courage, shown in the way that she has fought this case, has helped her, but I wonder whether if Miss Brown of Putney, or Miss Jones of Cricklewood had lost their positions—positions perhaps not so great, but of just as much importance to them—they would manage to have their case pushed and boosted in both Houses of Parliament as this has been. I doubt it.
May I put this view of the case to your Lordships. In an attack, after the men have gone over the top, if a man is killed nobody thinks of waiting to hold art inquest over him. I think we should regard Miss Douglas-Pennant as a casualty on the civil side of the war. She was one of those splendid women who were fighting the Germans just as much as the soldiers were, and she became a casualty. It is true that she was knocked over by, so to speak, her own artillery, but nevertheless she became a casualty. Are we, when the civil side of the war is not yet over, when there are so many great questions still to be settled, to hold and wait for an Inquiry as to how, when, and where Miss Douglas-Pennant received this injury?
I do not pretend to be an authority on public affairs. I have been in the Army

27
half my life, and naturally I do not know so much about public affairs, but I have stated how this matter strikes me. I can imagine in the years to come, if you grant this Inquiry, the offspring of one of the noble Lords who has the misfortune to be put on this Committee asking his father this question, "What did you do in the great War?" And the answer would be, "My son, I spent hours and hours, and days and days, considering whether Miss Douglas - Pennant was efficient or inefficient."
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will permit me to make a few observations, and to reply to some of the points that have been raised in the course of the debate. First of all, I have to express to your Lordships, on behalf of the Leader of the House, his very great regret that he himself was not able to come down and personally deal with this case as he had intended. Unfortunately he was seized with a very sudden indisposition this morning, and is confined to his bed, and therefore he is unable to be here, but he asked me to express as strongly as I could on his behalf his regret that he cannot himself come down and speak.
I cannot help thinking that my noble friend Lord Stanhope really pitched the case on a wrong note. From the speech of my noble friend he would seem to suggest that certain things connected with the character and the capacity of this lady were on trial, or had been reflected upon by what has happened in the Royal Air Force. I should like to set those matters aside altogether. There is first of all, as my noble friend Lord Weir has stated, no suggestion and no reflection of any kind—no shadow of a suggestion of any kind—about the character of this lady. It would be an impertinence even to make such a suggestion. Her character is unassailed and unassailable. It stands far above any detraction that any man could ever suggest or bring against her, and I hope therefore that your Lordships will dismiss such a matter entirely from your minds. It is even an insult to the lady to suggest that such a matter could be discussed.
The other point on which my noble friend discussed the matter rests I think on an entirely false basis. He seemed to suggest that there was some reflection on the ability of the lady in question. There
28
was no suggestion or reflection whatever on her ability. I am very glad that my noble friend behind me paid a tribute to her abilities. No one has ever heard—certainly I have never heard—anything but praise of the way in which she discharged her duties on the Welsh Insurance Commission. But we have all got very different capacities and abilities. I could select two or three of the ablest men in this House and set them to tasks which, I am quite sure, they would not perform at all well, and yet they would be tasks which might be performed by persons of much humbler capacities than those possessed by the noble Lords I could select. We are not all fit for the same jobs. And to say, because one individual man or woman is not equal to discharging a particular task, that that is a reflection on his or her general ability and capacity to discharge other tasks is really one of the most preposterous suggestions I have ever heard advanced.
May I make this observation. I am bound to say that it sometimes has struck me what a narrow kind of ability in some ways a particular faculty of organisation is, and very often how difficult it is to discover from your previous knowledge of a person whether that person had organising abilities. It is in some ways rather a narrow capacity, and all that we can say is that this lady, with her ability, with her character, and with all those qualities to which strong tribute has been paid, did not, as it turned out, succeed in the particular work of organising which she was set to do at the Royal Air Force. Surely these things are no reflection on her character or on her capacity.
I do not think that my noble friend Lord Stanhope appealed to Magna Charta in his speech to-day, but I saw a letter of his in The Times in which he appealed to Magna Charta, and appealed to your Lordships as the Barons of Runnymede, and declared that this was a question of justice, and that you must not deny justice to the humblest of His Majesty's subjects. It has nothing to do with the question of justice at all. In a question of justice you have to be charged with certain definite crimes, and for those you can be tried; they are set out in the Statute Book, and if you are found guilty you are punished, and rightly punished, for those crimes.
My noble friend takes an analogy from the Army. A more misleading analogy I never heard. He tells us that in the

29
King's Regulations you may not be dismissed from the Army without a sentence of Court-Martial, and he really tried to make your Lordships believe that this was a parallel to that case. I am sorry to say that in the course of my duties every day it is my business, as one of the Army Council, to cause officers to resign their commissions and leave the Army, and why? Not because there is any charge against them, because, if there was a definite charge against them, or a crime, they would be Court-Martialled; but because in the opinion of their Commanding Officers, backed up by their Brigadiers and Divisional Generals, they are not efficient for that particular duty of commanding men. That is not a slur on a man's character; it is simply that he is not capable of that particular duty.
I do not wish to press the Army analogy very far. Because, as a matter of fact, there are great distinctions to be drawn. But this question itself is not merely a matter of whether, in the opinion of the Minister concerned, somebody, man or woman, is capable or incapable of discharging the duties, but of whether somebody else in a great crisis is more capable of discharging those duties—at any cost, it may be, to the feelings of individuals, and at any pain that may be inflicted. That really is the whole matter.
My noble friend Lord Weir has made a very careful statement about the reasons and the motives that led him to deal with the case as he has done. I do not know what effect that statement may have bad upon your Lordships, or what you may have thought of his judgment in the case; but it seems to me incredible that any one after listening to that statement, can have suggested or supposed that he was led by any motive but that of State necessity to take the action which he did take. And really that is the whole case.
May I go through two or three of the points with which he dealt? First of all we see that while Miss Douglas-Pennant held this particular position she was not only treated with every consideration by her chiefs, but her advice was accepted and also acted upon, and acted upon in very grave matters. We have heard the case of the five ladies whom she objected to as holding too high positions and who were placed in less well-paid (I believe) and inferior positions. We have heard the case of other three ladies who were
30
actually dismissed from their posts on the representation of Miss Douglas-Pennant. Again, what she recommended was accepted. All through the first month of her occupation of the post, therefore, it is quite clear that she was fully supported by her chief.
Now what goes on, after all, in the mind of the chief? It is the business of a chief of a great Department to be constantly weighing up and appraising the capacities of those who are the Heads of the Departments under him. That is one of his chief businesses—to see that he is admirably served. And Lord Weir has told us of the process in his mind by which he became gradually more and more convinced that this lady was not the right woman for this particular job, and that his confidence was gradually shaken. Then you come to the final bombshell, as I may call it, when this letter comes from Sir Auckland Geddes—and there has been no suggestion, I suppose, that Sir Auckland Geddes was animated by any feeling of dislike, or jealousy, or anything of the kind. There comes this letter from Sir Auckland Geddes, in which he says that owing to the condition of affairs in that Force it will be impossible for him as the chief of National Service to go on supplying women badly needed for the Royal Air Force unless changes are made and the Air Force is better conducted. Then my noble friend Lord Weir had to take cognisance of the whole matter.
I pass by the question of the Under-Secretary's statement in the House of Commons; that has been dealt with. And I need not, I think, deal with the fortnight or the month's leave; my noble friend has deliberately done with that. Bat he has told us that, after having supported Miss Douglas-Pennant through all these difficult months, he was gradually coming to an opinion as to her suitability for the post, and that then he had to take a decision when he found that all these representations outside were so strong that actually the Force was going to lose its women unless he made some improvement in it. I cannot conceive that in a situation of that kind there is any of your Lordships who would not have acted in a similar way. And you must remember, that it was not in time of peace but in time of war when these decisions were taken and acted upon.
Then I think I ought to deal with the question of dismissal. I do not wish in a matter of this kind to deal with any tech-

31
nical points, but, as a matter of fact, the lady was not dismissed. She had been lent, as many officials are lent, from one Department to another. She was lent from the Welsh Commission, and continued to be paid by the Welsh Commission whilst discharging these duties; and all that was done was that a letter was written to the Welsh Commission that her services, owing to certain changes, were no longer required. In fact, I think, if you look through the correspondence, the utmost trouble was taken all through by my noble friend to preserve the dignity of the lady and do as little as possible to interfere in any way with her future career.
Perhaps I ought to say one word about what is known, I think, as the Harmsworth incident. My noble friend has dealt with it at some length, and I think the only point he has not dealt with is the request that the report of Mr. Harmsworth should be published as a State paper. This report of Mr. Harmsworth is merely a document drawn up as private secretary to the Prime Minister, in order to help him to form his opinion upon a particular case; and if we were to be obliged to publish as State documents all the statements and documents drawn up by our private secretaries there would obviously be an end to those secrecies and privileges which now obtain.
Then I come to the charge that my noble friend was influenced in his selection by partiality for different ladies or different influences. He has dealt so fully and so clearly with that that I think I need hardly add a word to what he has said. As to the two ladies whose names were mentioned—Mrs. Chalmers Watson and Dame Katherine Furse—the latter preferred to remain at the Admiralty, and the other lady had no desire to take up that particular post. So that that part of the case of the influence of those ladies entirely fails.
Then when this action has been taken and this lady has left the office, another lady is appointed, and you get, by the testimony of Lord Weir himself, the fact that all goes well in the office and the business is properly done. So far you would have thought the matter might have closed. But then there are various charges brought against individuals by the lady in question. She presses for an Inquiry, and she is told that, if a prima facie case of malice
32
or corruption is made out against any individual, an Inquiry would be held to deal with that case. No such prima facie case was made out. The matter was examined carefully by the present Secretary of State for War and he came to the clear conclusion that such prima facie case had not been established. Now, I am bound to notice, as my noble friend did, that these questions of intrigue and suggestions of evil influence were not brought to my noble friend's notice until a late date; they were not brought to his notice at all, I think, until September 2. Then, as he has said, as the case has gone on, the charges have altered. The charges, I may say, have expanded a good deal. We get a remarkable instance of that even in this debate. Wholly fresh charges, of which no one has heard a word up to the present time—grave charges of the most disagreeable kind—have been suddenly produced by my noble friend, acting as a spokesman, and flung down without an atom of truth on the floor of this House—although the noble Earl declares that he believes in the truth of these charges. I imagine, therefore, that if we have another debate on this subject we shall hear still more charges.
The question which has been raised by one or two speakers is, Are you to have an Inquiry in order to look into some of the charges which have been brought against inidviduals at the Royal Air Force in connection with this case? I think that I ought to point out to your Lordships that such a matter does not really fall within the terms of this Motion; because what some of your Lordships are now asking for is a totally different thing from an Inquiry into questions connected with the dismissal of Miss Douglas-Pennant. What is asked for is an Inquiry into the whole administration of the Air Force. You are asking for the circumstances connected with the dismissal of Miss Douglas-Pennant to be inquired into. Those circumstances have been fully gone into and clearly put before you by Lord Weir, and he has told us the exact process, stage by stage, by which his mind was formed and by which he came to his decision. Therefore, if you carry this Motion to-night, you are carrying a matter totally different from that which is being pressed by your Lordships; you are asking for an Inquiry into the general administration of the Royal Air Force and not into the circumstances which attended the removal of Miss Douglas-Pennant.

33
If a Minister thinks that one of the heads of his Departments is not doing the work as efficiently as it could be done, and if he thinks that some other head of Department ought to be substituted, are your Lordships to order an Inquiry into the reason why the Minister arrived at that decision? As Lord Dufferin has said, if that were done there would be no end to these Inquiries. I am familiar with a considerable number of cases where able officials have been removed from their posts, and others substituted, because those others were more capable of doing that particular duty. But further than that, if you are not only going to have an Inquiry into why an official is removed, but to have all this sort of floating scandal and stories connected with it also inquired into, there again you will have no end to Inquiries of that sort. I do not suppose that any of your Lordships have had the misfortune to be removed from a post you have occupied; but we know very well that if any of us are removed we can never believe that we are removed through any defect in ourselves or our capacity. We always assume—perhaps justly—that our removal is due to malevolence, to ill-will, to scandal or stories that have been set about with regard to us by someone else; and. as we do not imagine that one individual is powerful enough to remove us, we are rather apt to think that there is a conspiracy by people to do it, people who by their powerful and combined efforts are able to push us out of the post we held.
I submit very respectfully to your Lordships that this case has been unduly magnified; that it has been distorted out of all likeness to the original picture and the original facts; that stories of injustice and of scandals have been brought up when really the simple fact is that a particular official has been removed from a. post which she occupied. Therefore I submit that this is not a case of injustice to an individual; it is a case of the supersession of an individual by another competent official. I submit, further, that my noble friend Lord Weir through the whole of this matter has done his best—as others have done their best—to shield the dignity of this lady, and to make that passage and that transference as easy as it was possible to make it. I ask your Lordships to consider most seriously what constitutional precedent you are setting up. I refer to the fact only in passing because
34
this matter was discussed in the other House and the supporters of this lady were not able to challenge a Division there. I mention, also merely in passing (as it were), that the question of a prima facie case was placed before the Secretary of State for War, and, after carefully going into the matter, he also was of opinion that there was no case on which an Inquiry could be founded.
Consequently I submit to your Lordships that where we are dealing—as we are in a case of this kind—merely with the supersession of an individual official, we should be setting up a very dangerous and bad constitutional precedent it your Lordships were to go to the expense, perhaps of £20,000 or £30,000, in order to inquire into the matter. I ask further, How would you set bound or limit to farther inquiries? Do not imagine that this a will not set a precedent, or that this case will not be very closely watched by others. How will you—having granted this Inquiry (if you do grant it)—be able to refuse an Enquiry to those many persons who in the future will come before you with stories, I dare say as strong or as strongly supported as the case of Miss Douglas-Pennant? You will have imposed upon this House, and possibly on the other House also, a series of Inquiries which certainly will not conduce to the dignity of the State or to the method by which constitutional administration should be carried on.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not be bluffed by the very eloquent and charming verbiage to which we have just listened from the representative of His Majesty's Government. We had exactly what we anticipated. All those who are familiar with the tricks of Parliamentary debate and Parliamentary procedure knew exactly what would proceed from that Bench. I myself could have written the noble Viscount's speech. After all, it is nothing more than a very complete rechauffée of everything that has been said in this place and in another place by a number of people on his same case and every word of it is a palpable evasion of the real issue.
Let me deal first of all with the last, point raised by the noble Viscount. In solemn and warning tones he told you that you are going to set up a dangerous precedent. Let us dispose of that idea at once. You cannot set up a precedent by institut-

35
ing this Inquiry, because there is no similar case. We have that fully admitted. Nobody in His Majesty's Forces has been dismissed without trial or inquiry. Therefore there is no other case for which a similar Inquiry could be demanded. Let us return to the point. It cannot be too often repeated—because three speakers have very cleverly endeavoured to evade the point—that we are not out to obtain personal reparation for Miss Douglas-Pennant. That is not our object, and that is not her object. Our object is to call attention to the violation of a fundamental principle of all our liberties.
The noble Viscount made fun of the fact that my noble friend Lord Stanhope appealed to Magna Charta. That is no laughing matter. My noble friend was absolutely justified in pointing out that the very bed-rock of our liberties is that no free-born citizen of this country may be punished unless he has been tried and condemned. What has happened in this case is that an officer has been arbitrarily dismissed without trial and without condemnation. It is deplorable to see how not only Lord Weir but also the noble Viscount who speaks for the Government keep on reiterating the word "supersession." The use of that word is false; it is not honest. Miss Pennant was dismissed, and dismissed in a manner in which none of your Lordships would dismiss a scullery-maid or any other servant or dependant you may have. That is not supersession. Lord Weir, not content with the use of the word "supersession," tried to lead you on to another track by saying that Miss Pennant was really transferred to another Department. I can only appeal to your Lordships' common sense. If you are going to transfer an official to another Department you do not do it in quite the way in which it was done in the case of Miss Douglas-Pennant. There is no excuse whatever, not even the pressure of war time and the emergencies of a critical situation, which can justify the dismissal of anybody in the particular manner in which this lady was dismissed.
Let us now go on to some other points which have been made by the noble Viscount. He referred to the letter of Sir Auckland Geddes as a justification for his action. On this point, though I speak subject to correction. I think I am right in saying that Sir Auckland Geddes, as Minister for National Service, had nothing
36
whatever to do with the matter. The women of the Women's Royal Air Force were recruited direct and were not supplied by the Ministry of National Service. Again, he referred to the Report of Mr. Cecil Harmsworth, which has unaccountably been suppressed, and he described it as a document written by a private secretary for the information of his chief. That is most inaccurate. Mr. Cecil Harmsworth held a prolonged inquiry in which he examined witnesses, and I am told that he promised representatives of the Press that that Report of his should be published. One of our objects in asking for an Inquiry is that that Report, which is not a private and confidential document, should be published.
The noble Viscount asked what effect Lord Weir's long and laboured explanation had upon us. I can only speak for myself, and I say that so far from having altered the case for Inquiry it has, I agree with my noble friend opposite, considerably strengthened it. Lord Weir made an admission virtually of irregular action in this matter. That disposes once and for all of all the subtleties and evasions and equivocations and misrepresentations of the case which have been made by the spokesmen of the Government from time to time. It wipes out all those miserable quibbles by which it has been sought to evade the real issue and to escape inquiry. It disposes for ever of the suggestion that Miss Pennant was superseded and transferred and not dismissed, even though Lord Weir himself, in singular self-contradiction, used both those terms.
As we anticipated, the spokesmen of the Government said. "What is there to inquire into?" What we want to inquire into is stated on the Notice Paper—namely, the circumstances connected with the dismissal of Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant. Not whether she was justly or unjustly dismissed, but the circumstances in which this arbitrary dismissal took place. The dismissal was an altogether unprecedented act, and an act of so unusual, so arbitrary, a nature that it can only have been conceived in a very unwholesome atmosphere. It was this incident of Miss Pennant's dismissal which gave rise to very strong suspicion that everything was not going on well at the Air Ministry. It is idle to pretend that an act of that kind was merely an error of judgment on the part of the Minister. The principle that nobody may

37
be punished unless first tried and condemned is known to every man, woman, and child in this country. Any child could have set Lord Weir right on that point.
What we want to know, therefore, is what motives were at work—for motives, and strong motives, there must have been—which actuated Lord Weir to risk taking such very unusual action. What were the motives? What were the circumstances existing at the Air Ministry in which those motives were begotten? That is what we want to know. Nothing that has been said here this afternoon goes any way to satisfy the demand for inquiry If everything had been straight and above board, and simple and innocent, as you might have been led to believe by the speech to which we listened from the cross-benches, then what in Heaven's name has there been all this secrecy, mystery, evasion, and equivocation about all this time? I beg you to ask yourselves that question, as I am sure that you will see that there is a strong case for Inquiry.
If that is not enough, let me remind your Lordships that on four separate occasions four promises have been made by His Majesty's Government, in language as definite and explicit as anything could be in the English language. I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time by reading those promises, but they were absolutely definite promises that if a prima facie case were made out an Inquiry would be held, and that every possible facility would be given. Nothing whatever was said about the objection as to expense or anything of that kind. A prima facie case was made out, and the noble Viscount opposite asks why those allegations have been repeatedly altered. They were altered to satisfy the Secretary of State for War. The Secretary of State for War, as again was anticipated by all those who know the ways of Parliamentarians, had determined from the outset that he would not recognise any allegations as a prima facie case, and on each successive occasion—that is, four times over—he asked that the case should be strengthened. That was accordingly done, and that is why the charges and allegations have been expanded. I will not take up your time any longer, but I do beg your Lordships to remember that this case does not compare with that of any officer in the Navy, the Army, or the Air Force who may have been superseded, and that it is
38
not a case of asking for reparation of a personal kind, or of any kind, for Miss Douglas-Pennant.
What we want to inquire into is why an absolutely unprecedented and arbitrary act was committed by the Air Minister and what were the motives and the circumstances which led to that act. We do so in the interests of the general public, because if an act of that kind in one of the great Departments of State can be passed over unnoticed, without the actual facts being established, there is no security that in the future development of bureaucracy we shall not have further arbitrary and tyrannical actions.
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, I am somewhat surprised to hear the very strong speech which has been made by the noble Lord who has just sat down. I have listened to the whole of the debate and I confess that, so far as I have been able to gather, Lord Weir made a very excellent defence indeed to the charge made against him. He showed perfectly clearly that he was under no influence whatever, except the interests of the country and the good service of the Air Department, when he decided to change the Commandant of the Women's Air Force. I must say that I think he made out a good case. I came to listen to this debate knowing nothing whatever of the case, and, judging from the whole of the discussion, I think that the case which has been made out is certainly against an Inquiry such as has been demanded.
To me it seems a very extraordinary thing that a Minister who is at the head of a great Department and has such important services to render to the country cannot, if necessary, discharge any member of that Department without having such a thing as an Inquiry. In my judgment there is too little change made by the heads of Departments and there are too many people kept in connection with our Departments who are of very little service but are of great cost to the country. I am looking forward to the time when a Minister will have full powers to get rid of people who are incompetent or are not suitable for the particular service for which they are paid.
So far as Miss Douglas-Pennant is concerned she is evidently a very competent lady, and I am surprised that she should take the line she has taken, because,

39
clearly there is nothing whatever against her character or against her general efficiency. But the Minister in charge of the Department says distinctly that he did not consider her a proper person to take charge of the Women's Air Service in the difficult circumstances which existed during the war. I cannot understand why the Minister should be interfered with in such a question as that. Surely, if there is any question which a Minister ought to be in the position to decide, it is such a question as that.
In all our great industries throughout the country, if such a charge as that were brought, it would be dealt with immediately by the manager at the head of the department, and I cannot see why such a thing should not be brought up in the Department itself. There have been serious charges made against certain members of the Department—so serious, I think, that if an ordinary employer were satisfied that such charges were true, instant dismissal would take place. I cannot see why the head of the Department, General Paine or whoever he is, should not make special inquiries into those particular cases which were mentioned by Lord Stanhope. I do beg your Lordships not to interfere with the responsibility of the Minister in this case. If you do it will create a precedent which will make Ministers hesitate before they take action which they think is necessary for the good of the country. So far as I am concerned I shall certainly vote against an Inquiry being held, in the hope that a Departmental Inquiry will be held into the particular cases mentioned by the noble Earl.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I feel great difficulty in addressing myself to this case. I may say—I believe in harmony with the view of a great number of your Lordships—that I detest these personal questions. The difficulties which presented themselves in respect of it have been largely mitigated on the present occasion by the speech of the noble Lord who was Secretary of State, and I think I may say that most of your Lordships were very agreeably impressed with that speech. It was a speech of great candour, in which the noble Lord dealt with the subject in a manner which recommended itself to our judgment. I should like to go further and say that I entirely agree with the noble Lord who has just
40
sat down, and with the Under-Secretary who spoke a few minutes ago, that it would be very objectionable indeed if the responsibility of a Minister in changing those who work under him, whether they be military or civil servants in their capacity, was interfered with by Parliament or by Parliamentary Inquiry. All those things I feel very strongly.
When we discussed the matter on a previous occasion we were under great difficulties owing to the absence, which he has explained to-day, of the noble Lord, and also, of course, there were circumstances connected with the dismissal of Miss Douglas-Pennant which were very difficult to explain. For example, there was the fact that the Under-Secretary of State, in another place, announced that she was thoroughly efficient and that when she came to be dismissed she was not, dismissed in favour of somebody more efficient; for, as the noble Lord has told us so frankly to-day, they were unable to find the person they wanted to succeed her except after several trials of different individuals. So that, apparently, although she was, in the view of the Under-Secretary, highly efficient, yet she was dismissed without there being anybody in prospect to fill her place. These are the kind of difficulties presented to us on the last occasion.
There are, of course, other difficulties. There are all sorts of charges which have been made—charges which have been made in the correspondence, charges which have been made outside the House, and charges which have been made in your Lordships' House this evening. These charges are very serious, very grave. I confess, if they can be in any way sustained, that I do not see how it is possible to escape an Inquiry of some kind. It may be thought that it was a mistake to have brought those charges. I have nothing to do with them, and I hope your Lordships will net think for a moment that I wish to endorse them, because I know nothing about them and I would not desire to be in the least responsible for them. But these charges have been made. Charges of pecuniary corruption I believe have been made, if not in your Lordships' House, outside; charges of immorality, inside.
I would like to put a question to the Government. We are not here, of course, to discuss these matters with any heat. I ventured to say to your Lordships very respectfully on a previous occasion that we

41
are, more or less, in a judicial capacity when these questions come before us. We discuss them without heat and with impartiality. I would put it to the Government, whether they think that these charges, of corruption in the one case and immorality in the other, can be passed over absolutely in silence. I do not think they can be. I hope they may be disposed of absolutely; I mean that they may be proved to be unfounded; but they cannot be passed over, and I would say this to the Government. These charges, of course, will penetrate to all parts of the country, and there is a large feeling of suspicion abroad—a suspicion of which we are always conscious and which we have discussed on several occasions in your Lordships' House. That feeling of unrest is very much increased by changes such as these, and they cannot be passed over in silence if there is any foundation whatever for them. I respectfully put to the Government this question—whether they propose to take any action in respect to the charges of pecuniary corruption and the charges of immorality which have been made inside and outside your Lordships' House?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, the further debate which we have had on this subject has been noted for the speech of Lord Weir, which I feel sure has shown to your Lordships the case we have endeavoured to make out on two previous occasions. The noble Marquess has asked the Government specificially whether, if these charges are made, an Inquiry will be granted to discover if they are correct or not. It is not for me to go into the history of the case again. In your Lordships' hands already are two White Papers in which the various charges have been made specifically, and I venture to say that there is nothing in either of these White Papers which can under any circumstances whatever support; the contention of the noble Marquess when he says that any charge of corruption or charge of immorality has been brought to light, or that that corruption and immorality have been tolerated by people in responsible positions.
This has been a most regrettable case in many ways. I have felt that on previous occasions your Lordships have not really, if I may be allowed to say so, appreciated the actual point which was at issue. The point which was deliberately at issue was the questioning of the jurisdiction of
42
the Secretary of State. Another point which was brought forward was that Miss Douglas-Pennant, being in an influential position, had more opportunity of bringing her case before the notice of the public than other people who had exactly the same grievance, or exactly the same sense of grievance. If your Lordships, in your judicial capacity, think that a Court of Inquiry should be set up you are really laying down a precedent which will operate in a multitude of cases at the present moment. If you set up a Court of Inquiry it naturally means that every person who considers that they labour under a grievance will feel that their case should be brought forward, the same procedure gone through, and the same expenditure incurred.
These are important points. The case has assumed an importance which, I feel, is regrettable. In the minds of a great many people in this country the facts have become so distorted that it is our duty in this House to bring them back to the normal on this case, of which there are countless parallels at the present moment. I shall not venture to recapitulate the speech of Lord Weir but I feel, and I hope your Lordships will agree with me, that he has laid down the case, the position and responsibility attaching to the Secretary of State, and has shown that he had no alternative than to take the line he did. I do not feel that I should be entitled to trespass on your Lordships' attention at this moment. Everything that ought to be said has been said already, and I only appeal to your Lordships to consider this case on its merits.
All personal cases, as the noble Marquess said, are difficult, and our sympathies are always with the individual who stands by herself or himself; we are anxious to support them to the fullest; possible extent we can. But this is a public case, and in that connection I feel sure we should consider it on its judicial merits. I have already said on two occasion on behalf of the Government that if any real charge of corruption or immorality is brought forward, or charges that corruption and immorality is tolerated by people in official positions, His Majesty's Government will go into the matter and probe it to the bottom, and bring forward information for your Lordships' satisfaction. In that connection may I say that there is a case at the present moment in which allegations of corruption have been brought forward by a lady who was one of Miss

43
Douglas-Pennant's subordinates, and the moment that charge was substantiated a formal Inquiry was set up and will assemble next week. The result will be made public and be available for your Lordships' consideration. I have said this because I want to show exactly what is in the mind of the Air Ministry.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I put a question to the noble Marquess. Do I understand him to say that a charge in respect of corruption in connection with the Air Ministry has been made by a lady, and that an Inquiry has already been ordered in respect of it?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: A formal Inquiry has been ordered, and will assemble next week, owing to these specific allegations having been made. The Inquiry has been called by the Government. Before your Lordships decide to have an Inquiry, I can only say that the Government feel that they cannot take any
part in it. If such an inquiry is held it must be held by your Lordships, but in doing so you will create a precedent which, I feel, cannot but be followed by very serious consequences.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I think it will interest you Lordships to know why the Air Ministry has set up this Inquiry. It is an Inquiry in regard to a clothing contract in the Air Force. Miss Douglas-Pennant has made some of these charges in the White Paper, and nothing was done. The Clothing Controller has repeated the charges. An inquiry was held which baulked the whole thing; but the lady was subsequently called before a Committee in another place which is inquiring into the waste of national expenditure, and it is as a result of that Inquiry that the Government are now setting up this Inquiry.
On Question—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-contents, 42.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Devonport, V.

Islington, L.

Bedford, D.

Hood, V.

Lambourne, L.

Northumberland, D.

Knutsford, V.

Middleton, L.

Monson, L.

Camden, M.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Crewe, M.

Aldenham, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Lincolnshire, M.

Ampthill, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Ashbourne, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Normanby, M.

Askwith, L.

Parmoor, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Balfour, L.

Pontypridd, L.

Craven, E.

Basing, L.

Raglan, L.

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

Belper, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Blyth, L.

Rotherham, L.

Eldon, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Roundway, L.

Grey, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Sackville, L.

Lindsey, E.

Clwyd, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Mayo, E.

Colwyn, L.

Southwark, L.

Morton, E.

Ebury, L.

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

Mount Edgeumbe, E.

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

Northbrook, E.

Strachie, L.

Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

Erskine, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Strafford, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Sudeley, L.

Wicklow, E.

Forester, L.

Swaythling, L.

Gainford, L.

Sydenham, L.

Bryce, V.

Inchiquin, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Milner, V.

Joicey, L.

Peel, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Bath, M.

Newton, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Ripon, L. Bp.

Nunburnholme, L.

Bradford, E.

Annesley, L.

Phillimore, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Jersey, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Redesdale, L.

Leicester, E.

Clinton, L.

Shandon, L.

Lytton, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Reading, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Sterndale, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Emmott, L.

Sumner, L.

Gisborough, L.

Weir, L.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Hindlip, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Hothfield, L.

Wittenham, L.

Goschen, V.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion

agreed to accordingly.

DESTITUTION IN EUROPE AND NEAR EAST.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it was possible to make public any official information which has been obtained as to the condition of destitution, and even famine, which is said to prevail in some parts of Europe and the Near East.
The most rev. Primate said: My Lords, I shall not detain you for many minutes with this Question. We have heard with regret that the noble Earl who leads the House is unable to be here to-night, but I understand that it is not contrary to his wish, or the wish of those associated with him in responsibility for these matters, that I should put the Question and receive an answer to-night. I feel that the country at this moment fails; to realise the gravity of the famine conditions which are prevailing, as we are informed, in a great many parts of Europe. We have grown so accustomed during the last few years to reading of horrors and sorrows and trials of all kinds that we do not adequately measure the gravity of the statements which are made about distress such as is now prevalent.
In addition, what we are puzzled by is how to discriminate between exaggerated statements which are made on one side or the other, or the truth which may lie half way between. Therefore it is of the highest importance that we should obtain such official information as is possible. Just a month ago the noble Earl the Leader of the House wrote as follows on the subject—
"It is difficult for our people to realise the extent of suffering which still prevails in those countries" [in the Central parts of Europe] "even at the present time, more than six months after the Armistice.… In many cases, and especially in the large towns, the distress is appalling; not only grown-up men and women, but hundreds and thousands of small children are in daily want of many of the necessities of life. The effects of such a state of affairs are visible in a scale of mortality that can hardly be measured, in a shocking increase of crime, and in the progressive enfeeblement and deterioration of those who ought to provide the population of the future.… It is no exaggeration then to say that the Western world is faced in the present with destitution, disease, and despair, to a degree unprecedented in modern times, and in the future with a prospect of the full consequences of these misfortunes—namely, physical inefficiency, paralysis in national life, social, political, and industrial unrest, and all the evils that cannot fail to flow therefrom."
46
In view of these very grave statements in a letter from the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, the Church of England—and I have no doubt; other denominations too—have been doing what is possible to raise funds for the alleviation of that distress in different parts of the world.
But I have been met several times with the statement., "You are speaking in-generalities. What we want is some specific, knowledge of where it is that the need is so formidable. What investigations have been made into it, and what are the statistical or official facts which can be put before us?" It is with a view to understanding whether any inquiry has been made by His Majesty's Government into the matter or rather—because I know official inquiry has been made—to ascertain whether or not the results of that inquiry are capable now of being made public, that I ask the Question. I believe that the vast mass of the people of this country are most anxious to be helpful where help is most needed, but they are at present in ignorance of the detailed facts, or even the general facts, as to the character, the incidence, and the topographical region wherein the need is greatest. It is because I hope that with these facts before us we may evoke from the people of this country really substantial aid to meeting the appalling distress which, as the noble Earl has told us, is at present prevailing that I venture to ask the Question, and to hope that the answer may be such as to give us the sort of information which will relieve the perplexities that at the present time prevail.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I desire to add a few words in support of the appeal which has been made by the most rev. Primate, especially dealing with one part of the wide region included in his Question, and that is the Asiatic Near East. There is, I can assure your Lordships—and His Majesty's Government know it already—the greatest possible distress in many parts of the interior of what is or was the Turkish Empire, particularly in the eastern parts from Syria northwards. In one spot there are from 300,000 to 350,000 refugees starving and suffering from disease. They are together upon the borders of what were the Russian dominions—Russian Trans-Caucasia and Russian Armenia. These people fled from before the Turks at the time of massacres. They have been living or dying, supported by charity, ever since in great numbers, and now they are crowded

47
along the frontier all the way eastward from the Black Sea to the Caspian, endeavouring to return to their homes where they would again begin to till the soil, and where they might hope to reap a harvest next year if it were not for the threatening masses of Turks who are gathered there, and in the face of whom it would be dangerous for them to enter their own country. This is one of the places where the need is greatest.
The need is partly met by subscriptions from this country, and on a still larger scale by the enormous Relief Commission sent out from the United States, which took relief there to the extent of something like £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. The greatest possible help was given to this Commission by His Majesty's Government, As I have frequently heard from the members of this Commission their desire that an acknowledgment should be made of that, I venture to make it to your Lordships on behalf of the members of this Relief Commission, who say that all that could have been done was done by those who represented His Majesty's Government in the Black Sea, and along the railway which runs inland from Batum to Tiflis and the Caspian. The need there is very great not only of food but still more of protection. These unfortunate refugees might avert famine for next year if they could get back to their own fields, but they are prevented from doing so by the menaces of Turkish forces. I hear from the best possible source—that of a very eminent man who has made a long journey through Anatolia and Armenia—that the Turks are at present being stirred up in the interior by the remnant of the Young Turkish Party, the infamous Committee of Union and Progress, which still holds a great many adherents in the country, and which unfortunately has been stimulated to further action, and has found material ready to be stimulated, by the conflict which has recently arisen at Smyrna between the Greek troops and the Moslem population there. In these circumstances, if relief is to be given and if those sufferings to which the most rev. Primate has referred are to be reduced, it is essential not only that relief should be sent out, but that protection should be given to the people in order that the relief may reach them and in order that they may be able to return to their homes.
I would therefore seriously appeal to His Majesty's Government not to withdraw
48
any troops from these regions. There has been a rumour that British troops were going to be withdrawn. I earnestly hope that is not the case. Of course I will not press the Government to make any disclosure of their intentions beyond what they may desire to do, but I do express with some confidence, based on the information that I have received, that nothing would be more unfortunate than that the British Forces should be reduced there, because without them you could not get the relief to the people suffering, and because the likelihood of further massacres would be still greater. There is, I am afraid, very serious reason to fear further massacres. The legal Turkish authorities, who take their orders from Constantinople—and of course Constantinople is now under our influence—are, I am told, unable to maintain order. The Armenians and the Young Turk ruffians who desolated the country before with their massacres are still powerful, and they are more powerful in many places than the constituted legal authority, so nothing can prevent further disturbance and further massacre except the action of European troops.
I venture, therefore, respectfully to press upon His Majesty's Government the very great need that exists for providing all the protection and safety that can be ensured to the Christian population there, and I believe that that will not only be the best thing for the general welfare of the country, but it is the only means by which the urgent and pressing dangers of famine can be averted.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say a word upon this question of famine and destitution, and particularly to express my agreement with what was said by the most rev. Primate—that it is of extreme importance that we should have careful statistics, and that there should be no exaggeration of what is undoubtedly a very difficult situation.
Only two days ago I saw a series of letters from Vienna written by persons who were quite detached from political bias of any kind, drawing in very dark terms indeed a picture of the conditions of distress which exist in that city at the present time. But, apart from private letters of that kind, I think it is of importance that we should bear in mind what has been said on this very serious question by members of the Government

49
who have had special opportunities of obtaining the true facts. No one, probably, has had, bad a better opportunity than Lord Robert Cecil, whose work at Paris has gained the respect and approval of every thoughtful person. Speaking the other day he made this statement—
"In large parts of Central Europe, including some parts of Germany, the babies are dying for want of food and clothing."
I should like to ask Lord Newton, if he is going to reply, whether, according to the information he has got, that is accurate or not. Then, let me quote again what was said by General Smuts, also a member of the Supreme Economic Council, and also a statesman who has had special opportunities of ascertaining the conditions. He said—
"We witnessed the collapse of the whole political and economic fabric of Central and Eastern Europe. Unemployment, starvation, anarchy, war, disease, despair stalked through the land. Unless the victors can effectively extend a helping hand to the defeated and broken peoples a large part of Europe is threatened with exhaustion and decay."
I should like to ask His Majesty's Government whether they concur in that statement made by General Smuts, which, if true, is one of the most serious statements -that could possibly be made.
The most rev. Primate, when he was addressing your Lordships, referred to what was said by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, whose absence we all regret this evening. Let me add one or two quotations from what Lord Curzon himself has said. He appealed in one of his letters or speeches (I forget which) to the philanthropy of civilised and Christian mankind—an appeal, he said, which was essential in order to deal with the terrible conditions which exist. And then he is reported to have said this—
"He estimated that the post-war conditions in Germany and in Austria are in some cases even more terrible than those of war itself."
According to private information which I have obtained from persons in the district that statement of the noble Earl is in no sense exaggerated. Of course, it is not likely to be exaggerated, coming from a person in his position, and with his knowledge. But, at the same time, the statement is so serious that one would like to know what the Government have to say upon it, in order that the people of this country may really know what the conditions are.
50
May I make a further quotation front the National Food Journal, which is an official organ of the Government Every one must know that Mr. Roberts, the Food Minister, has made very strong statements indeed as regards the conditions of starvation and destitution. He has used the word "appalling" more than once. He has pointed out that the raising of the blockade is in itself by no means sufficient to deal with the terrible conditions which prevail in Central Europe at the present time. Now let me read what is said by the National Food Journal—
"The mere lifting of the blockade will not save Europe. If Europe is to is be saved from Bolshevism and anarchy far more than a mere negative act will be necessary. As Lord Hubert Cecil pointed out in his speech in the House of Commons, a supreme effort will be needed on the part of the Allies, and it is useless to suppose that anything worth having can be accomplished except by sacrifice."
I should like to know again whether His Majesty's Government concur in the two views first, as regards the appalling conditions which exist, and secondly in the statement, "it is useless to suppose that anything worth having can be accomplished except by sacrifice"; and to ask another question, namely, whether the Government have any policy or settled plan by which, even if sacrifice is necessary, the situation may be saved.
I have before me also private letters written by persons who are now in Vienna, and who have gone there with the sanction and approval of His Majesty's Government. I can only say that the statements in those letters are truly terrible—tuberculosis, starved children dying of rickets, new forms of disease coming to the front, similar to those which were known in the East in times of famine; and there is a general statement that unless something is done, however bad the conditions are now, they will probably be much worse ("ten times worse" is the statement of an impartial person), particularly, as far ahead as next March, that is to say, when the poor harvest (because it is a poor harvest) will have been exhausted. No doubt the Government are perfectly well aware of the Report made by a Commission of neutral doctors. They were perfectly impartial. They approached the matter, as I think it ought to be approached, from the medical standpoint. They pointed out, in words which engraved themselves on the heart, I think, of every one who read them, how terrible the conditions were.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In Austria?
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, in Austria. The conditions are bad in many parts of Central Europe and in Armenia, as was pointed out by the noble Viscount Lord Bryce. But I believe that the conditions in Austria are more threatening than in any other part of the Continent. I have been told that they are nearly as bad in parts of Poland and some parts of Macedonia. Speaking from the information I have obtained, connected with the Council winch desired to obtain accurate information on points of this kind, those are the most threatening places, but the worst is Austria. In fact, some people have gone so far as to say that, unless very drastic steps can be taken, the whole future of the manhood of Austria is at stake.
It is not my purpose to attempt to paint things of this kind in dark colours. Judging by statements made by members of the Government, these reports must be accepted. I am not now throwing the blame on anyone, except to say that the conditions are the result of the prolonged war conditions. I do not say that they were our fault: they were the fault of the war conditions. The blame is primarily upon those who brought about these terrible war conditions on the Continent. But there is an enormous responsibility upon civilised Europe. We cannot stand still and allow these babies to perish of hunger. We cannot stand by and allow Austria (taking that as the worst part) to be practically decimated and to have the whole manhood of its population lowered. And therefore I hope that His Majesty's Government, being aware, as I am sure they are, of the conditions to which I have referred, will be able to indicate some possible method of alleviating this great danger.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I much regret that, as has already been explained, my noble friend Lord Curzon has been prevented by sudden indisposition from answering this very important Question, and I am afraid that the reply that I am instructed to make will be considered one of a somewhat inadequate nature. The most rev. Primate will readily admit I hat it would be a difficult task in any circumstances to review, in answer to a simple question, the activities of the various Associations which have been set
52
up by the Allies since the Armistice in order to avert famine and to alleviate the distress which was bound to follow the cessation of hostilities.
Perhaps for the moment it will be sufficient to say that Europe as a whole has been saved from starvation; and this, we must admit, is largely due to the money and the supplies provided by the United States Government, and to the energy and ability shown by Mr. Hoover, the Director-General of Relief. At the same time, I think it will not be assumed that the whole of the credit of this relief is to be attributed to the United States; because, as far as our resources are concerned, impaired as they were by four and a-half years of warfare, His Majesty's Government and the Dominions have taken their full share; and I think that Mr. Hoover would probably be the first to admit the invaluable nature of the work which has been performed by British relief organisations and by British missions. I am speaking off-hand, but I am under the impression that a sum of well over £12,000,000 has already been expended by this country in providing foodstuffs. There has been the closest co-operation as regards finance, shipping and administration between ourselves and the United States Government as well as with France and with Italy, with the result that there is no immediate danger of starvation anywhere at the present moment, except, unfortunately, as regards Armenia. With regard to the matter mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce, I am afraid that I am not in a position to state what the policy of His Majesty's. Government is with regard to the retention or the retirement of our troops at present in that neighbourhood.
It is unfortunately the case that while this immense system of relief—which in its magnitude almost corresponds with the war itself—has averted actual starvation in Europe, it has not eliminated privation. It must also be admitted that it has naturally failed to eradicate another evil resulting from the war—namely, the disease which especially attacks growing children, many of whom it is to be feared will never recover from the effects of three years constant under-feeding. Looking generally at the South and South-Eastern Districts of Europe as a whole, and not differentiating for economic purposes between neutral and ex-enemy countries,

53
I think it must be evident that no measures of simple relief will solve the problem. Relief is merely a temporary solution, and it must be patent to everyone by this time that a permanent solution can be found only by reconstructing the trade of these countries not only with ourselves but with our Allies; and with this object in view the British representatives on the Supreme Economic Council are exerting every possible effort. I have nothing more to add except that I cannot help thinking that the most rev. Primate is mistaken in his view that the country does not realise the importance of this question, and I have to inform him that a Report on the position in Europe and the work which has been conducted by British Missions is now in course of preparation and will shortly be published.

FINANCE BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, as your Lordships know, it has never been the custom in this House that the Finance Bill when introduced here should be accompanied by a speech on the part of the mover; therefore I beg formally to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, we are all well aware of the strict limitations by which this House is confined, if not in discussing, at any rate in dealing with questions of finance; therefore I have no intention of going into the provisions of this Finance Bill at length. On the other hand, it has been an almost invariable practice for many years past for the formal Motion for the Second Reading to be followed by a speech from this Bench. On some occasions when, as I well remember, that speech was made by so skilled a master of finance as Lord St. Aldwyn, the House obtained great advantage from the practice.
But to-night I will endeavour to mention only a few considerations which occur to me in relation to this Bill. It would be natural and tempting on this particular occasion to enter upon the whole subject for national expenditure and the methods by which that expenditure is to be met;
54
but I am relieved from undertaking any such task to-night because of the masterly survey which my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster made only a few days ago on the subject of national expenditure, fortifying his statement by an enumeration of facts and figures which, as he has since reminded the House, have not been contradicted by any speaker on behalf of His Majesty's Government.
There are one or two features, however, in the general subject to which I should desire to draw attention. In the first place, I understand that it is still the practice, as it has been since the war began to draw to an evident close, that the realisation of national assets—amounting in some cases to a very large figure—should be treated as part of the national income and not devoted to the reduction of the Debt. That is a proceeding which it is not easy to reconcile with any sound canons of finance; and, if the practice is to obtain permanently until the whole of these stores and other assets have been liquidated, it will have to be borne in mind that our financial position is even worse than the ordinary bare figures of income and expenditure would lead us to suppose.
We know that the Income Tax remains at the high figure of 6s., and that the Super-Tax persists on its previous graduated scale. Some income Tax remissions are made in respect of small incomes, which I am certain will be welcomed both by your Lordships and by the country generally. In view, however, of the figures which were quoted by Lord Buckmaster the other night, it is impossible for us not to ask ourselves whether in the future the Income Tax or Super-Tax may not have to undergo a still further increase. If the uncontradicted figure of £800,000,000 which my noble and learned friend suggested as the necessary expenditure of the future is correct, or anything like correct, it is difficult to see how the expenditure of the year can be met by any means except by an increase of direct taxation. What effect such an increase would have on the reproductive energies of the country, I confess I hesitate to consider.
Even as it is, the scale of direct taxation is bound to affect those energies adversely; so much so that one asks one self whether, with such a scale of enforced national expenditure, the past industrial supremacy of this country can by any possibility be maintained. That supremacy is menaced

55
as we now stand both by high prices and also—it is impossible to deny it—by high wages. After all, it is not in the natural order of things that we should possess or retain an industrial supremacy in Europe. It is due to a variety of causes which it would be useless to attempt to discuss to-night. It is due to some extent to our insular position; to our being placed on the western border of Europe in a position which makes us the natural entrepôt of Europe, and indeed of the world; to our great natural mineral wealth, and also to the peculiar circumstance that our climate is especially suited to the cotton industry.
I cannot, however, help saying that, so far as I am able to form an opinion on the subject, I anticipate something of a decline in our relative industrial position as compared with some of the other great countries of the world. It is by no means impossible that such a decline might be accompanied by a no little general prosperity among all classes in the country, by a greater diffusion of wealth, by a higher standard of living among the workers generally, even though the national wealth tends to diminish, as I fear it will. In any case I fear we may feel that what was almost the easy supremacy of the past has gone for ever, and that it will be a hard struggle to maintain. I will not say supremacy, but anything like economic and industrial equality with some other countries in the world. Nobody can say that the future prospects of the coal industry are rosy. Would anybody venture to foretell that an output of coal sufficient to produce an export of coal such as that which could be quoted, say, for the years 1912 and 1913, is likely to appear in the near future? I confess that all the signs seem to be adverse to such a conclusion.
What, is the outlook in the cotton trade? We all know that India, one of the great markets for cotton, claims an increased, or indeed a full measure of fiscal independence. Whatever arrangements may be made in favour of this country by India as part of a system of Preference, it may be relied upon that manufactured cotton goods will not go into the Peninsula at the low rate at which they now enter. Our trade in other parts of the world may undergo similar difficulties; and I fear that there, too, our amazing supremacy in that particular trade may be heavily threatened in the future. When we consider that in the
56
year 1913 the exports of cotton goods amounted to one-third of the total exports of this country, one sees that any change there must affect our national wealth with certainty and promptness which would hardly apply in the case of any other product—except, indeed, coal. The shipping industry must also have a hard fight before it. It will be no easy matter for us to recapture that absolute predominance in the mercantile marine of the world which we possessed up to a few years ago. We have here advantages of practice and, I venture to think, a special talent which no other country may possess, but it will be a bitter struggle for us to return to anything like our position in this respect, too.
Those are general considerations, but there are one or two particular matters arising out of the Budget on which I wish to say a word. Clause 8 of this Bill introduces into our national economics the principle of Imperial Preference. I have no intention of arguing the pros and cons of Imperial Preference, but this I do say—that if the principle was to be introduced into our national system, it should have been introduced by the direct consent and action of Parliament and not as the fruit of a discussion round a table with some distinguished colleagues hailing from the different Dominions. It is impossible, as I think, not to regard this as one instance of the ignoring of Parliament which has, I fear, done something to depreciate the House of Commons in the public estimation. The subjects of preference are few and, among the figures with which the nation now has to deal, the amounts involved appear trivial. I do not think as we stand that it is altogether trivial to have to incur a loss, which at present amounts to two and a-half millions and in a full yea; will amount to three and a-third millions, for the sake of establishing a principle, popular no doubt with many of our friends and brethren in the great Dominions, but not in itself on a scale sufficient to be satisfactory to them.
We always have to remember that the grant to us by the Dominions of a preference is a distinct, feature in the protective systems which they—as they are, of course, fully entitled to do—prefer to adopt. We have no such ground as matters stand for a similar grant, because, with certain normal exceptions, we still, generally speaking, are living under a Free Trade system; and it is very difficult for an

57
unrepentant Free Trader like myself not to suppose that this particular grant of preference must be designed as the portico of introduction to a general tariff, especially bearing in mind that the great majority of His Majesty's present Administration are, and have been long, in favour of what has been called Tariff Reform. It is very difficult to suppose that a system of Imperial Preference can be sustained without, being enlarged. It can only be enlarged in the direction of placing some taxes on food, with a preference to the Empire, and when some taxes are placed upon food it will obviously be exceedingly difficult, in the interests of equal dealing, to abstain from a certain taxation of raw materials.
We are told, of course, that we are uttering the ancient shibboleths of the Free Trader. That may be so, but they are neither more ancient—if they are, indeed, as ancient—nor more familiar than the shibboleths of the Protectionist. The principle which we hold is an exceedingly simple one—namely, that tire national system should be one of free exchange and of duties for revenue only, subject to such exceptions as may be shown by definite proof to be necessary and advantageous. Every exception, in fact, has to be definitely justified. The opposite view, which as we know is held by many thoughtful people, is that the general and normal rule should be the encouragement of production in this country itself, and that every departure from the encouragement of production by permitting free imports is in turn to be the subject of special justification. That applies also to the further point in this Budget of the retention of certain special duties on articles of luxury, which were imposed during the war for particular reasons—motor cars, clocks and watches, cinema films, and I think one or two others. Those duties, by their maintenance when we are no longer living under general laws, can only be regarded as in their essence protective; and here again, it is difficult not to regard them as the approach to a general tariff upon manufactured goods.
I have no desire to labour these points. I know very well that, if the House were full those who agree with we would form a very small minority of your Lordships' House. Some of us on these benches, however, consider that even if there was no other reason whatever for maintaining
58
the separate existence of the Liberal Party this question of free exchange would, of itself, justify our existence. We know very well that the point of view of the Labour Party, who might be considered to march under the same standard, is somewhat different. So far as the taxation of food is concerned and the cheapening of the necessaries of life, we should find the Labour and Liberal opinion, I have no doubt, identical. But it is quite impossible for Liberals to deny that one objection in this matter of tariffs which we entertain—the kind of objection which we entertain on the grounds of undue State interference—will not appeal with the same force to many of those who belong to the Labour Party.
The fact is that devotion to State interference and State control is apt to bring the Socialist very near to the Protectionist's lines. That was pointed out long ago by the French Free Trade economist, M. Bastiat, who said, "After all is said and done, a Protectionist is nothing but a Socialist with an income of 50,000 franes a year." While fully admitting that a great many of the early Free Traders carried individualism to a point of almost ridiculous extremity in their dread of State interference on every or any subject, we do maintain that we occupy a special position of guardianship in this matter, which, as we believe, will prove to be of particular value to the country. Consequently, my Lords, although no action, as we know, is possible to any of us on this Bill I have thought it right, even at the risk of wearying the House, to register this definite protest against some of its provisions.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I venture to hope that no apology is necessary for intervening in this debate even at this war of the evening. I have always felt that your Lordships' House should discuss every matter of importance which is before the country, and it is quite evident that the Finance Bill of the present year is one of extraordinary and unusual importance. The general condition of the country has been the subject of debate in your Lordships' House on more than one occasion. We have been told that it is partly due to the extravagance of His Majesty's Government, and it is now when the Bill is presented that we shall gradually get some idea how great that extravagance fans been. We hardly have a discussion without some Member on the Government bench telling

59
us how dismal is the outlook of this country, and how bad are its financial and general prospects. They do it with a kind of bland innocence as if they were in no way responsible for the condition of the country. I think if the condition was very different, and we were more prosperous, they would be among the very first to claim the credit for that prosperity; and it is impossible for them to entirely absolve themselves front some portion of the blame for the condition in which we are to-day.
I shall venture to deal particularly with a new subject which is introduced into this Finance Bill—and that is the question of Colonial Preference. It is interesting to me to find that these benches are empty of Tariff Reformers who, I should have thought, would have been anxious to acclaim the victory of their cause. I should have thought we might have had some expression of thanks from them to the Government for having at last put into practice some part of the great principles of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. I confess I am filled with despair when I find that those who support this policy of Colonial Preference have learnt nothing from the lessons of the war. They tell us exactly the same things as they used to tell us from the very beginning in 1903, and it seems that even now, after all that has happened, they use the very same arguments as they did before.
One of the first suggestions which Mr. Joseph Chamberlain made was that the Dominions should reserve certain trades and allow us to import those goods into their country. From that day to this there has not been the slightest inclination on the part of any one of our Dominions to fall in with that suggestion. There was also the suggestion, very familiar to us in phrase and catchword "Cash nexus." We were told that unless we introduced something of this kind the Dominions would cut the painter. There is an example of that in what was said by Mr. Garvin. It is a thoroughly typical quotation, and, he was speaking at that time on the question of preference being given to Australian foodstuffs over foodstuffs from the Argentine.
LORD SHEFFIELD: What was the date of that?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: About 1904, I think, and he used this phrase. He
60
asked, otherwise and unless we gave this preference—
"Upon what intelligible principle do we expect that Australia shall make special sacrifice to help us? For sentiment? Were the Colonies prepared to tax themselves for Imperial purposes, to fight under the Imperial flag for reasons no more urgent than those of sentiment, they would not be patriotic but insane."
My Lords, those of us who lived through those awful days, and renumber them clearly, of five years ago, I venture to think saw the first ray of hope come to us when those messages came from our Dominions, that they would help us and were with us in the struggle to the last penny and to the last man. On a hundred battlefields they have proved that they have kept their word, and have done it without that cash nexus which we were told it was so necessary they should have. I hope we shall find that that lesson has been learnt but there is this to be said on this question of taxes as introduced into this Budget, that they have a double aspect. On the one hand it is possible for those who support them to go to one section of their supporters and to say "See what an infinitely small matter this is. You may reserve your liberty of action for the future. It is true that we introduce a small measure of Preference, but there is nothing about which you need to be disturbed." On the other hand it is possible for them to go to another section of their supporters and say" It is true they mar seem a small matter, but this is the beginning of what will turn out to be a full measure of Imperial Preference and Protection." In that way they will secure support for the Bill front two totally different sections of opinion.
We may divide these special duties to which I venture to take exception into two classes. Firstly, into those duties on goods which were subject to a duty when Mr. McKenna introduced his Budget, and secondly, the preferential duties upon foodstuffs. With regard to the first lot it is interesting to realise that these Dominions and Colonies are given a preference upon a number of articles which they do not make and have no intention of making, but there is this curious point that embargoes exist upon a very large number of articles upon which preference is given—for instance motor cycles—and therefore a preference given in those matters upon which an embargo has been laid is not likely to be of any very real advantage. We were told at the time that these were only to be im-

61
posed for the period of the war. That was clearly stated more than once by those who are still Members of the Government, and I think we may regret the fact that those embargoes are being extended after the war period.
Then with reference to preference on food. Let us take first of all the duty on tea. Very nearly all the tea used in this country comes from within the Empire. Before the war I think 87 per cent. came from within the Empire, and now something like 97 per cent, conies from within the Empire, and on this there is to be a preferential duty. May I make a suggestion to the Government? At a time when there is so much unrest in the country and the cost of living is universally acknowledged to be the chief cause of that unrest, why not reduce the duty on tea to the extent of the preference? The Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated that the duty which he will lose by this preference will amount to £2,000,000 in the year. If he were to allow another£ 400,000 it would be, possible to sweep away 2d. of the duty upon tea, and to that extent he would be able to reduce the duty upon that important article of food.
Surely it would be well worth while for the Government to consider that point. After all who suffers in this matter? The people who suffer are the merchants in China. Generally the China tea trade is in the hands of young adventurous merchants who have gone out from this country and made a successful business in China. Very largely the people who will suffer are our kith and kin, and those who will gain are likely to be not the coolies or those who produce the tea, but the shareholders in the tea companies who live in this country. That seems to be an unsatisfactory result of the preferential duty on tea.
Then with regard to sugar. I suppose that in regard to sugar His Majesty's Government have been very largely influenced by the hopes of Mr. Hughes that he would be able to produce from Australia large quantities of sugar, but it is to be regretted that while over here in this country he did not warn us that in 1912 a Royal Commission on the sugar industry of Australia reported that—
"No substantial export trade of Australian sugar can be anticipated, at any rate for a long time to come. Such an export trade, in competition with colour-grown, sugar in Java
62
elsewhere, could only be maintained by the payment of an export bonus so large as to prove an intolerable burden."
And although it is possible we may get some sugar front the West Indies, if one may judge front items of information which appear in the newspapers that is likely to cause consternation in Canada.
The other matter to which I wish to allude is that of wines. It has to be remembered that where we give one set of people preference we do harm to another, and here we are proposing at this moment that our gallant Allies in France, who are suffering so much front the results of the war, shall be penalised to the extent of a preferential duty, in, order that we may give an advantage to our friends in Australia, who, it is true, deserve it as much as our French Alies. I venture to say that it is only in connection with this duty and its effect in Australia that I see any realisation of that spiritual recognition of spiritual unity spoken of by Mr. Bonar Law.
In this matter of Colonial Preference where we make considerable sacrifices we are entitled to know what the people in this country are to get. The noble Marquess referred to the India cotton duties, and I wish we could feel certain that in response to any preference which we are giving to India we could have some assurance that the cotton duties will be reduced in favour of our own cotton operatives in Lancashire. In other parts of the Empire we find a different state of things existing. So far from any sign appearing of our Dominions doing more to help us, I am afraid it looks as if the trend of their legislation would rather be in the opposite direction. It was only at the end of May that Lieutenant-Colonel Amery in another place spoke of sheep dip. I understand that the Australian Government have placed an embargo on that article, so as to prevent the manufacturers in this country front exporting into Australia any of their goods, and I think your Lordships should be made aware that there is an Australian Commission sitting with a view to the revision of the tariff in the autumn, that the starting of a number of new industries has already been recommended, and that the way proposed is by instituting a large measure of protection for various articles which they are anxious to make in Australia. That does not look as if the Colonial preference proposals of His

63
Majesty's Government have met with any great measure of gratitude on the part of the Australians.
I do not think it is far from the point to refer in this connection to the fact that Mr. Hughes, who was here so long and talked so much on the subject of British trade, is the one Prime Minister in the whole of the British Empire who has raised the duties upon British goods since the beginning of war. At the beginning of the war he raised the tariff in Australia upon British goods going into that country, and by an average of something like 2½ per cent. Mr. Hughes, who came and talked to as on the subject of how we should carry on our trade, has penalised British industry. I confess that when it comes to a matter connected with Mr. Hughes it is difficult to talk seriously. On matters of tariff policy he made two speeches just a year ago. One was in Glasgow on the Wednesday, and one was in Aberdeen the day after. Speaking in Glasgow on the Wednesday be said—
"In Britain before the war conditions were sordid and depressing. Millions were on the verge of starvation, living on the brink of a dreadful abyss."
Everything was not as we should like to see it, but I did not know it was as bad as that. At Aberdeen the next day he said—
"In Britain before the war the spark of divine fire had been clicked by the ashes of prosperity."
It really does not very much matter which state of things Mr. Hughes chooses to have to exist in this country, but it must have been one or the other, and it cannot have been both, and before we can pretend to argue with him he really must make up his mind as to what were the facts of the case.
Just one word on Canada. I will not detain your Lordships with a quotation from what Sir Robert Borden has said, but those of your Lordships who keep yourselves informed of what Sir Robert Borden has will know that he seems to look not so much to a preference on goods as to some preference in shipping rates and railway rates—a dangerous policy, because it is a game at which more than one person can play, and in which it is more than likely the United States of America might heat us when we begin to play. But in these matters we realise that we are not the large body of free traders that we were before the war. Some people who were opposed to Colonial preference have now seen their way to support the measures
64
proposed in the Finance Bill. Amongst others one of my own colleagues—my colleague in the treasurership of the Free Trade Union—has left us, and has found his way to support by speech and by vote in another place the proposals of the Finance Bill. It is a matter of very deep regret to me; so deep, my Lords, that my feelings can only find expression in the words, perhaps familiar to some of your Lordships, in a poem of Browning—
We that had loved him so, followed hint, honoured him,
Lived in his mild and magnificent eye,
Learned his great language, caught his clear accents,
Made him our pattern to live and to die.
Shakespeare was of us, Milton was for us,
Burns, Shelley were with us—they watch from their graves.
He alone breaks from the van and the freemen,
He alone sinks to time rear and the slaves!
The loss of old leaders and old colleagues is naturally a matter of deep regret, and I wish that it had been possible to have retained his services in the cause of free trade.
Let me venture to call your attention to the possibilities of what may follow front the initiation of this policy by His Majesty's Government. It is the very serious possibility of retaliation from the United States of America. It was only the other day that President. Wilson, addressing Congress, seemed to indicate that the United States did not mean to take the policy of His Majesty's Government lying down. Your Lordships know that our embargo policy has already aroused very strong feeling in that country. It is quite true that those who have been in favour of protection have always said that no country would or could object to our doing what we liked within our own Empire, and that there was no great danger of retaliation from the States, no, matter what sort of fiscal arrangement we might niche. This is what President Wilson said—
"Our tariff laws as they now stand provide no weapon of retaliation in case other Governments should enact legislation unequal in its bearing on our products as compared with the products of other countries. We must frankly face the fact that hostile legislation by other countries is not beyond the range of possibility, and that it may have to be met by counter legislation. I recommend that this please of the tariff question receive the early attention of the Congress."
I think with that in our minds it would be well if His Majesty's Government had walked somewhat more warily in this matter of Imperial preference.

65
The cognate matter of its effect upon the League of Nations has already been the subject of some little discussion in your Lordships' House, and I will therefore confine myself to saying on this occasion that it seems to me quite evident that the less we have of preference of this kind the more likely the League of Nations is to be successful in future. There is this point, too. We are always told that one of the advantages of adopting a protective system is our power of bargaining with other countries. That may or may not be so, but the more you grant preference the more difficult you make it to have an effective power of bargaining, because you are limited by the amount of preference which you are giving to your own Colonies or Dominions. At this time, when the cost of living is so large a part of the cause of the unrest which exists in this country, it seems to me that the really important steps which His Majesty's Government should take should rather be in the direction of reducing prices, and of doing all that they can to help the consumer. After all the nation is the consumer, and his is the first interest that we ought to consider. Tariffs are very little better in this connection than legalised profiteering. You must have profiteering the moment you begin to have this kind of 50 per cent. embargo upon imports coming into this country, and it is much more difficult to stop profiteering when you have protection and tariffs. His Majesty's Government with its tariffs and its preferences and its embargoes will, in the opinion of all free traders, raise the cost of living. There again is a lesson which one might have hoped the tariff reformers would have learned during the war. They used to tell us that cheapness was not everything; that cheapness was not a good thing; that there were great advantages in having high prices. We have had a lesson as to what high prices mean in this country, and I venture to say that, having had experience of it, the people of this country are less likely to wish for more of it in the future than they have had in the past. We object to the existence of these preferential proposals in the present Finance Bill not only on account of the proposals themselves, but also because in our opinion they must inevitably lead to protection in the future—the protection of greed masking as patriotism, which will only have the result of allowing a few selfish people, as always in case of protection, to advantage
66
themselves at the expense of the interests of the many.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT MILNER): My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down made some rather ironical reference to the fact that there were so few Tariff Reformers in the House to express their gratitude for the first Budget which has contained an affirmation of at least some of their principles. May I return the compliment, and condole with him upon the fact that his eloquent and impassioned re-statement of the most pure and unadulterated doctrine of free imports has had so few Free Traders to listen to and admire it?
The noble Earl rather surprised me by the statement that the most doleful pictures of the financial future of the country were always being presented from this side of the House, or, at any rate, from the Ministerial Bench. My recollection is quite the contrary. The last time I remember taking part in any financial discussion of importance in this House it was I and other speakers on the Ministerial side who, so far from being too doleful for the House, were reproached with levity for not taking a sufficiently doleful view of the situation. I have continually heard reproaches of the Government, either openly pronounced or hinted at, for not being sufficiently depressed, and for not taking a sufficiently gloomy view of the situation before us.
Honestly, my experience is that it is from the other side of the House that these gloomy vaticinations always come. And I think the debate to-night bears out that hitherto unbroken experience, because the noble Marquess who initiated it, though he certainly did not draw as black a picture of our possible future as I have often heard from some of his political associates, was, I think we may say, anything but cheerful as to our industrial and financial prospects.
May I say a few words, in the first instance, with regard to the speech of the noble Marquess? First of all, let me say that I am glad (though perhaps the hour was rather unfavourable for it) that he has revived and maintained the good practice by which the Finance Bill of the year, although no doubt your Lordships cannot affect its fate in any way by your action, is nevertheless made the subject

67
of a serious discussion in this House. Though we have no such great financial authorities in this House as some of those whom the noble Marquess and I both remember, yet the subject is one of such profound interest to the whole community that I think it would be regrettable from every point of view if the passing of the Finance Bill did not give rise to some discussion in this House.
And I must say that, late as the hour is, and unfavourable as the moment is for such discussion, I have followed with very great interest many of the noble Marquess's remarks, and I do not think it would be respectful to him, nor would it be consistent with my own feeling, if, even at this hour of the night, I did not make a few comments upon them. First of all just one word about this estimate of an expenditure of £800,000,000.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I was taking the figure of my noble friend Lord Buckmaster.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Yes, I know the history of that £800,000,000, and I want the House to be clear about this. An elaborate argument was addressed to the House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, who is not present, to the effect that our future expenditure would amount to at least £800,000,000, and he drew some inferences from that as to the future amount of Income-tax. At a later stage of the debate it was claimed that, inasmuch as no Government speaker had risen to disprove his calculation of £800,000,000, it must be accepted as what you might call an authoritative figure; and I think the noble Marquess opposite rather started from that basis in his remarks to-night. I really must put in a caveat to this. I am not prepared to dispute the figure myself at this moment. I should not feel justified in attempting to do it without a great deal more study and close examination of the details than I have the time to give, or that anybody else is in a position to give, except the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but as long as that Member of the Government, or any Member of the Government who is specially responsible in a matter of this kind, does not endorse that calculation, I cannot allow it to be treated here as accepted by the Government, simply because no noble Lord on this Bench is prepared to get up and dispute it.
68
Personally, I am very much inclined to doubt whether the figure is correct. All I can say is that it would be most undesirable, and I think it would be most unfair, that, whenever a statement of that kind is seriously made by a speaker of authority, and supported by serious arguments, he is entitled to claim that a calculation of that kind is accepted by the Government unless it has been disproved in the same debate by a speaker on the other side. I have not had time to examine this figure myself. I do not know that there is any other Member of the Government in this House who has had the opportunity of examining it, and all I can say about it is this, that I enter a most formal protest against the assumption that the Government has admitted that an expenditure of £800,000,000 is the expenditure which we ought to look forward to in future years. It may or may not be right—I am not discussing the matter now—but I want to make it perfectly clear that it is an open question, and that no financial authority on the part of the Government has admitted it.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I interrupt? I think it is, perhaps, hardly fair to say that Lord Buckmaster, or anybody else on this Bench, maintained that the Government accepted that particular figure, at which he arrived by a series of additions of sums needed for the public Services, which he considered he had framed on a fairly conservative basis. Nobody supposed that His Majesty's Government accepted the actual figure of £800,000,000, but what, I think, my noble friend did claim was that, at any rate, nobody had at once jumped up, or taken the opportunity in the course of the debate of accusing him of exaggeration in the matter, and that therefore, without in any sense supposing that His Majesty's Government adopted the figure, yet at any rate it is not one which could be regarded as preposterous.
VISCOUNT MILNER: No, I never said it could be regarded as preposterous; it is not in any sense authoritative. As regards the general outlook of our national industry, to which the noble Marquess addressed some of his remarks, I may say that I agree with him to the extent that I think the result of the war has been to bring about more rapidly a position which in any case was bound to be brought about in

69
the course of a certain number of decades by the force of circumstances—namely, that of the industrial pre-eminence of the United States of America among all the nations of the world. It was bound to come; but it has come rather quicker than it would otherwise have done in consequence of the events of the last few years. But I think the remarks of the noble Marquess went further than that. He seemed to think that our position as an industrial country, in comparison with that of other great industrial countries, had been weakened by the war.
If take a different view. I am aware of the heavy burdens which the war has thrown upon our industry. If we were the only great industrial country with a heavy debt, the only great industrial country which had to look forward to an immensely increased burden of taxation, I should say that certainly our position in the competition of the world had been considerably worsened. But surely, heavy as our hardens are and serious as our financial position is, there is no other country except the United States which has anything like the same chance of a carrying its burdens successfully, without absolutely crushing taxation, as the United Kingdom has. Therefore one reason why I am guilty, I hope not of levity in this matter but of being rather more optimistic than some noble Lords with regard to the industrial future, especially from the point of view of competition with other nations, is the fact that, while they look at the matter simply from the point of view of our own country, I am rather more disposed to take the comparative view, to look at our position side by side with that of others who have fought and suffered in the war. I cannot help feeling that, looked at from that point of view, the prospect is far more favourable than it is commonly represented to be.
I should have liked, if I had had more time, to have followed the noble Marquess more particularly with regard to some of those great staple industries of which he spoke. I will mention only two—coal and cotton. As regards coal, we are undoubtedly looking forward to a decrease of output. I am sure that there is only one way out of the difficult position in which this country is going to find itself in regard to coal—that is the way along which I am hopeful we may travel; I believe we shall be forced to travel along the road by the
70
difficulties of our position—and that is the better use of the coal we produce. I call only repeat once more that, unless all the experts tell me on this subject and that I am able to read on it is absolutely misleading, the waste of coal in this country at present and the failure to get anything like the maximum energy out of the coal we produce is something phenomenal, and that under the pressure of necessity we are going to get much greater value out of the coal we produce. With regard to cotton, a somewhat similar reason for hopefulness exists. Again, I am not speaking of my own knowledge; I do not pretend, of course, to be an expert in the matter. Rut from what I was able to gather—I was specially anxious to make inquiries on this subject—from a visit I lately paid to Manchester, where I met all the leading business men, the position with regard to cotton is that we have got, and are likely to retain, the market in all the finer kinds; and undoubtedly, with the general progress of the world, the demand for the superior kinds of cotton is greatly on the increase. Therefore what I found in Manchester was that the best opinion there was rather favourable as regards the future prospects of the cotton trade.
I will not pursue these detailed subjects very much further, but I would like once more to repeat my profound conviction that, serious as the financial and industrial position of this country is, it is not a dangerous. position—provided that we, in the first place, remain a constitutionally-governed, progressive nation, and do not go down the terrible road which some of the countries of Continental Europe are at present treading; and, in the second place, that we make the maximum use of the great advantages we possess—and inadequately use—by the wonderful skill of our workpeople and the great and progressive scientific achievements of our chemists. I am convinced that the dangers. which threaten us are social and moral rather than material, and that given industry, given a reasonable degree of social peace—a certain amount of social disturbance is inevitable at all times in a democratic country—and the progressive use of all the resources of science in the improvement of our industrial machinery, we may hope to attain a yet higher degree of prosperity in the future than we have known in the past. We shall not attain, perhaps any comparatively higher degree of prosperity, because I do not suppose we shall ever be the first Indus-

71
trial nation in the world; but we shall attain to something positively higher than anything we have ever known.
In this connection I attach immense importance to the development of our Empire, not only to the growth which is going to be, I think, in the next twenty or thirty years something that will astonish you—the growth of our great self-governing Dominions and the development of our trade with them—but also the growth and greater prosperity of what. I may call the Dependent Empire. I have always been convinced, and I am convinced more than ever now that I have been a few months at the Colonial Office, that what a great predecessor of mine (Mr. Chamberlain) called a great undeveloped estate, really is a group of countries possessing an immense economic future. No doubt they are of great importance as sources of raw materials which will become more and more indispensable to the great industrial countries of the world, and especially, I may say, to America. When we ask ourselves how we are going to pay the United States for all that we may have to draw from them, I think a not unimportant element in the future economic situation will be the fact that the United States themselves will require to draw increasing supplies of raw materials from parts of the British Empire. We may thus indirectly through our possessions repay America for a great deal that we shall have to draw from her.
I have left myself very little time to deal with the attack which has been made, very moderately by the noble Marquess opposite, with more vigour by the noble Earl, against the policy of Preference to which expression has been given in the Budget before us. The noble Earl astonished me rather by the remark that Tariff Reformers seemed to have learned nothing from the war. It was carrying the war into the enemy's country. I have certainly been very strongly under the impression during the last few years that some of the extreme Free Traders have learned nothing from the events of the past few years. There is one particular point in the noble Earl's criticisms to which I should specially like to refer, and on which, if he will forgive my saying so, I should like to put him right—that is, about the position of the Tariff Reformers and what I may call the fundamental basis of their doctrine in this matter of Preference. The noble Earl says that we have dwelt
72
too much upon time cash nexus between ourselves and the Dominions, and that the splendid way in which the Dominions rallied to our support during the recent war disproves the contention that it was necessary or important to attach them to us by bonds of financial or commercial interest. I will admit at once that I think the argument in favour of Colonial Preference has sometimes been stated in a crude and misleading form. It is not in the least to buy the loyalty of the great Dominions of the Empire that I and many others have advocated for many years so strongly, almost passionately, the concession of these commercial advantages to them.
I have made many speeches on this subject. I am quite certain that I have never used the argument that it was necessary to offer them commercial or financial advantages of any kind to ensure their standing by us as they have stood by us in a great crisis and in the face of great danger. What I have said, and do say, is that inasmuch as these are our only sure and certain friends and that on them alone of all the nations can we absolutely count upon at all times to stand by us, their development is of such vital interest to us. It is for that reason also I want to use all our resources to help them to grow. I remember once before asking the question, "Has Argentina offered you a battleship?" That was at the time when the first battleship was given to us by the Dominions. Inasmuch as these are the nations upon whom we can alone rely with certainty and in every danger and in every trouble, it is of vital importance to us to give them everything we can in order to further their growth and their development. That is the real basis of Colonial Preference.
Let me say that I am a firm believer in the advantage of a tariff preference, but I do not regard that as anything more than a single application of a principle of far greater and wider import. As between this country and our great Dominions and other parts of the Empire I understand the principle of preference to be that while we have no hostility to. any nation —while we hold the doctrine that every nation is of advantage to every other nation—there is a special interest to us in the development of those great States of our own race and blood and traditions and ideas, upon which, as I have said, we

73
alone can rely in the great struggles of the world. Therefore, we should in all our dealings give them an advantage wherever we can; because their growth is our benefit and our advantage in a sense in which the growth of other countries never can be, little as we wish to prejudice those other countries.
For instance, take the question of emigration. We do not wish people to emigrate from this country, but if they have got to emigrate let them carry their brains and sinews to other countries of the Empire rather than to foreign countries. If we have got capital to invest—we have only got a limited amount for overseas development—let it go in the first instance and by preference, even if it goes for a slightly lower rate of interest or return, to build up some other part of the British Empire rather than to build up foreign countries. There is no hostility to foreign countries implied in that: it is only a preference to our own kith and kin. That really is the root idea of this policy of Imperial Preference. I beg most strongly to deprecate the idea, speaking for myself and I believe for the great body of Tariff Reformers and for the Government, that in pursuing this policy we have any other motive than that of doing everything which lies in our power to help the commercial and industrial development of those other parts of the British Empire to which we owe so much and whose growth in the future appears to us to be of such vital importance to this country itself.
I do not know whether at this late hour it would be right to develop in more detail the argument as regards Preference I would only like to say in conclusion that, though I may be regarded by some members of your Lordships' House and perhaps am regarded outside, as a very extreme Protectionist, I do not admit that the policy of Preference necessarily involves any departure from Free Trade, or rather free exchange, as it was stated by the noble Marquess opposite. Re said that he was a believer in free exchange subject only to such exceptions as might be shown to be necessary and advantageous. I accept, certainly for the Government and I think for myself, that principle. I do not think that Preference in itself, in the form in which it has been accorded by the Government, is any departure from the principle of tree exchange, but, if it is, I contend that
74
it is a departure which is justified by those high considerations of national policy which I have attempted, however inadequately, to put before your Lordships.
I am not aware that there is at present in existence in this country any infraction of the principle of free exchange which cannot be justified on the merits of the case or which is accounted for by any desire to impose restriction upon trade or to adopt Protection for the sake of Protection. Speaking for my own part I should be quite satisfied to deal with all these questions of tariff or no tariff absolutely on the merits of each particular case, apart entirely from any general or theoretical principle, and certainly apart from any bias in favour of tariff, or any other, restrictions on trade.
I am not very fond of labels. I do not know whether I am properly labelled a Protectionist or a Tariff Reformer or not, but if I am a Tariff Reformer, my conception of Tariff Reform has not been the desirability of imposing a tariff for the sake of a tariff, or trying to expand a tariff for its own sake. All that I have ever contended for—and I believe it is all that reasonable Tariff Reformers do contend for—is that they should not be barred from imposing duties unless they can prove in every case that they were purely revenue duties, and that no other considerations should be allowed to enter into the tariff. What I should like to see established is the principle that in all these discussions we should get away from generalities and sweeping doctrines and try to deal with the merits of each particular case. Looked at from the point of view of its merits, I am prepared most strongly to defend that modest measure of Preference which has been accorded to the other portions of the Empire in the Budget which is at present under your Lordships' consideration.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, although it is late I feel that I cannot pass over the important speech which has just been made on behalf of the Government without taking up some points in it. In the latter part of his speech the noble Lord said—and I think we shall all agree—that what we must look for in order to restore our prosperity and industrial activity is, above all things, a healthy spirit of justice and of industry among the working men, a recognition of constitutional progress, and an avoidance of revolution. While I think we shall all agree with that, it does

75
not exhaust the demands of our economic position. It is necessary also that there should be a far larger activity in production. The noble Lord then went on to say—I am not quoting his words, but I am expressing his meaning—that, in viewing the possibilities of the future, he was not so gloomy as some, because he looked to two sources of great industrial and commercial activity—first, to our great Dominions, of which he said (and I think most people who have seen their growth will agree with him) that their present growth is nothing to what we hope their future growth will be; and, secondly, to our Dependencies which are to be the source of such a large amount of valuable raw material.
I think we should probably agree with him, but where I should challenge hint is in this respect. Hitherto, our policy has been to trade with the world. One of the reasons why the United States are so prosperous is that, though they have a Protectionist policy to the world outside, with varied production and vast area, ranging almost from the Tropics to the Arctic regions, and with their great material resources and Free Trade throughout that great area, they have had many of the advantages which countries in Europe have not got, even though those countries had Free Trade with a comparatively small area of countries beyond Europe. Therefore I say, for the activity and prosperity of the country, I do not want to exchange the trade of the world for trade with any section of the world, no matter how large. That is to my mind the true economic policy, especially for a country like England with a dense population and not an immense amount of material resources on the land. Our interest is to trade with as wide a field as possible.
I come next to our Dependencies. The noble Viscount indicated that we must look to our Dependencies to meet the balance of trade or adverse trade in America.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Not entirely, but it is an important element.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I do not say it would exhaust it. I was sorry to hear the noble Viscount say so, because I believe his past record is one of great sympathy with the less forward races, and when he took the post of the Colonies I felt that we should have a man who would recognise,
76
what is now recognised by the League of Nations, that those who have to do with the less developed nations held them as trustees and not as people who were to be exploited. The noble Viscount knows quite well that there is a group of Tariff Reformers who rather advocate that we should use these great Dependencies of ours, not in the first place for the interest and welfare of the people themselves, but for the purpose of swelling our profits and trade. I do not say the noble Viscount holds that view, but I am not misrepresenting the views of that section.
There is at this moment a Question on the Paper regarding the import of nuts. During the war we have been interfering with the free export of their produce from the West African Colonies, and forcing them to send their produce to England. I do not say, as a war measure, that it was unnecessary, because some of these imports were going to Holland, and by the help of German capital were treated there. There was something to be said in not allowing these resources to go directly or indirectly to the enemy. I am not questioning that policy during the war, but it is high time that these countries should be restored to the utmost freedom of trade, and allowed to deliver their goods without our trying to limit their industries for our own profit.
Take the question of cocoa. There is no trade which has grown more rapidly in our West African Colony than the production of cocoa; I think they have taken the lead in world production in cocoa. But the moment you consider it is tolerable or advisable for this country to use its power of legislation over these countries to limit their freedom of exportation, even though it would help your balance of trade with America, it is a vicious and immoral policy. The Official section of the Gold Coast tried to force a duty upon the Colony, and were beaten by the non-official votes of the white people and native representatives; but I do not know that this policy is dropped. While I agree with the noble Viscount in looking to great developments in these tropical Dependencies, as well as in our Dominions, if we are going to use it as a source of advantage to us, as distinct from the advantage which we and all the rest of the world reap from the growth of these places, I say that we are embarking on a vicious policy.
The noble Viscount deals with the question of coal and cotton. We are all

77
agreed that a better use of coal would be economical; but that is not the problem we are up against in our national production. What we are up against is the increased cost as the result of the action in raising wages and shortening the hours of the miners. We might meet that in the Budget, as we did last year by a subsidy of £46,000,000 from the nation, but whether we meet it by raising the price to the consumer or by a subsidy you equally strike a deadly blow at our international trade. I will not labour that point. We cannot but consider the position of the coal trade as very serious for the whole commercial and industrial prosperity of the country.
As to cotton. We all know that for the last thirty or forty years it has been in the finer counts, producing a finer quality, rather than in producing a large quantity of raw material that the English cotton supremacy has been maintained. The United States might use a greater number of pounds of cotton than Lancashire, but in Lancashire our spindles are much more numerous than in the United States, and if only people will work and not raise the cost of production so as to exclude us from foreign markets, our cotton trade has a great future before it. But it is a trade which is cut very fine. We have to pay in the world market for our raw cotton, and we have to sell in the world market, and we should be sanguine if we thought that our cotton trade was going to pull us through our great industrial difficulties.
I agree with the noble Viscount that as an industrial country, barring the United States, we are even now in as good a position as any other great producing country. And why? The great producing countries are Germany, which is knocked out of time altogether; Belgium, which has been devastated and will therefore take a long time to recuperate; and France, which with the exception of a few specialities is hampered by her protectionist policy and does not come into world competition much. America will be the great competitor. I agree that it is not at all essential for us to be the paramount producing power. What is essential is, that we should be able to keep our people in a state of profitable activity by producing. If America, with twice the population and with three times our national resources, produces twice as much as we do it does not hurt us so long as we can produce.
78
I agree with the noble Viscount—and it was a pity he limited his liberal and large ideas by harking back to Colonial Preference—that the prosperity of every country in the world adds to the prosperity of all the others. We cannot be richer because other countries are poorer, and an illustration of that is to be found in the great volume of our trade with the United States, which is still highly Protectionist. Really the important thing is that we should look at the world as our market, as our customer, and as our supplier. The moment you take a narrow view you fall away from that world view of commerce and industry to which this country requires to hold.
The noble Viscount hesitated and did not want to be committed to recognising a possible expenditure of £800,000,000. I should be very glad if I thought that our expenditure next year would be kept within that figure. When you consider the large commitments in which we are involved, and of which there has been no estimate, the great housing question, the question of transport, the Army and Navy with increased pay and allowances—Mr. Winston Churchill said that he intended the future Army to be about the same in numbers as it was before the war, but it will cost, with increased pay, double the amount—the Navy and the Air Force, no one can imagine that you are going to keep your Budgets within the amount of the pre-war Budgets. Then education has gone up very much. There are also pensions, the administration of health, and the bread subsidy. All these items are most; enormous, and you have to face the situation.
You must recollect that your Budget this year is a £1,600,000,000 Budget, of which you have to borrow £250,000,000, and you also get £200,000,000 which is really out of capital, because you are selling stores which ought to be carried to capital account. Even if next year you make your Budget an £800,000,000 Budget, which I do not believe, you will still have to face a very heavy expenditure. Whether we are gloomy or not, or whether like the noble Lord we are cheerful or not, I think every one must agree that the situation is most serious. It is no use day by day embarking upon fresh items of expenditure, without caring where the money is to come from to pay for them. It is no good putting off by a sort of flabby conciliation the real

79
issues, but we should impress upon the working man the necessity of producing more.
On Question, Bill read 2a. Committee negatived.
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter to nine and resumed at half-past nine o'clock.]

CROFTER HOUSING.
LORD LOVAT LORD LOVAT rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the statements of the Secretary for Scotland on July 3 on the subject of the Government policy for crofter housing; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask the Question which stands in my name on the subject of the policy of the Government towards crofter housing, I need not call your Lordships' attention to the importance of the matter. As far as one can read in the Bill which was published yesterday—the Scottish Housing and Town Planning Bill—and as far as one can gather from the statement of the Secretary for Scotland, the question of crofter housing has not been faced in any way in the Bill. Those of your Lordships who are interested in Scotland will ask, as Scotland, especially the Highlands, are asking to-day, "What is the reason for this omission?" We know that on the West Coast of the Highlands, especially in the Island of Lewis and some of the outer Islands, a condition of housing exists which is unparallelled in Western Europe. We also know that the number of crofters and small holders, according to the Parliamentary Return of four or five years ago, was something like 51,000 crofts, and as the crofters are a prolific race, putting the number at between four and five per house, and adding the squatters and cotters, we get since the Return was made something over a quarter of a million people who are affected by this omission.
The omission we believe is founded, firstly, on the alleged adherence of the Scottish Bill to the English Bill, and secondly because those members of Parliament who represent the crafting district have for the most part very slight connections with or interest in the Highlands, and are almost to a man amen with places in His Majesty's Government. There was only one individual representing the crafting
80
districts who was able to speak his mind on the subject. Furthermore, and perhaps this is the most important of all, the crofters in being are a matter of no political interest. The small holder in England, I think, is in the same category. Once you have made your small holder you do not care anything about him. Likewise in Scotland it is only when the cry of landlordism and deer forests is raised that the crofter becomes of supreme interest to all Parties.
To-night I wish to confine attention to the housing of the existing crofters. Very cleverly as a rule, when these debates are raised, the interest is taken away from the question of the benefit of the existing crofter and centred on what crofters are going to be and are going to have. That is not the answer that I should like the Government to give me. This question of crofter housing is not included in the Bill which is going to be brought in on Monday, and unless it is brought up at the present time it cannot be debated with effect at that later date. I therefore make no excuse for taking up your Lordships' time, notwithstanding the fact of the pressing business you have got before you, as I think we owe something to these men who, after all, form the backbone of the 9th, 15th, and 51st Divisions who went to the front and who are at present left out of the benefits which are going to accrue to the rest of Scotland.
The question of crofter housing by the 1911 Act is purely a matter as between the Government and the people themselves. By the 1911 Act the responsibility of crofter housing was taken over by the Government, and under that Act a sufficient grant was made to enable aid to be given by the Government. Therefore it is not a question of any grant to landlords, or of bolstering up any estate; it is a question of the Government taking up a responsibility which, I submit—and I hope to prove—it has not yet fulfilled. And by their action in not facing the crofter housing question to-day they are taking a further step in not fulfilling the obligation which they definitely shouldered only eight years ago.
This question cannot be said to have been neglected owing to lack of interest on the part of those who have close connections with crofting and small holding portions of Scotland. As soon as a Bill was introduced this question was at once raised. It was, raised by the Highland Reconstruction

81
Committee, which is a body that represents every interest, including crofters, returned soldiers, landowners, and manufacturers, such as there are in the northern parts of Scotland. It was raised also by the Land Federation, and was finally debated at a conference in Edinburgh which was summoned by the Secretary for Scotland, and which included the representatives of county councils, district councils, and all the agricultural and small holding bodies, as well as the crofters themselves, so that this question ruts been amply debated, and repeated notice has been given to His Majesty's Government that the crofters question has not been faced.
The Questions of which I have given private notice to His Majesty's Government, and which I now wish to ask, are—
(1) Are you going to bring crofter housing into this Bill which is to be read a second time on Monday, and, if so, what are the steps which you propose to take to make such introduction of the crofter housing question effective?
(2) If you are not going to bring crofter housing into this how are you going to tax the crofters for the housing of their rich neighbours?
(3) Is the £15,000 grant, promised by the Secretary for Scotland for departmental grants or loans from the Board of Agriculture for housing, to represent the last word of the Government in facing this very important question?
(4) Why are the highland crofters and the Scottish crofters and small-holders to be treated on lines entirely different from those on which the corresponding individuals have been treated in Ireland?
I want to bring out one or two points on those four questions in the briefest way possible. I want to point out that, if you bring those crofters and small-holders into the Bill, you will have to make considerable changes in the measure. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who I understand has charge of this measure, has knowledge of the various Small Holdings Acts, and so on, which will enable him between now and Monday to draft Amendments which will make this possible. I must point out to him, in case he has that intention, that he will have to face the question of giving triple tenure of land. We all know the difficulties of dual tenure, but the question
82
of the triple tenure of land by which if the crofters are brought into the Bill they will hold their land from one person, and have fixity of tenure over a certain portion from one body, and hold the houses built for them under an entirely separate method of holding. There will lave to be an amendment of the methods of rating, and the whole questions of fixity of tenure, stocktaking, way-going, and so on, will have to be gone into within a very few days. I myself believe that drafting Amendments are possible to meet this, but I am certain it will be difficult; and the fact that His Majesty's Government have faced this matter in a half-hearted way does not look as if they really meant to put through this work.
I do not think that Mr. Munro's statement in the House of Commons on July 3 gives much hope for Amendments of this kind. In the remarks he made on the subject of crofter housing he talked of the possibility of this and that scheme, eventually without having any fixed line of policy which it is certain will have to be adopted in connection with housing under the Bill as it stands. If you do not face crofter housing under the Housing and Town Planning Bill, you will have to face it by means of Departmental grants or loans; and in that case the question will at once be raised of how you are going to tax the crofters—admittedly not the most opulent people but who are the most numerous in the rural districts of the North of Scotland—in order to pay for the houses of their richer neighbours? I would like the noble Lord who represents the Government to put himself in the position of the average local authority in a Northern district. How is he going to advocate that houses are to be built in the villages for the richer people, for farm servants, for employers, and for others—that this is going to be done by local taxation, admittedly at present only 1d. in the £—while the individuals who pay not a large amount it is true but a certain proportion of the rates, who are the most numerous, and who have the worst houses, are going to be entirely left out of the scheme? I hope the noble Lord will be able to answer exactly how this matter is to be faced.
Then I come to the third point—the question of the £15,000 grant. That sum is by way of grant or loan. To make it a grant you will have to alter the existing 1911 Act. This £15,000 is for something like 51,000 small holders—that is to say,

83
at a rate of rather under 6s. 8d. per house. On the West Coast of Scotland, at the present moment, with the Government here the land owners, there exists a state of housing which can only be called appalling. In no less than 700 houses in Skye, on the Government's own property, cattle and men are housed under the same roof. It is five years since I saw it, but I have myself seen on the Government property crofter houses in which the cattle and men entered by the same door, and in which there was only a sheet or a bit of wood between where the cattle lived the whole year and where the men lived. That was on Government property for which we had paid and which was administered by our servants, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland.
In the Island of Lewis the conditions are even more appalling. There Dr. Murray, who represents the outer islands, was the only Crofter Member who seems to speak with directness and to the point on the terrible state of affairs. He stated there were not less than 5,000 houses in the long island which would require repair. Of those houses something like 1,000 are what they call the old black houses—that is to say, houses in which the cattle go in at the same door as time humans, and cattle dung remains in the cattle end of the shed or house until the spring of the year when it is cleared out. These are a state of things which certainly do not exist anywhere else in Western Europe, and these are a state of things which you have to face under the Bill, and for which you are giving a miserly loan or grant of £15,000. I hope that His Majesty's Government, having these things pointed out to them, will see fit to consider seriously this matter.
The fourth question that I am asking the noble Lord opposite is why the Scottish small-holders and crofters should be treated entirely differently from the Irish smallholders. I listened the other day to the debate (um the question of the Irish Housing Bill. I heard there again that statement which we continually heard on the Housing Commission on which I had the honour to sit for four years in Scotland. That statement was with regard to the 40,000 houses which were built in Ireland for agricultural labourers and those earning, I think, under 2s. 6d. per day. We have 50,000 crofters in Scotland, and the average rent of the crofter is £4 7s. I would like to ask the noble Lord opposite why these men should
84
be treated on entirely different lines from what has happened in Ireland. Have they not volunteered in the Great War I think the battalions which came from those Northern parts certainly fulfilled their duty. I do not believe there is any body of men who volunteered in larger numbers. They were not exempted, or only exempted in rare cases for agricultural reasons, but they have an infinitely higher proportion of men who served than come from the farm servants or farmers of any part of the British Isles. For what reason is it that not only do they not have their houses built for them entirely, but that they are actually excluded from the Housing Bill and only a beggarly grant of £15,000 is offered for them?
In conclusion, I would like to say that this matter is a matter for which the Government is very seriously criticised in Scotland and especially in the northern portion of Scotland, and the criticism does not come from one side only; it comes, so far as one can see, universally. The criticism is that in this matter the Government have not faced what is their obvious duty to a body of men who deserve well of the country and who suffer from a state of housing which needs certain redress. I would ask the noble Lord to confine himself in his reply, if he will do me that honour, to the question of the existing crofter. We are very shortly, we hope, to have legislation over the question of extending the number of crofts and small holdings in the Highland, for which no doubt special grants and loans have already been made; but I wish to-day to consider the existing crofter and how he is to be affected by this, because I know from experience in the Highlands, as well as from four years on the Housing Commission, that the difficulty of crofter housing on the small crofts has led to greater rural depopulation than anything else for thirty years. This depopulation is going on from rural districts and among small holders owing to the fact that the cost of building materials has doubled and trebled in the last few years. I beg to move for Papers.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Stanmore, through indisposition, I will reply to Lord Lovat's Questions. I should like, in the first place, to point out that the Government are not animated, as Lord Lovat almost indicated, by any lack of regard for the splendid services rendered

85
by those to whom he has referred during the recent war. I imagine that everybody realises the incalculable value of the military services rendered by crofters, and sons and nephews of crofters, and it is not necessary, I hope, in dealing with the housing question, to assess it according to their merits as compared with those of other sections of the population.
As to Lord Lovat's Question about the contrast between the effort made by the State on behalf of these men and that made for persons of corresponding position in Ireland, I can only say this that for five and twenty years it lids been the considered and deliberate policy of Parliament that larger subventions should be paid to Ireland than to Scotland. That has been the consistent and deliberate policy of successive Governments. The statement to which Lord Lovat refers—that made by the Secretary for Scotland on July 3—was to the effect that assistance to crofters should continue to be given through the Board of Agriculture rather than, under the Scottish Housing Bill, through the local authorities or the Local Government Board, now the Board of Health for Scotland.
The noble Lord asks what provision is going to be made for existing crofters and if they come under the Housing Bill. The answer to that question is that, while power and duties under the Bill are conferred upon local authorities in crofting districts just as in other districts; the framework of the Bill does not, so far as the power of acquiring land and erecting houses upon it is concerned, lend itself to the conditions of the crofting districts.
I will explain briefly to your Lordships the reasons which seem to me to make that view adequate. In the first place the local authority is not empowered to rebuild or improve a house except on a site which it has acquired. Therefore, to improve the houses to which Lord Lovat refers they would have to begin by buying the house and buying the site, a procedure which is manifestly inconsistent with the whole theory of crofting holdings. Then, in the case of an ordinary owner who has a house in bad condition, the local authority can step in and repair the house at the owner's expense if the owner fails to fulfil that duty himself.
LORD LOVAT: May I ask who the owner is?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Any owner.
LORD LOVAT: Is the owner the crofter, or the landlord?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think the crofter would be the owner.
LORD LOVAT: That is a point which no one knows.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Then my noble friend ought never to have asked me. It is a most improper question to put to me under those conditions. In the case of the Scottish Office, I gather that the procedure of making the crofter at any rate repair his holding, and recover from him the cost would be inapplicable, because the crofter has probably not got the means for doing so. The third method, available in the ordinary case, is for the local authority to make loans to an owner within the margin of one-half of the estimated property to be burdened with the hereditable security for the loan. That procedure again is, I think, inapplicable to the case of the crofter, who has no power to mortgage his house and croft. These are difficulties which every one roust acknowledge, and which could not he rectified, as Lord Lovat seemed to think possible, by drafting Amendments to the Housing Bill.
Lord Lovat laid stress upon this point, that if the crofter class is excluded from the Housing Bill they will, in effect, be forced to contribute by their taxation to provide houses for other people even more well-to-do than themselves. Generally speaking no general statute can deal completely, or perhaps always logically, with a special case, though crofters, it must be remembered, through special legislation do secure certain advantages from the State, certain subventions which roust be taken into account in striking a balance; but I think I can reassure Lord Lovat by saying that it is not intended by the Scottish Office to acquiesce in this position of things. Though it is not proposed to deal with the crofter problem in the Housing Bill, it is none the less hoped to deal with it in the Land Settlement (Scotland) Bill, which is now in a forward state of preparation. As my noble friend was informed by Lord Ernie in this House on May 28 last, it is hoped to allocate the sum of two and a half millions sterling to Scotland for the settlement of small-holders and cognate purposes in that country.
LORD LOVAT: I am talking about the existing crofters.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I must ask the noble Lord to take special note of my next sentence. My noble friend will understand that it is impossible for me to announce in advance the contents of a Bill which is still in preparation, and which therefore has not yet been made public. I cannot consequently anticipate the provisions of this Bill, but the Government is doing its best to work out a scheme in connection with this Bill which will enable assistance to be given in the improvement of existing houses in the crofting areas; and in this endeavour the Government will keep in view the recommendations of the Royal Commission on housing in Scotland which are applicable to these crofting areas.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I intervene in a Scottish conversation with very great diffidence, but I should like to ask my noble friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, when he tells us that there is a Bill on Scottish small holdings yet in preparation, how long he intends the present Session to last. I presume he meant getting it in preparation with a view to dealing with it within the present Session. Is he going to ask us to remain here until that Bill has been developed, because otherwise I am afraid my noble friend Lord Lovat may feel that the realization of his hopes is rather remote. I should also like to ask the noble Earl this point. He told us just now that it was quite understood to be a settled matter of British legislation that Ireland should always receive a larger contribution than Scotland. It seems to be a rather unfair rule to make.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I did not say that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I have misquoted the noble Earl he will correct me. I understood him to say that, Ireland always received better treatment than Scotland. Does he mean per capita, or in what respect does he mean, that she always receives better treatment?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Lord Lovat referred to labourers' cottages in Ireland, and asked why nothing of the sort was done in Scotland. I did not say it was the settled policy of this country that Ireland
88
always shall receive larger grants and subventions, but I said that in this respect for twenty years past all successive Governments have acquiesced in and indeed carried through that policy, and it is an undeniable fact. I made no estimate of what future Governments would do.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps I may just say that it may have been the practice in the past, but I think recent circumstances have led us to doubt whether the Irish population are so much more deserving than the Scotch population that they ought to continue to receive such preferential treatment. There are many Irishmen, of course, who are among the most loyal citizens of the Empire. There are a good many who are not. I think that will be admitted, and perhaps in the preparation of future legislation by the Government my noble friend might think it wise to advise his colleagues to vary the rule which has prevailed hitherto.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am afraid that I cannot make an announcement of the Cabinet's future Irish policy at the present juncture. I hope that we shall be able to get the Scottish Land Settlement Bill through during the present Sitting?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Before the summer holidays?
LORD LOVAT: I do not think the Government have given very close attention to this question of crofter housing, and the answer that I have received from the noble Lord is a most unsatisfactory one. It is unsatisfactory because we have had in the past our crofter housing attended by a Land Settlement. Bill, and I can assure your Lordships that the total sum disbursed out of the £200,000 which was specially voted for the improvement of crofter housing was rather less over a four-year period than is spent on many individual Scottish estates, and the £15,000 that the Secretary for Scotland talks about giving us an immediate grant of is not even enough to put these houses in order on a single Skye estate.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LOCAL ELECTIONS (PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[THE EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Appointment of Minister of Ways and Communications.
1. For the purpose of improving the means of, and the facilities for, locomotion and transport, it shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister of Ways and Communications (hereinafter referred to as the Minister), who shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to leave out "Ways and Communications," and insert "Transport." The noble Lord said: If this Amendment is carried the clause would then read: "It shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister Transport." This is not a matter of vital importance, and is not one that will raise a constitutional crisis between the two Houses. It is really more a matter of convenience than anything else. The names of many Bills which have been introduced of late are somewhat cumbersome. For instance there is one that is to be considered to-morrow which is called the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill. Though the name of the Bill we are now considering is not so bad as that, I think it is somewhat long and might with advantage be shortened. Various abbreviations have been already suggested, but they have been more or less of a failure.
I think the name by which this Bill is generally known is that of the Transport Bill. An Amendment was moved in the House of Commons to insert this word, and I understand that the Minister in charge of the Bill did not consider it unfavourably; in fact, he promised to consider it on Report, but when that stage was reached it was found that stress of business had prevented him from doing so, and the result is, I am informed, that the Amendment was rejected, though not by a very large majority.
I ask you to consider that you would earn the gratitude of all the people who in the future have to deal with this Bill if you made this alteration—men of business, typewriters, even the printers of your Lordships' House would feel it a relief if you would use the shorter title. I do not wish to alarm my noble friend in charge
90
of the Bill, much less to threaten him, but I much fear that, if this Amendment is not adopted, recourse will be had to "direct action," and that we shall find that people will use the words "Transport Bill," whether we like it or not. Under these circumstances would it not be well for your Lordships to give a lead in this matter and to adopt the name by which the Bill is commonly known?
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("Ways and Communications") and insert ("Transport").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: This is not, of course, a question in which any principle is involved. It is not a matter on which the Government itself feels very strongly, and I am not disposed to contest the arguments used by the noble Lord. I think this is a more convenient title. But my noble friend has made a mistake in the account he gave of the treatment of this question in another place. He said the question was raised in Committee, that the Minister showed some sympathy with it and undertook to reconsider it on Report, but failed to do so, and that in a Division, in which the Government Whips were pat on, the Amendment was defeated. That is not the case. The Minister in the House of Commons took the view that I take here. He said this was a matter for the House to settle, and it was left entirely to the discretion of the House. No Government Tellers were put on in the Division, and the result was that the Amendment was rejected by 109 votes to 65. That is an indication of the opinion of the House of Commons, without any direct pressure from the Government. The Government was neutral in the matter. I propose to take the same position here. I cannot accept the Amendment. The Government think that this title is the better of the two, and the figures which I have quoted show that that is the view taken by the House of Commons. It is not a matter of great consequence, and if your Lordships feel strongly on the matter and are disposed to carry the Amendment of the noble Lord, I shall offer no opposition to that being done. If your Lordships divide upon it I shall personally vote for the title in the Bill as it stands.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I quite agree that this is not a matter of very vital importance; but, after all, Sir Eric Geddes

91
in his original speech on the Bill, said that we had not got quite the equivalent of the American word "transportation" but we were getting very near to it. I think the word "Transport" might be agreed to, and I hope the Government will assent to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Powers and duties.
2.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Minister in the exercise and performance of any powers and duties transferred to, or conferred or imposed upon him, by or in pursuance of this Act, to take steps to carry out the purposes aforesaid, and there shall, as from such date as His Majesty in Council may by Order determine, be transferred to the Minister all powers and duties of any Government Department in relation to—

(a) railways;

(b) light railways;

(c) tramways;

(d) canals, waterways, and inland navigations;

(e) roads, bridges and ferries, and vehicles and traffic thereon;

(f) harbours, docks and piers;

including any powers and duties of any Government Department in relation to any railway, light railway, tramway, canal, inland navigation, harbour, dock, pier, or other undertaking concerned with any of the matters aforesaid, and any powers of any Government Department with respect to the appointment of members or the procedure of any commissioners, conservancy board or other body having jurisdiction with respect to any such matters as aforesaid, and any powers of any Government department with respect to the making, confirming, issuing, granting, Or giving (as the case may be) of byelaws, regulations, orders, licences, approvals, or consents relating to any of the matters hereinbefore mentioned:
Provided that—

(i) His Majesty in Council may by Order except from such transfer any particular powers or duties, or provide for the exercise or performance of any power or duty so excepted by the Minister concurrently or in consultation with or at the instance of the Government Department concerned, or by the Government Department concerned concurrently or in consultation with the Minister, or provide for the retransfer to any such Department of any powers and duties transferred to the Minister by this section; and

(ii) Nothing in this section shall transfer to the Minister any powers or duties of the Admiralty exerciseable in or in relation to ports declared under the Dockyard Ports Regulation Act, 1865,
92
to be dockyard ports, but His Majesty in Council may by Order transfer to the Admiralty, instead of to the Minister, any of the powers of the Board of Trade with respect to dockyard ports, or with respect to the appointment of members of any commissioners, conservancy board, or other body having jurisdiction in the whole or any part of a dockyard port; and

(iii) Nothing in this section shall transfer to the Minister the powers of the Board of Trade with respect to the appointment of members or the procedure of the Railway and Canal Commission, but His Majesty in Council may, by order, transfer those powers to a Secretary of State instead of to the Minister.

(2) His Majesty in Council may by Order make such incidental consequential and supplemental provisions as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving full effect to any transfer of powers or duties by or under this section, including provisions for the transfer of any property, rights and liabilities held, enjoyed, or incurred by any Government Department in connection with any powers or duties transferred, and may make such adaptations in the enactments relating to such powers or duties as may be necessary to make exerciseable by the Minister and Ins officers or by the Admiralty and their officers, as the ease may be, the powers and duties so transferred: Provided always that nothing herein contained shall enable the powers so transferred to be increased.
(3) In connection with the transfer of powers and duties to the Minister or the Admiralty by or under this Act, the provisions set out in the Schedule to this Act shall have effect.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1), after "Department" where that word first occurs, to insert "except the special and temporary powers contained in the Defence of the Realm Act." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in order to ask the Government whether they intend to include in the powers given under this Bill the very special and exceptional powers given to the Government in many cases solely in consequence of the war. Under the Defence of the Realm Act there were temporary powers, what I would venture to call extraordinary powers, given, and I do not suppose that the Government want them to continue in time of peace. But I am advised that, unless some words such as I suggest are put in and this Bill passes both Houses of Parliament in, say, a week's time, the Minister would then be able to exercise the powers contained in the Defence of the Realm Act. I shall be glad if the Government can give us an assurance or information on that point.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, after ("Department") insert ("except the special and temporary powers contained in the Defence of the Realm Act").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I think I made this point clear when I was speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill. Such powers as are stow vested temporarily under the Defence of the Realm Act in the Government Departments whose functions are transferred under this clause will, of course, be, transferred, for the remaining period over which the Defence of the Realm Act operates, to the Minister; and I submit that it would be right and proper that it should be so. You cannot divide these powers and say that these Government Departments shall continue for a few weeks to administer temporary powers whereas all other functions dealing with these matters have been transferred to the Minister. But those powers, of course, are only temporary, governed by the duration of the Defence of the Realm Act. When the Defence of the Realm Act lapses, as it will six months after the signing of peace, then, of course, any powers under that Act which have been transferred to the Minister will lapse as they would have lapsed if they had been left to the Departments concerned.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had an Amendment upon the Paper, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraphs (a), (b), (e), (d), (e), (f), and to insert "railways, railway undertakings, canals, and light rail ways."
The noble Lord said: I desire to conform, not only in letter but in spirit, to the decision at which the House arrived yesterday. I have given the Lord Chairman the Amendment, which I desire to move in place of the words down on the Paper. Instead of moving the words appearing on the Paper I desire to move to leave out the words "roads, bridges, ferries, vehicles, and traffic thereon." I do this in order to raise the question of roads at a very early stage of this Bill. If it is possible to arrange with the Government for a strengthening of the Committee which was conceded in the other House, it will probably be unnecessary to move the excision of roads, and bridges, and vehicles, and traffic thereon.
The fact is that the Committee given in
94
Clause 20 is not, we think, a sufficient concession on that point, and we do not believe it will be sufficiently strong, or represent what I am sure it is the Government's intention that it should represent—namely, the view of those interested in road traffic not otherwise represented in the Ministry. All through the history of legislation, from the earliest days, roads have always been put in a totally different position from any other subject and when locomotion has been dealt with roads have nearly always received separate treatment. They differ in this Bill in that they are not a revenue-earning concern. They are already "nationalised," if I may use that term—that is to say, they are kept up by the nation out of rates and taxes, and are in a different position from railways, canals, or any other revenue-earning concern. In the last Bill which dealt with the subject—the Development of Roads (Improvement) Act of 1909—roads were dealt with even separate from light railways, and the then Government set an excellent precedent then when the roads were treated, as before, on a separate basis.
Perhaps the noble Earl has no idea of the magnitude of the interests in roads and road transport. With regard to the roads themselves, there are roughly 150,000 miles of secondary roads and 30,000 miles of main and principal roads. There is spent upon the roads, as the Minister-designate says, about £20,000,000 a year; but, on the other hand, the taxes on the roads in the way of petrol tax and other taxes bring in about £3,500,000 a year, which of course must be deducted. This question of roads and road transport also affects no less than six kinds of mechanical transport—namely, motor cars, motor 'buses, motor lorries, motor cycles, traction engines, and agricultural tractors, which have increased lately in great numbers. In 1915, the last year of which we could get a return, there were 1415,500 motor cars, 142,000 motor cycles, 35,000 commercial lorries, 33,000 hackney: carriages, and from 6,000 to 8,000 'buses, giving a total of 326,000 motor vehicles. It is estimated that by the end of 1920 there will be something like 700,000 motor vehicles. They are not represented in any way in the Ministry of this Bill. The drivers and mechanics employed number about 500,000 or 600,000 men, and it is estimated that between £50,000,000 and £60,000,000 is

95
directly invested in various factories which make motor vehicles.
There are also transferred under this Bill very considerable and far-reaching powers, which appear in the White Paper giving a return of powers and duties of the Minister of Ways and Communications. I will just lead one or two of the transferred powers. The Minister has taken over the power to make regulations in respect to the construction of motorcars and the use of the highways; lights on motor vehicles of all kinds; the speed of motor-cars and vehicles of all kinds; the prohibition of driving motor-cars on certain highways; the limitation of speed; identification and registration; the issue of driving licences; power to hold Inquiries; the control of international passes, and making regulations with regard to hackney vehicles. In addition to that, there is the very important power of determining differences between county councils and other local authorities and Government Departments. These are very special powers, which have hitherto been very wisely exercised on the whole, I think, by the Local Government Board.
I have not yet seen, though the Government may have it in mind, any mention of anyone specially versed in or acquainted with these subjects either in the list of those persons given by the Minister-designate in another place or in any debate or reply by the Government on this question. Moreover, mechanical transport is taxed. In 1918 I think there was an amount of about £800,000 in taxes. This year it is calculated £2,500,000 will be produced by the petrol tax at 6d. Motor vehicles are divided into two classes: what are called pleasure cars pay 6d. per gallon, and commercial cars 3d.
Then in regard to the improvement of roads. Taking that aspect, out of the £7,700,000 to be spent by the Government on the roads this year, something like £5,200,000 comes directly out of the pockets of those who have been taxed in respect of the petrol duty and carriage tax, and £2,000,000 out of the Road Board funds, so that really out of the £7,700,000 to be spent on roads and road improvement this year not less than five-sevenths, roughly speaking, comes out of the pockets of one particular class, which is not so far represented at all in connection with this Ministry.
It may be said that the system under which roads are repaired and transport on the roads is managed should be changed, but no demand has come from local authorities or anybody else for this particular change. Roads are not in the same position as railways and canals, which have their own special difficulties. I venture to say, as Chairman of the Joint Roads Committee, which has had the duty for a year past of repairing the special damage done by Government traffic during the war, that you could not spend more than you are spending now. We are spending as much on materials and labour as we can legitimately spend, and local authorities appear to be quite convinced of that, too, because when we offer them money they say they cannot spend more than we are able to give them.
There is no dissatisfaction either, I gather, with the Road Board as to the way in which it has done its work, for I find that 459 local authorities, including forty-one county councils, in England, Scotland, and Wales have definitely declared themselves in favour of a reconstructed Road Board with fuller powers, but against the Ministry of Ways and Communications taking over the management of the roads. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill quoted something which the Hertfordshire County Council had passed last night, but the Lancashire County Council, which is one of the most important of our county councils, whose opinion I think ought to carry weight with the Government, passed the following resolution in regard to the Bill—
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Will the noble Lord give the date?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: March 5, 1919. The resolution states—
"The Parliamentary Committee—"
that is, of the Lancashire County Council—
"view with great apprehension the effect of placing the roads and all traffic under the control of a Minister who has to deal with railways, light railways, and tramways, and of giving him the power of distributing money that may be voted by Parliament for the construction, improvement and maintenance of roads and bridges."
I will not read the whole of it, but only this further sentence—
"The main roads have been developed for competition in traffic as against the railways, and it seems to the Committee inadvisable, as a matter of public policy, that the risk should be run that the future development of road traffic may be either directly or indirectly checked for the

97
ulterior purpose of preventing inconvenient competition with railway interests, whether in the hands of companies or under State control."
Thirty-nine county councils take more or less that view.
The proposed Advisory Committee, to be established under Clause 20, is only, after all, an Advisory Committee largely nominated by the Minister, and, of course, under the control of the Minister. With all due deference to the Government we do not consider that the Committee is anything like strong enough in its constitution, as at present proposed. There is another point about this matter, and that is that hitherto all our roads and the legislation with regard to roads and their construction have been devoid of politics. There is a danger of political influence, and it is greater to-day than ever it was. Mr. Lloyd George, when he set up the Road Board, said most distinctly that he set it up in the form in which it exists to-day because he was afraid of the danger of political influence in road-making. I am afraid in the future the Minister will be subject—and that is the real danger—to very strong political influence in the amount of grants he spends on certain roads. There might be quite big political questions arising on that point. In my opinion grants to roads should be entirely removed from the possibility of political pressure. Other noble Lords may not share my view. But on the Ministry, as announced, there will be only one person representing the great mass of roads out of nine members; I will not go so far as to accuse the others of bias, but there is only one person who knows anything about roads, and he knows nothing about transport, but only about construction. In other words he is a permanent way man; not a traffic man.
Do the Government propose to abolish the Road Board altogether? It is a statutory body, created in 1909, and though its powers are transferred it is not abolished. Is it still to exist without powers? We on the Road Board do not know as we have had no communication with the Minister-designate so far. There is also the point that the Minister is the final court of appeal on all road matters. Instead of being an impartial person it is possible that some other form of transport—railways—may clash, and it is obvious that roads would go to the wall. I hope the Government will take a broader view of the matter. I should not like it to confirm
98
the impression, which is widespread and growing, that in order to make railways pay in the interest of State control the Ministry is going in for a policy of subordinating all other interests to those of railways. In other countries roads have been neglected where the railways have been State owned—and we are frightened of that happening here.
I make another appeal to the Government on the sentimental side. Roads are one of the oldest forms of civilisation, and poets and philosophers of all ages have descanted on the glories of the road. Roads have had their own special influence on civilisation; roads are to me almost a religion, if I may put it that way; and it seems to me you are diminishing the glories of the road, neglecting the traditions of the road—the roads of Telford and Macadam—and giving them a subordinate place in a Ministry whose chief aim, rightly, will be to make that other form of locomotion—railways—pay. The roads are national property to-day. We have on the whole the best roads in the world, and I suggest that the Government should give serious consideration as to whether they cannot improve Clause 20, or give those who are interested in road matters some indication of the policy they propose to pursue. I formally move the Amendment, subject to the reply I may receive from the noble Earl on the whole policy of roads.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, leave out paragraph (e).—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD HARRIS: The Amendment moved by the noble Lord gives me an opportunity of explaining the reason why I was unable to support my noble friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) last night. It seemed to me rather a strong order to expect this House to agree to bifurcate the Bill at this stage of the Session. That was one reason. Another reason was that the principle of the railways being included having been accepted, the question was really reduced to docks and roads. I have not very much experience of docks, but I was largely influenced in my vote by the speech of my noble friend Lord Emmott. I do, however, know something about roads, and I am not alarmed at the idea of the Central authority coming in now and then on the subject of roads.

99
I confess the enumeration of the number of vehicles that my noble friend opposite gave us just now does not frighten me, although one is thankful to think one has got the repair shop at Cippenham to mend them when they do reach those numbers. Obviously, what we have got to look forward to, if that enumeration is nearly a correct forecast, is an enormous increase of mechanical transport on the roads, and that will in all probability include a very much larger number of heavy lorries and omnibuses than are now running, and very possibly in some cases of light railways, and it does seem to me that where you have got public mechanical transport passing through the areas of more than one local authority it is absolutely essential you should have some central authority which ran control that transport.
In the past local authorities have suffered very materially at the hands of these roving and independent mechanical transport companies, which have put omnibuses on almost wherever they pleased. A little control has come in of late years, but a few years ago these companies put on routes of omnibuses wherever they pleased, passing through the areas of more than one authority, and where the two authorities could not agree to act together these roving companies were absolutely independent. They never have paid sufficient towards the rates for the amount of damage they do to the roads. That is one of the reasons why I feel justified in including the subject of roads in the Bill.
It is quite true, as my noble friend says, that the first officer who will have to do with the roads, General Maybury, is not a mechanical engineer. I happen to know a great deal about General Maybury, because I was instrumental in getting him appointed Surveyor in Kent, from which position he has risen to his present great eminence by his own efforts. So far as the maintenance of the roads is concerned, where this heavy mechanical transport is going to increase so much and momentum is going to be the chief factor, it is important to have a man who is a first-class expert on the subject of road construction. Therefore I am not alarmed at the idea of having a central authority come in where necessary on the subject of the maintenance of roads, and the control of transport on the roads, because I am perfectly certain that in General Maybury we have a man who would not interfere unnecessarily.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The noble Lord who moved this Amendment asked me a question which I will answer at once in order to get it out of the way. He asked me what the effect of the Bill was upon the position of the Road Board. As I understand it, under Clause 2 the powers and duties of any Government Department in relation to roads, bridges, ferries and so forth will be permanently transferred to the new Ministry, and as in the definition clause the Road Board is included in a Government Department I can only conclude that the effect will be to abolish the Road Board, since its powers will be transferred under this Bill to another body.
There is one other point that I wish to deal with and that is the question of the attitude of highway authorities towards the Bill. It is quite true that I quoted the opinion expressed recently by one County Council, and the noble Lord to-night has quoted another, but I think that I am justified in making this general statement, that whereas in early days ninny resolutions were passed by highway authorities in opposition to the Bill that opposition, as was the case in the House of Commons, and as I believe will prove the case in your Lordships' House, was based upon a misunderstanding of the provisions and powers in the Bill, but of recent date we have had proof that the inclusion of roads under the powers of the new Ministry has the approval of the highway authorities of this country, in so far that is as any general organisation can speak for a collection of associations. Therefore without entering into an examination of what the opinion of one highway authority or another may be I feel justified in saying that we are satisfied that this Bill as it stands applying to roads has the approval generally of the highway authorities.
The Amendment of the noble Lord does of course raise a very sharp question of principle. It really strikes at the whole principle of the unity of control of transport which is embodied in the Bill, and having inflicted three long speeches upon your Lordships on the subject I have no intention of once more defending the principle of co-ordination. But I think I can save myself any necessity of doing so if I plead in aid the speech of the noble Lord himself because the speech which he has just delivered is in my opinion one of the strongest arguments for the inclusion of roads in this Bill. The noble Lord has

101
given figures to show the extreme importance of roads as a transport service. It is just because it is in our opinion an absolutely essential transport service that we hold it should be included in the powers of any Ministry which has to deal with transport as a whole.
The noble Lord said he hoped that the Government would take a broader view of the question. Here again I cannot help feeling that we do take a broader view of the question than the noble Lord because we look at this issue from the broad standpoint of the transport interest of the country, while the noble Lord I think—I say it with all deference—is inclined to take a narrow view, because he approaches the question in the frame of mind of fear lest roads may suffer by conflict with railways. That is a narrower point of view than the one from which we approach it. The noble Lord thinks that roads should not be included in this new Ministry because he speaks of it as a Railway Ministry, and he has again to-night referred to the fact that there is only one man out of nine whose appointment has been announced in the House of Commons who is an expert in roads. It does not need any further tribute. Lord Harris has just mentioned the fact, which is known to all your Lordships, that General Maybury is the greatest expert living in road-making. The noble Lord who moved this Amendment says quite truly that he is not an expert in road traffic, and he thinks it is a mistake to hand over powers of control over road traffic, such as are now enjoyed by the Local Government Board, to a man who will be an expert merely in road-mending and road-making. But there is no justification for saying that these powers of control of traffic will be placed in the hands of a man who is an expert in road-making. It is quite true that no Announcement has been made of the personnel of the new Ministry beyond the important officials who were announced in the House of Commons. But surely we may take for granted that, if the new Ministry is to administer these powers, the Minister will take steps to ensure that they will be placed in the hands of persons of experience in carrying out these duties.
Without, going into the general question I want in very few words to show why I think that the position of roads, from the point of view of the road lover, would be much more dangerous if they were ex-
102
cluded from this Bill than they would be if they are left in it. The noble Lord, I think without any justification, assumes that this is going to be a Railway Ministry, and a Ministry, therefore, which cannot be entrusted with the upkeep and maintenance of roads. We deny that altogether, and we say this is going to be a Minister who will look after the interests of transport generally. But what would be the position if you were to take roads out of his hands, and leave them purely with the Board of Trade, with the Local Government Board, and with the Road Board? The Minister would still have, as Lord Harris pointed out, full powers of using the roads. He could put upon the roads, as it is open to any company to do, the services of motor omnibuses to any extent, and the only control which the local authorities have over these motor omnibus services is contained in a purely temporary measure, the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916, which is perpetuated in this Bill, but which of course, would disappear if you were to take roads out of the Bill. In that case, the Minister would have power to use the roads to any extent, to cause the utmost expense to the local authority in repairing them, but he would have no power and no money to help in their maintenance, their improvement or their repair. I think that would be a much more serious objection than if you were to place them under a Transport Ministry.
I really would like to meet the noble Lord, if I can, and he has asked me whether I can tell him what would be our attitude when we come to consider the position of the Road Committee at a later stage of the Bill. I think it would be inconvenient at this stage to discuss in detail the clause which the noble Lord has put upon the Paper. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope whatever of being able to accept that Amendment, because he, in fact, converts an Advisory Committee into a rival authority, having its own representation in Parliament, exercising itself, and not through the Ministry, the powers which will be transferred, and administering the funds which are at present used for road development.
The difference of principle between the noble Lord and the Government is this. We say that the Minister must be responsible for exercising these powers which will be transferred to him. We are perfectly prepared to listen to any representations the noble Lord may care to make as

103
to the way in which the Minister should carry out those responsibilities and fulfil those duties, and we are prepared to listen also to any representations he may make as to the composition of the body which may advise the Minister; but that instead of leaving responsibility with the Minister some other body should be set up to divide that responsibility with him and to exercise powers independently of him, then there is a difference of opinion on which I fear I can hold out no hope we can come to an agreement with him. That is all I can say at this stage with regard to the matter which will come later; but I hope very much that your Lordships will not accept an Amendment to strike the roads out of the Bill.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: After what the noble Earl has said, I do not press my Amendment. You will find on the Paper to-morrow an Amendment to Clause 20 which will further deal with this matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT VISCOUNT DEVONPORT moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the appointment of members or." The noble Viscount said: This clause proposes, inter alia, to transfer to the Ministry the powers of any Government Department with reference to the appointment of members of any body having jurisdiction with respect to harbours, docks, and piers. This means taking away the existing powers exercised, for example, by the Board of Trade, the Admiralty, and other Government Departments, in connection with the appointment of members to various dock and harbour boards. As regards the Port Authority, the number of members of which is thirty, no less than ten of these are appointed members, the remainder being elected by the payers of dues. There is not a shadow of a doubt that this clause will take away from the Board of Trade the appointment of the two members that they have hitherto appointed. It will also take away from the Admiralty the one member they have appointed.
I desire to refer to the definition clause—Clause 27—in order that I may get some explanation on a point I am going to put and upon which we are advised that, if this works out in the way it is suggested to us it may work out, it will have very
104
far-reaching and serious consequences. Clause 27 says—
"In this Act the expression 'Government Department' includes any Government of other public Department."
This certainly seems to imply—and we have been advised accordingly—that certain public bodies who appoint the Port Authority will lose their right. I have already explained that out of about ten appointed members three are appointed by strictly Government Departments, and that the seven remaining members are appointed by public departments which we fear will come within the definition of "Government Department." The London County Council, for instance, appoint four members to the Port Authority, the City Corporation appoint two, and Trinity House appoint one. If this power is going to be transferred to the Ministry, I do not hesitate to say that it will vitiate the principle of securing a representative body to which Parliament in 1908, when it passed the Port of London Act, attached the first importance.
If I am right in my surmise—and I would be glad to hear from the noble Earl what his view is—it will be most serious we think. Without saying anything of an offensive nature as to what the new Ministry is likely to do or not to do, it cannot be denied that it will not be on the question of appointment such an independent body as the Board of Trade; because the Board of Trade is an administrative body pure and simple; it has no interest in docks, whereas the new Ministry will have a very great interest in clocks, and will have control of the whole of the railway docks, which of course would be competing docks. I submit they will find it very difficult indeed to discharge, this function of appointment. I do not say their interests will be in conflict, but it will be very difficult to keep out of their minds altogether the possibility of bias. At the present moment we have the security of the appointments coming from the Board of Trade as being a thoroughly independent body, and we are much exercised in our minds at the idea that the whole appointments are going to pass from the representative body into the hands of the Ministry. I shall be glad if the noble Earl will give us some assurance on that point.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 2 and 3, leave out ("the appointment of members or").—(Viscount Devonport.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I gather that the noble Viscount is afraid lest this clause as it stands may interfere with the appointments of the Port of London Authority. I am advised that the only two Departments which would be included under the words "Government Department" are the Admiralty and the Board of Trade. The Admiralty being exempted by a later clause, it is confined solely to the powers of the Board of Trade. Any other public body to which the noble Viscount has referred having powers to nominate to the Port of London Authority would, I am informed, not be affected by this clause.
That, therefore, leaves us merely with the question whether the nomination of the Board of Trade should remain with that Department or be transferred to the new Ministry. I confess I really thought that this Amendment was consequential upon the previous one, which the noble Viscount has not moved. It seemed to me that if you are transferring the powers of the Board of Trade with respect to harbours and docks, then it is only right that you should transfer also the right of nomination to the Port Authority. If you do not, you will leaving nomination in the hands of a Government Department which will then have no interest and no concern with docks at all. The noble Viscount may say that it will be an impartial body. I do not admit that the new Ministry will not, by reason of having an interest in clocks, be qualified to make appointments to the Port of London Authority. It seems to me that the appointment must be made by a Department which is concerned with docks and not by a Department which, as the Bill now stands, will have, no concern with docks at all.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask the noble Earl what Le takes to be the meaning of the expression in Clause 27, "In this Act the expression Government Department' includes any Government or other public Department"? What is a public Department which is not a Government Department, if the term excludes such bodies as the noble Viscount (Lord Devonport) mentioned?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am afraid I am not in a position to give the noble Marquess instances of what such a public Department may be.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps the noble Earl will inquire?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I will inform myself as to that.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("or the Admiralty") and insert ("Admiralty or Secretary of State").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRACIHE LORD STRACIHE moved, after subsection (3), to insert the following new sub-section—
"(4) There shall be established a separate Department of the Ministry (hereinafter referred to as the Roads Department) to which all matters relating to the exercise by the Minister of his powers and duties with reference to roads, bridges and ferries, shall stand referred, and the Minister before exercising any such powers shall receive and consider the report of the Roads Department with reference to the matters in question."
The noble Lord said: I have put this Amendment down at the request of the County Councils Association, and it seems to me—I think the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will agree—rather a compromise between the views of my noble friend Lord Montagu and the Bill, upon this question of the control of roads. It has been stated in a previous debate that a large increase in motor traffic is likely in future, and that it is desirable to have a central control.
The House will see that my Amendment does not at all interfere with central control. All that it does is to ensure that the control should be efficient and, to a certain extent, in touch with local authorities. Lord Lytton said that the Road Board was abolished. If that is so, does it not seem desirable that there should be some other body, such as is here suggested—a Department of the Ministry which should be a Roads Department—to which all matters regarding roads should be referred? The Minister would consider their reports and then would exercise his powers as he thought fit.
I think the noble Earl said that, generally, local authorities approved of the Bill. That may be so as regards the roads being

107
entirely under the Minister of Ways and Communications, but I venture to suggest to the noble Earl that the mere fact of the County Councils Association desiring this Amendment shows that it is desirable that, in these circumstances, there should be a special Department whose duty it should be not to lose sight of the great interests of the local authorities as regards roads. The County Councils, as he knows, are very much interested in the roads of the district. It is not, I think, unreasonable that there should be this special Department, a friendly Department, to which the local authorities can go with the knowledge that their views will be placed with force before the Minister, who, of course, will have other questions also to consider. The Department will be in direct contact with the Minister and the local authorities.
I notice that the noble Earl said there would be persons of experience in road management on the Committee, and he evidently contemplated that there was to be a separate Committee for the purpose. Therefore, I think it is only going a little further if you meet the wishes of the County Councils Association in this matter. I freely admit that the Minister is responsible. All I am asking is that there should be a body to take the place of the Road Board, and called the Roads Department of the Ministry. I am certain the Government can only desire that there should be no friction but good feeling between the local authorities and the new Ministry. Therefore, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, after subsection (3), insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Strachie.).
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Before the noble Earl replies, I should like to support the Amendment. It does net clash in any way with the proposals for the Road Committee in Clause 20. It will strengthen the position of the roads. And it is supported by the County Councils Association, whose opinion should carry great weight, and all people connected with the roads question. I should be very glad if the Government could make Sir Henry Maybury's Department into a proper Roads Department. He is the present engineer to the Road Board, and we have great confidence in him. We would like to see his Department made into a special Department under the Ministry.
108
It would not clash with any proposals I have later in the Bill.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I hope I may be able to satisfy both noble Lords and also the County Councils Association on whose behalf they speak. I am unable to accept the Amendment—it is not necessary in order to carry out their purpose—as it is objectionable for two reasons. I hope I shall be able to satisfy noble Lords if I assure them that it is the intention of the Minister to have a separate Road Department, and that that Department will be in charge of Sir Henry Maybury, in so far as those matters are concerned in which he is an acknowledged expert.
But I have two objections to the Amendment. Both are serious objections, though the first is not so serious as the second. My first objection is, that it would be a great mistake to single out one sphere of activity which this Department will have to deal with, and it is admittedly a subject which falls within different Departments, and the administration must follow those lines. if you say that there must by Statute be a special Road Department, then I shall have requests to make a special Department for canals, tramways, and so on. That is, I think, a serious objection.
My second objection is much more serious—it is an administrative one. I have told the noble Lord that the Minister has undertaken to have a special Road Department. Obviously, that Department will not only be consulted in the exercise of the powers of the Minister in regard to roads, but he will also act on their advice. But if you say that the Minister is never to take any action until he has received the report of a. Special Department of his Ministry, then it is a serious interference with his administrative control. After all, a Minister must be left free to organise his own Department as he thinks best. He has assured us that he intends to have a special branch of his Department to deal with roads, but to say that he cannot take action on his own responsibility until certain members of his own staff have submitted a report will be to put a serious limitation on the Minister.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I understood the noble Earl to say, at a former stage of the Bill, that those who were entitled to speak for the highway authorities accepted the Bill as it stands. Perhaps

109
the noble Earl merely meant that they accepted the inclusion of roads under the Ministry, but clearly, as he put it, it would appear that their acceptance went further than he intended, because now they move this Amendment, which does involve a change, not of great substance, but of some substance in the Bill.
The objection of which the noble Earl spoke as being so grave is the prospect of interference with the Minister's arrangement of his own Department. It is quite true, of course, that in a sense public Departments are usually organised, so far as the office arrangements are concerned, by the Minister in charge, but I think there is this difference of principle between the noble Earl and the highway authorities for whom my noble friend behind me spoke, in that they do regard the whole business of roads as being somewhat different in character from all the other sub-departments included in the Bill; so that even although, as the noble Earl said, those interested in light railways ask for a separate light railway department, and these interested in canals make a similar request, it would not be difficult to show that the case of the roads stands on a different footing altogether.
As was pointed out by Lord Montagu on the Second Reading, roads differ from all other services in that they in no way represent a profit-making concern. They simply represent a public service costing money, and that surely does put them on a different footing from either railways, light railways or canals. Many of us hold that it is desirable to mark that distinction by creating this statutory department. It is no slight on the Minister who is about to start this Department, to give this direction of Parliament. The noble Earl has stated that it is the intention of the first holder of the Office to create a Department of this kind, but he may change his mind later on, or his successor in the office may take a different view, and may merge this Department in the general work of the office. I confess I do not entirely apprehend the force of the reasons which appear to the noble Earl to be conclusive as against this Amendment, and I trust on reflection he may take a more favourable view of it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to add one word to what hasfallen from the noble Marquess who has just sat
110
down. I do not think the argument which my noble friend opposite has used in respect of this Amendment—namely, that it would create a dangerous precedent which would be followed by all the other interests—is quite sound, because roads evidently stand in a special position. The roads are already under a. public authority. They differ therefore essentially from any other of the various means of transport which are included in the Bill. They are already under local authorities who are responsible to the ratepayers, the local electors of the country. You may, if you think it wise in the public interest, invade the rights of control which are exercised by railway companies or dock companies or any other companies—your Lordships may agree or differ on that—but at any rate those stand on quite a different footing from invading the roads of the ratepayers who control those roads, and therefore I do not think that it would be correct to say, as my noble friend opposite said, that to give a sub-Department of the Office to roads by statute would create an embarrassing precedent for him in dealing with other interests in the Bill. Roads obviously stand quite apart.
The second contention which I would urge is that he has more or less put forward his support of these provisions in his Bill on the ground that they have the general consent of a large majority, he thought, of the road authorities. Surely the fact that the County Councils Association have thought it necessary to put forward this Amendment would to that extent vitiate the contention of my noble friend. It can no longer be truly said that in this respect he has behind him the support of all the road authorities. They themselves put forward this Amendment, and have laid, as I am informed, great stress upon it. In these two respects I think that my noble friend's argument fails.
Then my noble friend says "Do not be afraid. The Minister has announced that he has every intention of dividing up his Department into sub-Departments, and the roads will be one sub-Department and your Lordships will get all that you require, not by statute, but, by the act of the Minister." The noble Marquess who has just sat down has pointed out that these arrangements which are made by the Minister departmentally are not quite the same thing as a statutory provision. The Minister may change his mind. I do

111
not think from what I know or have heard of Sir Eric Geddes that he is likely to change mind, but what is much more likely is that Sir Eric Geddes will not permanently continue in office, in fact that is almost certain, and when a charge takes place—it may be in the dim and distant future, or it may be in the course of a very few months—the new Minister, who may not be one of the political friends of the Government opposite, may take a wholly different view of the proper means of organising the Department. In that case, although of course in that respect the Minister-designate will have kept his word, yet the local authorities of this country and the County Councils Association may be deprived of that very security which my noble friend opposite most candidly and frankly admits they ought to have. That is a very strong reason, is it not, for making the intentions of the Minister-designate a statutory obligation? There is no objection to it on the ground that it would set up a precedent, because the roads stand on a special footing. There remains only one difficult argument left, and that is that the Minister may not wish to refer every matter for report to the new sub-Department before he acts.
For myself, I do not think that that would be in practice any real difficulty—the Sub-Department will be under his own roof, so to speak, it will be part of his Office, and there will be no difficulty whatever in communicating. And it is not altogether foreign to the structure of the Bill, because, as we shall see when we come to consider the Committee which is to preside over the question of the raising of rates and fares (though I think that clause very insufficient), yet there does appear the very principle against which my noble friend protests. There the Minister is called upon to refer any question of the raising of rates to the Committee, and to receive their report before he acts. So that that principle is involved.
But if the noble Earl thinks that principle very difficult in connection with this Amendment—I mean in connection with roads—personally I should be quite content (I am only speaking for myself) if, at any rate so far as this particular stage is concerned, the last sentence of the Amendment were left out, as to referring everything to the Sub-Department before acting, and not acting until a report is received. I do not know how that suggestion might be
112
viewed by my two noble friends who spoke. I think the existence of the Sub-Department, existing by Statute, would probably secure, not all, but most of what my noble friends suggest, without making it absolutely necessary that by Statute every decision should be referred to them before it became definite.
LORD STRACHIE: I hope the noble Earl may be inclined to accept the suggestion of the noble Marquess. If he was willing to do so I should be quite willing to take the responsibility on behalf of the County Councils Association to leave out of my Amendment the words "before exercising any such powers," because I take it that that is what the noble Earl objected to. He said his principal objection to the Amendment was the fact that it made it obligatory on the Minister to have all these matters referred to him, and he could not exercise his powers before he considered them, and that it would cause delay. I admit there is a certain amount of force in that, although I do not think in practice that it would matter. I hope the noble Earl will meet me in this matter on behalf of the County Councils Association, which I am sure he will agree is a very important body in this country. I would remind the noble Earl that the Government said yesterday that they would accept any reasonable Amendments which would improve the Bill.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: If the noble Lord is either in any doubt as to the intentions of the Minister to create a Department or in any fear lest, if he does so, some other Minister may go back upon that, I can certainly meet the noble Lord on that point. It must be obvious to any one that it would be impossible to administer this Department in any other way. If, therefore, noble Lords will be satisfied with putting into the Bill words to say that there shall be a special Roads Department, I am prepared to do that. But I cannot meet noble Lords with regard to any other point, as to the fact that everything shall be referred to this Department. For this reason. It really would be administratively impossible, if you will consider for a moment. Any man who has been in an administrative Department knows that a great deal of his work is done verbally by consultation with his officials. If you are to put. upon him the statutory obligation that he is never to

113
exercise any function in relation to a particular Department without referring to some member of his staff or branch of his Department, that will preclude him from doing any business verbally at all.
LORD STRACHIE: I offered to leave that out.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: What I am pointing out is that it will not be left out merely by doing what he suggests. I am willing to say that there shall be a separate Department of the Ministry to deal with roads, but I cannot do more. If the noble Lord is satisfied with that, I will consult him between now and the Report stage as to how the matter can be met, or I can accept his words down to "Roads Department."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Down to "referred."
LORD STRACHIE: I am sorry that the noble Earl is unwilling to meet me. I thought that I had met him quite fairly. I offered to strike out "before exercising any such powers," which leaves the Minister with free hands. I regret that I cannot go any further, and I stall have to ask the House to go to a Division on this.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The noble Lord said he was prepared to meet me, but he has not met me. If he wants me to put in certain words to the effect that the Minister must refer to this special Department, that will preclude him from making any verbal reference. He will have to do everything in writing. The noble Marquess talked about the question of rates, but that is a different matter. This is to say that the Minister shall not exercise his powers on a great question of policy. It is also stated in another part of the Bill that he shall not exercise his powers in taking over a new thing without referring it to a committee. The noble Lord says he will take out "before exercising any function," but I cannot accept words which will put upon the Minister the obligation of keeping a written record that he has referred a matter to a certain part of his Department.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think I follow the point of the noble Earl, that his main objection now applies to the words "stand referred"; that he conceives that
114
this places a duty on the Minister to put in writing before this Department for their advice the details of any powers which he desires to exercise. I confess that I myself should not have interpreted the words in that very strict sense. What is desired as part of the Statute is that there should be a definite statutory Roads Department to which would be entrusted in the first instance, of course subject to the final decision of the Minister, the whole care and administration of matters relating to roads. I can hardly think that my noble friend, or the County Councils Association which he represents, would desire to nail his colours to the mast with these words "stand referred"; and I suggest that between now and Report my noble friend and the noble Earl should consult as to the addition of some words, making the sense of what I have roughly expressed—namely, that this would be the Roads Department having charge of the administration of matters relating to roads, with a view to their insertion in the Bill. I do not myself think that it would be sufficient merely to say, "There shall be established a separate Department of the Ministry (hereinafter referred to as the Roads Department)." I think the words require some amplification, and I hope the noble Earl will agree.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I am quite prepared, and I think my noble friend who moved his Amendment is prepared, to accept the words of the noble Marquess and to leave out the words "shall stand referred." I think that is as far as we can go. The noble Lord can therefore have this Amendment with the omission of the words "shall stand referred, and the Minister before exercising any such powers." With those words cut out I think we could accept it. The words "shall receive and consider'' should stand, we think.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I think this matter should stand over until a later stage of the Bill. I thought I made it clear where I am prepared to meet the noble Lords. If it is merely a question of words, we can agree between now and the Report stage. If it is more than a matter of words and we are unable to come to an agreement, then they can bring it up on the Report stage and the House can exercise its decision upon the matter. I am quite willing to meet the noble Lords between now and then.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: We must press it to a division, because the County Councils Association are very anxious indeed that the view of the House should be taken on this.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My noble friend has gone as far as he can to meet Lord Montagu and Lord Strachie. May I point out to your Lordships that as the Amendment stands it has clearly been drafted by persons who have seldom had to take charge of a large Government Office. It says that every duty and every power of the Minister shall be referred to a subordinate department of the Ministry before the responsible Minister can take action—that is to say, every question relating to roads, or to ferries, or to bridges has to go to the Roads Department. The Roads Department has to report on ferries before the Minister can take any decision. That sounds to me anomalous. The Roads Department cannot take any action, I take it, per contra without taking the decision of the Minister. The result is going to be almost ludicrous and impossible, I think. The Minister by statute has to refer to his Department. There is no guarantee that the Minister shall have to accept the advice that Department may give.
I put this also to your Lordships as an anomaly that must arise. When the Minister has by his duty got to appoint a new head of the Roads Department, he has to submit that point to the Department before he comes to a decision. Is that possible? He has to ask the advice of a subordinate Department without a head who shall be made the head of that Department. That is perfectly impossible, and I do not think it ought to be pressed.
The Minister will have duties to the Cabinet which he cannot always discuss with his Department. He must, in the first place perhaps, take the views of the Cabinet without a written report from anybody in his Department. He has powers which, in nine cases out of ten in great Government Departments, are settled between the head of the Department and the Minister concerned. This prevents him settling anything verbally. Is that your Lordships' desire? I have seen the inside working of several Government Departments, and if a Minister is precluded from discussing confidentially and verbally with the heads of his Department on
116
matters relating to the interests of that Department, the work of the Department is going to be wrecked. I beg your Lordships not to impose by Statute so very grave an infraction of the duties of the Minister concerned.
LORD STRACHIE: We have tried to meet the noble Earl in every way. He said he was aware of the working of Government Departments. I venture to think his argument as regards responsibility is not founded on a very strong basis. May I read to the Committee the Amendment which I suggest the Government should now accept?
"That there should be established a separate Department of the Ministry, hereinafter referred to as the Roads Department, to which all matters relating to the exercise by the Minister of his powers and duties with reference to roads, bridges and ferries, the Minister shall receive and consider the report of the Roads Department with reference to the matters in question."
That leaves out all the matters which the noble Earl said were contentious, and I would suggest that he might meet the County Councils Association by putting in this Amendment, and if he found there was any objection, on Report the Government might propose separate words.
LORD WITTENHAM: May I point out that that Amendment hardly makes grammar. How does the sentence end?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I agree that this does not read. I suggest that it only wants slight alteration—
"That there should be established a separate Department of the Ministry, hereinafter referred to as the Roads Department, to deal with matters relating to the exercise by the Minister of his powers and duties with reference to roads, bridges and ferries, and the Minister shall receive and consider the report of the Roads Department with reference to the matters in question."
That reads, and I think it meets the noble Earl's point, because it does not fetter the Minister in any way.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am not prepared to accept words hurriedly prepared and read out by noble Lords opposite. I think they are unreasonable. I have undertaken to discuss the drafting of the Amendment and meet them if I can. If they are not content with that I must abide by my decision.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Earl is quite right in declining to accept an Amendment until he has had the opportunity to consider it. I agree that an Amendment of this kind is really required in the Bill and should be inserted, and I do not think my noble friend opposite goes quite far enough in the words which he has stated he would accept. I think you require further words, and with a little trouble, if we were not quite so sleepy, we might, even on the present occasion, find suitable words.
I do not think the words read out by Lord Strachie, if he will forgive my saying so, are grammatical, and after all, one must try, even at twenty minutes before midnight, to be grammatical. Therefore, I think the proper course is not to press the Amendment, but to bring it up at a future stage of the Bill. I hope my noble friend will to do that. He has the absolute promise of my noble friend, who is incapable of breaking any promise, that he will accept at any rate the first words, and he will no doubt construct following words between now and the Report stage when we shall be able to press that view on the Government, and, I hope, convince them.
LORD STRACHIE: After the appeal of my noble friend behind me (Lord Montagu) I will, of course, consent, especially as he is an important member of the County Councils Association.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask the noble Earl if it is the intention of the Government to proceed with this Bill to-morrow as the first Order?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: We desire to take the Housing Bill to-night after this, but if the noble Marquess is not staying I should like to make a short statement as to the course of business. We propose to ask your Lordships to continue the Ways and Communications Bill in its normal position on the Order Paper to-morrow, which will be after several Motions of which notice has been given.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: At what hour does the House meet to-morrow?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: At 3 o'clock. Your Lordships will remember that on Monday there is the Royal Pageant on the Thames. The procession is expected to pass Westminster Palace at 4.45 p.m., and take about half an hour to pass. I propose to-morrow to consult your Lordships privately as to the most convenient course to take. We might meet at 3 o'clock on Monday and adjourn at 4.30; or else we might meet at 5.15 for business. I am not quite clear whether it would be most convenient to meet at 3 o'clock and adjourn after an hour and a quarter's debate, and then resume business. It is clear that we shall have to sit on Monday night after dinner, and the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, proposes on Monday to move that for the remainder of the sittings Government business should take precedence, except on Wednesdays.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I do not know whether the noble Earl realises that people who will desire to attend the House on Monday will have the greatest difficulty in getting here, as Monday is a Bank Holiday, and in addition there will be the Royal Procession. I should have thought it would have been possible for the House to meet on Friday and adjourn over the Monday.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The House of Commons is meeting on Monday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It does not matter what the House of Commons does.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think a large number of members of both Houses will be here in order to see the Pageant. I am afraid it will be difficult, at short notice, to arrange for a Friday sitting. We have a great deal of business to do, and our sittings up to now have been extremely short. We shall have to ask your Lordships to sit on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday next week.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: On Monday the trains will only run as on Sundays. There is no train at all for some time to get back by.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I hope the noble Earl will not finally decide against sitting on Friday, and perhaps to-morrow he will tell us whether, with this Bill before

119
us, it would not be an advantage to have a Friday sitting. I agree that in all the circumstances it would be a pity not to sit on Monday. A great many of your Lordships will find your way to the precincts of the House for the purpose of watching the procession, and it would be a pity not to have a. sitting. I hope the noble Earl will not altogether dismiss the idea of a sitting on Friday.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Of course, I will not dismiss that idea. I merely desire your Lordships to know that those who have Government Departments to look after have outside engagements. I have twelve or fifteen engagements on Friday, and all of them must be put off if this House sits on Friday. I think we shall have to sit on Monday in any case.

FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Fourth Report from the Select Committee made; to be printed, and to be considered on Tuesday next.
MEDWAY CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.
ANIMALS (ANÆSTHETICS) BILL.
Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next, and to be printed as amended: Minutes of Evidence (with the proceedings of the Committee) laid upon the Table and to be delivered out.

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, &c., BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment, and Commons reasons for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment and Reasons be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[NOTE.—The references are to Bill (77) as first printed for the House of Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 27, page 22, line 31, after ("with") insert ("and if the owner has not given such notice as aforesaid")
The Commons disagree with this Amendment, but propose the following Amendment to the Bill in lieu thereof.
Clause 27, page 22, lines 30 to 33, leave out subsection (2) and insert as a new subsection:
(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 so 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 to be done.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think upon this Amendment only a very short statement will be necessary—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is agreed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, it is little more than a drafting Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of July 29.]

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for a Bill by the
Ammanford Gas Company
ought to be dispensed with:
Read, and agreed to.

COMMONS REGULATION (COITY WALLIA) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendment, awl recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY)BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL.
RESTORATION OF PRE-WAR PRACTICES (No. 3) BILL.
Second Reading (which stands appointed for to-morrow) put off to Monday next.

LAND SETTLEMENT (FACILITIES) BILL.
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.

STONEY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
PALLIN'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
House adjourned at ten minutes before midnight.