Sitting of 20 March 1919

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
DIVORCE BILLS.
The Lord Advocate, Mr. Bowerman, Major Brassey, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Jodrell, Brigadier-General Palmer, Mr Purchase, Captain Watson, and Sir Gilbert Wills nominated Members of the Select Committee on Divorce Bills.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Leith Harbour and Docks,"presented by the Lord Advocate; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  UKRAINE.
  Lieutenant-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOAREasked theSecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any of the Allied representatives in South Russia have officially recognised the independence of the Ukraine?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer, so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, is in the negative.

  ALLIED MILITARY DECORATIONS (FINNISH OFFICERS).
  Sir S. HOAREasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Finnish officers have recently been for bidden to wear Allied military decora-
  2204
  tions—for instance, the Military Cross and the Legion d' Honneur—and are permitted by the Finnish authorities to continue wearing the German Iron Cross?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no information on the subject, but will make inquiries.

  ALBANIA.
  Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has with regard to the massacre of Albanians by Serbian troops in the North of Albania?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I fear I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on this subject on the 13th instant.
  Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESS: Has the hon. Member since then had a report that Plava and Goussignéare being laid in ruins by Serbian bombardment, and can he get a further report on the subject?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I must ask for notice of that question.

  BLOCKADE RESTRICTIONS (COTTON TRADE).
  Mr. STOKERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the almost total cessation of movement in the cotton trade, and the consequent growing scarcity of work alike for the operatives and the handlers of cotton goods, and also in view of the fact that our principal customers in the countries adjacent to enemy countries are harbouring feelings of resentment against this country owing to the manner in which they conceive that their interests are being sacrificed by the continuance of the Blockade Regulations, a resentment which is manifesting itself by numerous inquiries and tentative arrangements for the supply ofcotton goods from rival countries, he will so far abrogate the blockade arrangements as to permit of the free entry of cotton goods into Scandinavia, Holland, and Denmark, ignoring, for the sake of the benefit to our own people, the risk of certain of suchgoods eventually reaching Germany?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: An abrogation of the existing blockade arrangements, such as my hon. Friend suggests, could only be carried out by His Majesty's Government with, the consent of their Allies and of the United States of America. His Majesty's Government and the Associated Governments consider that it is necessary for the moment, for reasons of policy, to maintain the blockade, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that they are fully alive to the feeling of irritation which it not unnaturally arouses in this country, and that, as soon as it has served its purpose, as a most important lever for obtaining the enemy's acceptance of such terms as the Allies intend to impose, and the execution of those terms, His Majesty's Government will welcome the possibility of removing the existing blockade restrictions.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the answer mean that these blockade restrictions are to be kept on until we get the indemnity paid by Germany?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Oh, no; I must ask for notice of that question.

  SOLDIERS (SANATORIUM TREATMENT).
  Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Pensions Minister whether a reduction of 20 per cent. is made from the pensions of soldiers whilst inmates of a sanatorium, as also the sum of 7s. a week towards the cost of their treatment; and whether any reduction is also made in respect of national insurance benefit?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): A disabled soldier tinder treatment in a sanatorium or other institution for an attributable disability receives an allowance at the maximum rate of pension, from which a deduction of 7s. a week is made, not for the cost of treatment, but for maintenance. The bonus of 20 per cent. is not added to the man's allowance, the reason of the exclusion of this class of case from the grant of bonus being that the deduction made for maintenance is so small as largely to relieve the man of the burden of the high cost of living which the bonus is designed to meet. With regard to the insurance
  2206
  benefit, I would refer my hon. Friend to Section 1 of the National Insurance (Part. I. Amendment Act), 1917.
  Sir K. WOODasked the Pensions Minister whether any soldiers have to forfeit half their pensions for refusing sanatorium treatment, and in how many cases this has been done?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Under Article 4 of the Royal Warrant half the pension awarded to a disabled man may be subject to the condition that he shall undergo medical treatment in an institution or otherwise where it is certified thatsuch treatment is necessary in his interests. Statistics of refusals have only been kept since July of last year. During the eight months between 1st July, 1918, and 28th February, 1919, 1,477 cases of refusal of treatment for tuberculosis have been brought to the notice of the Department, of which 71 are now under consideration. Of the 1,406 refusals dealt with it was only found necessary to impose the penalty in 99 cases.
  Sir K. WOOD: Will my right hon. Friend state whether it is a fact that in London last year there were no less than 500 men who refused treatment on account of the unsatisfactory condition of the sanatoria?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, I cannot confirm that statement. I am not aware whether that is so or not.
  Sir WATSON CHEYNE: Is it the best treatment for tuberculosis to diminish the food supply by one-half?
  Lieutenant-Colonel RAW: May I ask if here is provision made for soldiers at the present time?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That does not arise out of the question, but I have said already that I am not satisfied with the provision made and steps are being taken to improve it.
  Sir K. WOODasked the Pensions Minister whether the committee to inquire into the question of sanatorium provision for soldiers has yet been set up; and, if so, whether he can state its terms of reference, and who compose the committee?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope the announcement will be made within a few days.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    DECEASED SOLDIERS' DEFENDANTS.
    Mr. STANLEY JOHNSONasked the Pensions Minister whether he will take steps to secure that any pension awarded to dependants of a deceased soldier on the basis of loss to dependants of assistance from future earnings of such deceased soldier shall be payable from the date of the death of the soldier instead of from the date of application for the pension?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Where actual dependence has been established isthe lifetime of the soldier and separation allowance is in issue, pension follows automatically as from the date when separation allowances ceases. Where separation allowance has not been paid application for pension is necessary, and as the amount of the pension is based largely on the pecuniary need of the applicant, it would not be practicable to grant arrears, which would in many cases involve an investigation into the applicant's past circumstances extending over a considerable period.

    DISCHARGED AND DISABLED SOLDIERS (RETIRED PAY).
    Major JOHN EDWARDSasked the Pensions Minister whether the recommendations of medical boards are invariably carried out in the granting of pensions and retired pay to discharged and disabled soldiers; and, if not, whether he will take steps to see that this is done, seeing that the medical boards are the only qualified authorities to survey the disabilities of these officers and men?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. I cannot admit that medical boards are the only qualified authorities to survey the disabilitiesof officers and men. It is found, by experience, that medical boards vary greatly in their views and assessments, and in fairness to the disabled it is desirable that the reports of the boards should be carefully reviewed by well-qualified medical men atthe Ministry of Pensions in order to maintain a proper common standard of awarding and ensure equal justice in all eases.
    Sir JOHN BUTCHER: Is there not in all these cases an appeal to a tribunal?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, my hon. Friend is not quite correct; there is not in all cases an appeal to a tribunal. There is only an appeal where the question is whether a man is or is not entitled to a pension.
    Mr. ALFRED DAVIES: In the event of the Appeal Tribunal deciding in favour of the soldier, is the pension board to follow?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes.

    POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
    Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his statement with reference to the war gratuity payable to Civil servants on their discharge from theArmy is intended to mean that all Post Office servants will be paid the war gratuity to which they are entitled under their terms of enlistment?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): Every Post Office, servant is entitled under the terms of his enlistment to receive, and will receive, the service gratuity payable under Arts. 1117 and 1118 of the Army Pay Warrant. There is, however, a distinction between this "service gratuity"and the "war gratuity"recently sanctioned by His Majesty's Government, the terms of which are contained in an Army Order published on 19th December, 1918. Post Office servants who draw their full civil salary in addition to their Army pay and allowances are not entitled to receive this latter gratuity under the terms of the Order.

  IRELAND.

    PRIVATE LEGISLATION.
    Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will endeavour during the present Session to pass a Bill enabling Irish Private Bill legislation to be dealt with in Ireland on a system analogous to that now in force in Scotland?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): A Bill is at present in course of preparation for the purpose, and it is hoped to introduce it at an early date.

    CROSSGAR, COUNTY DOWN (SINN FEIN DISTURBANCE).
    Mr. REIDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, on the night of

    2209
    8th March, a body of about 200 Sinn Feiners who reside at a distance invaded the town of Crossgar, county Down, under cover of darkness, and attacked a number of housesbelonging to Unionists, and seriously injured a number of policemen; whether Crossgar has hitherto been orderly and peaceable; and whether the necessary steps will be taken to prevent a recurrence of such attacks?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret to say that the facts are as stated. All necessary steps are being taken to bring the culprits to justice.

    TECHNICAL SCHOOLS (INSTRUCTION FOR SOLDIERS).
    Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any decision has yet been received as to the withdrawal of Grants from those technical schools who have refused to give instructions to men who have served in His Majesty's Forces?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Of the two technical instruction committees concerned (Clare county and Tralee urban district) one, that of Tralee, has rescinded the resolution excluding the military from the schools. Where a committee decides that soldiers, or any section of the community, are to be excluded from the benefits of the scheme of technical instruction administered by the committee, the Department's approval of the scheme to which sucha condition attaches will not be continued; and consequently no public moneys, whether Parliamentary Grants or local rates, will be legally applicable to the scheme. This rule will automatically operate in the case of Clare in due course unless the resolution in question is withdrawn.
    Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESS: Will the Grant also be withheld from the committees of the county borough of Cork, the county borough of Limerick, Kilkenny,and Queen County, who have refused to provide special courses for soldiers pending demobilisation?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I must look into all these individual cases. These are the only two with which I am acquainted.
    Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESS: Would the right hon. Gentleman look at the answer to a question given on 27th February?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly. This rule will apply to those cases.

    PUBLIC EDUCATION.
    Major O'NEILLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what is the policy of the Government in respect of the reform of public education in Ireland?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The very able Reports of the Committee appointed to inquire into primary and intermediate education in Ireland are still under my consideration. I should like, if I may, to take thisopportunity of acknowledging publicly the gratitude of the Irish Government to the chairman and members of these committees, who have rendered such devoted public service.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
    Captain REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary for Irelandif he is aware that a branch of the National Union of Police and Prison Officers was openly established in 8, D'Olier Street, Dublin, last December, and that the Home Secretary has stated, in a Circular dated 12th September, 1918, that there was no objection to the police becoming members of this union; why members of the Royal Irish Constabulary were not informed that the Lord Lieutenant could not see his way to permit them to join the union until the 4th February; and if he can state the total membership of the National Union of Police and Prison Officers and the number of Royal Irish Constabulary men who joined before, and who have joined since, the 4th February?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The question as to whether the Royal Irish Constabulary should be allowed to join the union required very careful consideration, and when the Government had come to a decision on the point the police were at once informed. I have no information that any members of the Royal Irish Constabulary have joined the union or as to the total membership of the union.
    Captain REDMOND: Isit not a fact that the members of the London Police Force and other police forces throughout this country are allowed to join this union, and why is this differentiation made in the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The Royal Irish Constabulary is an entirely different force;

    2211
    it is partly a military force, and I am not prepared to sanction any joining any union.
    Captain REDMOND: Why should not the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary—who have undoubtedly rendered great service to the State—be allowed to protect their own interests in a similar manner to members of the forces in this country?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The Royal Irish Constabulary is a magnificent force. The work which they do is worthy of all praise, for so long as they continue to do their work I shall consider it my duty to look after their interests.
    Colonel THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what methods and what channel the men have got to ventilate their grievances?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: They can do so to their superior officers, and they are promptly and sympathetically considered.
    Captain REDMOND: Is that the opinion of the rank and file of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am glad to say it is.

    RETURNED SOLDIERS (LAND).
    Sir MAURICE DOCKRELLasked the Chief Secretary how soon land, which is either under the control of, or within the procurement of, the Government, will be made available for returned Irish soldiers?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The Bill providing for this matter will be introduced shortly.

  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will order an inquiry into the state of health of E. W. Harby, now in Wandsworth Gaol, with a view to his discharge, in view of his broken appearance when giving evidence before the recent inquiry?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): This prisoner is reported to be in good health, and of sound mind. He makes no complaint, states he feels quite well, performs his full task, and has not required medical treatment at any time.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the fact that this prisoner has made serious complaints against the Governor, and which are at present being investigated, would it not be possible to consider whether he could not be placed under some other supervision than that of the present Governor? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

  FORCIBLE FEEDING.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary if he still considers forcible feeding to be a necessary medical measure to be applied only for the purpose of preventing self-imposed starvation; whether he is aware that after men have been forcibly fed for a few days it has been found necessary to release them temporarily on health grounds; and whether this indicates the uselessness of forcible feeding for any purpose other than punishment?
  Mr. SHORTT: Forcible feeding is used only as a necessary medical measure to prevent death by self-imposed starvation. In some cases prisoners have been released if on account of their state of health or for any other reason it was difficult to continue the forcible feeding. In no case and in no circumstances has forcible feeding been used at a punishment.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Was not the "Cat-and-Mouse" Act passed to avoid forcible feeding, and why is it not being used for this purpose instead of after it has been used?

  UNITED STATES AND DOMINIONS (DEPORTATIONS).
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Home Secretary how many aliens previously resident in this country have been deported from the United States and Dominions and allowed to land in this country; and whether, if it has not been found practicable to send them on to their own country, they are allowed complete freedom of action while waiting?
  Mr. SHORTT: I cannot give figures in answer to the first paragraph of the question as separate records of the cases have not been kept, but I am advised that the number is small. All such persons haveto register with the police and are subject to all the restrictions imposed on

  2213
  aliens during the War, and the police have had authority to impose additional restrictions in any special cases where they appeared to be called for.

  TOBACCO SALES.
  Captain REGINALD TERRELLasked the Home Secretary when he proposes to take into consideration an extension of the hours within which tobacco, cigarettes, and cigars can be sold to the public; and whether has attention has been called to the similar modification of the law in respect to the sale of alcohol?
  Mr. SHORTT: I see no reason at present to consider any extension for this trade of the hours fixed by the general Early Closing Order for shops. No request to do so has reached me from any quarter. On the contrary, representations have been recently received at the Home Office from tobacconists'associations in London, Manchester, and Torquay in favour of the present restrictions being made permanent.
  Lieutenant-Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is not this grandmotherly legislation becoming intolerable, and has not the working man the right to buy tobacco whenever he likes?
  Mr. SHORTT: The tobacconists have some rights in the matter too.
  Captain TERRELL: Has the public any rights at all?

  NO TREATING ORDER.
  Captain R. TERRELLasked the Home Secretary whether the authorities still have orders to prosecute in all cases of treating in respect of the consumption of drink; how many successful and unsuccessful prosecutions, respectively, there have been in the last six months; whether he will now consider the desirability of the complete revocation of the Order; and whether he will state the views of his police advisers on the subject?
  Mr. SHORTT: It is the duty of the police to enforce the No Treating Order. Separate statistics in regard to its enforcement are not available. It does not lie with me to revoke the Order, but I am
  2214
  informed that the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) are watching very carefully the working of this, and they are in close touch with the police.
  Mr. RAPER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this unnecessary legislation is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction in the country?
  Mr. SHORTT: I have no information.
  Mr. LUNN: Does this Order apply in the House of Commons?
  Mr. SHORTT: I think not.

  POLICE (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary whether any of the member now forming the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the conditions of police pay and pensions have any practical acquaintance with police law and practice; and, if not, whether he will now consider the desirability of adding to their numbers two chief constables who have previously served in the ranks of a county or borough police force, respectively, with a view to making the Committee representative of the men whose interests are chiefly concerned?
  Mr. SHORTT: So far as I know, none has been actually engaged in a police force. The Government decided that this Committee should be constituted entirely of Members of Parliament. It would, in my opinion, be undesirable to include any police officers in the Committee. Chief constables will have an opportunity of putting their views before it by way of evidence.

  NIGERIAN COALFIELDS.
  Mr. STEWARTasked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Nigeria are entering into negotiations with private individuals for the sale of the Nigerian coalfields or a portion of them; and whether, before disposing of and denationalising all or any of the coalfields, he will give due attention to the wishes of the general trading community of Nigeria that the Government should continue to

  2215
  work the mines as at present, so as to avoid creating anything in the shape of a private monopoly?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieutenant-Colonel Amery): No such negotiations have been reported to the Colonial Office.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (LIFTS).
  Colonel YATEasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the question of providing self-working lifts in thestaircases on the western side of the House during the coming year?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): In view of the expense involved—which is 50 per cent.greater than when the question was last raised by the hon. Member—I do not feel justified in recommending the provision of such lifts.
  Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise that the provision of these many necessary articles, such as lifts and staircases, will synchronise with the removal of the restrictions on the sale of alcoholic liquors?

  HAMPTON COURT PALACE (GARDENS).
  Mr. STANLEY JOHNSONasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the æsthetic and historic value to the public, in general, and horticulturists in particular, of the flower beds and Dutch garden attached to Hampton Court Palace, he will revoke the instructions stated to have been given for the abolition of the flower beds and garden in question?
  Sir A. MOND: No instructions have been given for the abolition of the flower beds and the Tudor Garden at Hampton Court. Such alterations as have been contemplated are entirely with a view to the improvement of the gardens. Changes have been repeatedly made in the lay-out of these gardens since they were first designed by London and Wise in the reign of William and Mary, and there is no intention of impairing their historic association.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    RETAIL PRICES.
    Colonel THORNEasked the Minister of Labour what are the latest retail prices in possessionof has Department as indicated by the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics in their monthly reports for American cities for sirloin steak, round steak, rib roast, chuck roast, plate beef, lamb, pork chops, and eggs, reducing the figures to the British money and decimal percentages?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): At September, 1918, the latest date for which information is available, the prices per pound were: 1s. 8¾d. sirloin steak, 1s. 8d. round steak, 1s. 4½d. rib roast, 1s. 2¼d. chuck roast, 11d. plate beef, 1s. 6½d. lamb, 1s. 11d. pork chops, and 2s. 5¼d.for a dozen eggs. The American dollar has been converted at 4s. 2d.

    AMERICAN BACON.
    Colonel THORNEasked the Food Controller why he did permit the publication, in the "National Food Journal" for 11th December, of a misleading statement by Mr. Hoover, indicating that the Allied purchases of bacon were on the same basis as that of American consumers, namely, a controlled live-weight price for hogs of 17.50 dollars, or 8¾per lb.; whether a further misleading statement is contained in the same article indicating that Chicago packers' profits are limited to ⅓d per lb., instead of which the actual profits of the packers are not less than 4d. or 5d. per lb. on every ounce of bacon shipped to England; and whether he will appoint a Committee to investigate the transactions of all persons connected with the American purchasers?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): The memorandum to which the hon. and gallant Member refers was published in the "National Food Journal" as in other newspapers. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of any statement which it contains. The matters referred to in the last part of the question will no doubt be considered by the Interdepartmental Committee being set up by the President of the Board of Trade.

    CONFECTIONERS (RESTRICTIONS).
    Mr. STANLEY JOHNSONasked whether, in order to treat equitably the

    2217
    retail confectioners in the country dependent upon their sales for their livelihood, he will suspend or delay the proposed withdrawal of the Order preventing the sale of confectionery and chocolate by theatres, cinemas, grocers, etc., who do not depend upon thesale of confectionery, until such time as retail confectioners are relieved from all restrictions or limitations as regards their purchases and sales?
    Mr. McCURDY: I am not prepared to reimpose the Orders in question which were revoked as from 1st March last. The only restriction now operative upon retailers of confectionery as regards purchases and sales is that of maximum prices.

    FORAGE.
    Major LANE-FOXasked the Food Controller whether it is by any authority from him that the Army Forage Department, having commandeered from Yorkshire farmers for Army purposes hay that they badly needed for their own use, are now distributing it to civilians other than the farmers from whom it was taken?
    Mr. McCURDY: The answer is in the negative. The Food Controller has no knowledge of the transaction to which the hon. and gallant Member refers.

    IMPORTED MEAT (COSTS OF DISTRIBUTION).
    Major COURTHOPEasked the Food Controller whether the general costs of distribution of imported meat have been paid, either in whole or in part, out of the sum of £3,459,939realised between 19th September, 1918, and 28th February, 1919, from the charge of 11s. 4d. per cwt. levied on all cattle sold for slaughter in markets?
    Mr. McCURDY: The answer is in the negative.

    LIVE STOCK (DEATHS IN TRANSIT).
    Major COURTHOPEasked the Food Controller, in view of his statement that the charge levied on live stock sold for slaughter in markets included the cost of insurance, why butchers have been compelled to pay proportionately to their quota the loss incurred by the death of animals in transit to market; and whether payments made in this connection will be refunded?
    Mr. McCURDY: The insurance in question is against condemnation of first,
    2218
    second, and third grade cattle on the ground of tubercular disease. It does not cover transit risks.

    CENTRAL LIVE STOCK FUND.
    Major EDWARD WOODasked the Food Controller whether he will consider the desirability of publishing a balance sheet showing the detailed working of the Central Live Stock Fund up to 31st March next?
    Mr. McCURDY: The balance-sheet of the Central Live Stock Fund will be made out up to 31st March, 1919. The Food Controller will consider the desirability of publishing it.

    NATIONAL KITCHEN, MARYLEBONE.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why the national kitchen in Maida Vale is to be closed on 25th March; whether he is aware that thousands of housekeepers have been gradually learning to economise in coal and gas as the result of this kitchen's existence; if hewill undertake to reopen, it in the autumn; and if he has taken any steps to get local bodies or persons to undertake its maintenance and management?
    Mr. McCURDY: The national kitchen to which the hon. Member refers is presumably that situated at the Public Baths, Seymour Place, Marylebone. It was recently decided by the Marylebone Borough Council that this kitchen should be closed owing to the fact that it was being run at a loss and that the premises were again required for use as public baths.I am fully in accord with the view that national kitchens and restaurants should be continued and developed, wherever possible, and I propose to take steps, in conjunction with the local authority, for the reopening of a national kitchen in thisdistrict in the autumn.

  FRENCH GOVERNESSES (PERMITS).
  Colonel BURNasked the Minister of Labour if it is still the policy of the Ministry to refuse to grant a permit to French governesses to come to this country when they are urgently required to instruct young people in the French language?
  Mr. WARDLE: The hon. and gallant Member has apparently been misinformed as to the position. It is not, and never

  2219
  has been, the policy of my Department to refuse to grant permits to French governesses to come to this country when it was clear that the primary object was the instruction of young people in the French language.
  Colonel BURN: Will the hon. Gentleman go into a case I will give him where the permit was refused?
  Mr. WARDLE: Certainly, with pleasure.

  WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  Mr. CROOKSasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received a letter from the Woolwich Branch of the National Federation of Discharged Soldiers and Sailors with regard to the discharges now taking place at Woolwich Arsenal; Whetherhis attention has been drawn to the allegation that whilst disabled ex-Service men are being discharged, temporarily engaged employés, both male and female, are being retained on light work which could be performed by disabled men; and whether he will favourably consider the request in the letter that a deputation be received to discuss the situation?
  Mr. WARDLE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A representative deputation of the federation was received on the 11thJanuary last, and their proposals were considered by the Government, who decided that no disabled sailor or soldier employed in the State-owned factories or establishments shall, other things being equal, be discharged until after the dilutee and ex-Service man of the same class of skill. The disabled sailor or soldier will, therefore, have last priority of discharge in his class. Instructions to this effect were immediately issued to all Government establishments; and recommendations in the same sense were sent to all controlled establishments. At the same time an undertaking was given that any cases of individual hardship that might be put forward by the federation should be inquired into. Many such cases have been and are being investigated, with the result that the Government are satisfied that the instructions are being carried out at the Arsenal and elsewhere. In these circumstances I do not think it necessary to receive a further deputation.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    APPRENTICESHIP GRANTS.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir JOHN HOPEasked the Minister of Labour whether a soldier who was fifteen years of age and in the band of a Territorial battalion of the Royal Scots on the outbreak of war, and consequently at once mobilised, is eligible for a Grant to enable him to be now apprenticed as an engineer?
    Mr. WARDLE: If the boy mentioned in the question was an apprentice at the time he was mobilised, he would be eligible to benefit under the scheme for assisting ex-Service apprentices. The question of the possibility of providing training for youths, other than apprentices, who joined the Colours when under age is under consideration.
    Sir J. HOPE: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration that this boy was too young to be an apprentice at the outbreak of war, andhe would have subsequently become an apprentice if he had not been engaged in serving his country, and is he not equally deserving of consideration with those who were actually apprenticed?
    Mr. WARDLE: Certainly; and that is exactly the point we are considering what we should do with regard to those other than apprentices who joined the Colours when under age.
    Sir J. HOPE: Can a decision not be shortly arrived at, because these boys are ready to take up apprenticeship, and they cannot live on nothing?
    Mr. WARDLE: I expect a decision will be arrived at very shortly.

    UNIVERSITY TRAINING FOR NAVAL OFFICERS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Education whether any charge upon the taxpayer is occasioned by the reception at Cambridge of the young naval officers who are at present engaged in a course of study at that university?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara):I have been asked to answer this question. There will be a charge upon the taxpayer, but it would be very difficult indeed to say precisely how much. The cost of accommodation, board and attendance and

    2221
    of the necessary instruction lectures, etc., by the college staff and the naval instructional staff will be borne by the Admiralty, and is estimated to amount to £31,000. But, as a set-off against that figure, there is the fact that, even if these young officers were not at Cambridge, Navy Votes would have to bear certain charges on their behalf elsewhere. I may add that the Cambridge course is intended to take the place of that part of the officers' education
    which had to be dropped owing to the War.

    RELEASE OF FISHERMEN.
    Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the following fishermen from the Moray Firth, George Main, George Campbell, Edward M'Leod, John Stewart, Robert Cordiner, Leishman Stewart, William Mone, William M'Pherson, and John Kinnaird, who enlisted in the Royal Naval Reserve in August, 1914, are still employed on H.M.S. "Resource," stationedat Methil, in connection with boom defence; and if, in view of the hardship to these men if they are not released in time for the herring season, which starts in April, he can see his way to demobilise them at an early date, in order that they may not beat a disadvantage in comparison with other fishermen who have already been sent home?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Commander-in-Chief, coast of Scotland, is being communicated with, in order to ascertain whether it is possible to find reliefs for these men and others similarly placed.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Would it not be better to let the fishermen in the Royal Naval Reserve get back to their calling as soon as possible?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We appreciate the importance of that, and I will communicate with the hon. Baronet immediately I get the reply from the Commander-in-Chief.

  FOREIGN COMMERCE REPORT.
  Colonel THORNEasked the Food Controller whether his attention has been drawn to the Board of Trade monthly Foreign Commerce Report, which indicates that the value of American bacon exports is under 1s. 2d. a lb. for the first eight months of last year and not 1s. 4½d. as stated by his Department; whether he
  2222
  observes that the Board of Trade maintains that this figure is correct; whether he can explain the difference between the two Departments; and what are the items and particulars of the same which constitute the difference between 1s. 2d. per lb. f.o.b. at New York and 1s. 6d. c.i.f. at Liverpool?
  Mr. McCURDY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is calculated by the Ministry of Food that the actual f.a.s. cost of imported American bacon to the Ministry over the first eight months of last year is 1s. 4½d. per lb. I am now in communication with the President of the Boardof Trade as to the explanation of the difference to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but it is clear that it is to some extent to be accounted for by the fact that the Board of Trade figures include exports to countries other than Great Britain.As regards the last part of the question, the items constituting the difference between the f.a.s. price of 1s. 4½d. and the c.i.f. price are freight, insurance and landing charges, administrative charges and loss of weight.

  SHEEPSKINS.
  Major E.WOODasked the Food Controller whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Messrs. Hamond and Company, of Tanfield, near Bedale, in which skins from the identical consignment of sheep sent for slaughter to a Government slaughter-house at Starbeckon the 24th February were subsequently distributed between two firms for disposal, where they were not only differently graded but different prices were paid for skins in the same grade; and whether, in view of the uncertainty arising from such action, he can take steps to revise the administration of the control exercised by his Department in this matter or else remove it altogether?
  Mr. McCURDY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The disposal of sheepskins is not one of the operations of the Ministry of Food.
  Major WOOD: If I send particulars of this case, will the hon. Gentleman look into it?
  Mr. McCURDY: Certainly.

  LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT.
  Sir WILLIAM SEAGERasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that large numbers of property owners in the United Kingdom are desirous of owning the land on which the houses they have already purchased are built; will he at an early date introduce a Bill for the enfranchisement of leaseholds; and is he aware of the desire on the part of leaseholders for a method enacted by law enabling them to purchase the land at a fair price on which their dwellings are built?
  Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The matter to which the hon. Member draws attention is only a part of a much larger question involving a general consideration of the law of real property. This larger question is and has for some time been under the consideration of the Government.
  Sir W. SEAGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the city of Cardiff leases are falling in on which the original ground rent was £5, and the ground landlord now demands £400, and payment of Reversion Duty of £1,500 or £2,000?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not at all aware of those facts, but as I have already said, the subject is being considered.

  SUEZ CANAL.
  The following questions stood on the Paper in the name of Major Earl WINTERTON:
  46. To ask the Prime Minister if it is proposed to enforce in the case of Lord Downham, the new director of the Suez Canal Company, the age limit rule?
  47. To ask the Prime Minister if he will state what are the reasons for the retirement of Sir William Garstin from the directorate of the Suez Canal Company?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I must ask the Noble Lord to postpone both these questions.
  Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, through the usual channels, inform me when it will be convenient to raise this matter on the Adjournment?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I will arrange that with my hon. Friend.

  ORIGIN OF THE WAR.

    MR. BERNARD SHAW'S STATEMENT.
    Earl WINTERTONasked if the British Embassy in Washington propose to issue any statement through the Press in the United States to deal with the assertions being publicly made by Mr. Bernard Shaw as to British responsibility for the origin of the War?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer is in the negative. But Professor Oman's Memorandum, which has been compiled from official documents, and furnishes a correct account of the causes leading up to the War, is available in the United States, and would appear to furnish a sufficient reply to the statements made by Mr. Shaw.
    Earl WINTERTON: If I send the hon. Member a copy of the Foreign Press Supplement issued by the War Office, in which he will see the very serious and misleading statements made by Mr. Bernard Shaw, will he take immediate steps to have them counteracted?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: We have a whole batch of Shavian literature at the War Office and I shall be glad to add this to it.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is "The Grammar of Anarchy" included?

  DIRECTORATE OF LANDS.
  Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALLasked the Prime Minister what are the duties of the Directorate of Lands, War Office, Ministry of Munitions, Air Ministry, and Ministry of Shipping; and, in particular, whether they include any duties in connection with compulsory acquisition of lands?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): My right hon. Friend has asked me to take this question. I will circulate the reply, giving the duties in detail, with the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  The following is the reply referred to:
  TheDirectorate of Lands acts in all matters connected with lands and buildings for the War Office, Ministry of Munitions, Air Ministry, and Ministry of Shipping, and in several directions for other Government Departments. The work includes, inter alia:

  1. The administration of lands both at home and in the Colonies of over 450,000 acres.

  2225

  2.The examination of Parliamentary Bills and schemes promoted by municipal authorities affecting the different Departments' proprietary interests, and legal business other than conveyancing connected with the same, also the framing of emergency by-laws for the use of land; for rifle and artillery ranges, camps, etc.

  3. Valuations and negotiation for purchase, sale, hiring, or letting of lands and buildings.

  4. The compulsory purchase of land under the Defence Acts, the Military Lands Acts, and the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, including arbitrations.

  5. The taking over of lands and buildings for emergency purposes either under the Defence of the Realm powers or by agreement.

  6. The examination of and presentation to the Defence of the Realm Losses Com mission of claims arising out of occupations under emergency powers (over 5,400 such claims have already been dealt with): the assessment of dilapidation claims arising under Defence of the Realm powers or agreements.

  7. Valuations and reports for reconstruction purposes of lands, buildings, and machinery. The total valuations exceed £100,000,000.

  8. The cultivation for food production purposes of surplus land in the occupation of the. War Office, Ministry of Munitions, and Air Ministry.

  9. The disposal under the instructions of the Disposal Board of all surplus lands, buildings, factories, etc., belonging to any Government Department.

  ESTIMATES COMMITTEES.
  Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Prime Minister whether, notwithstanding the amendment of the Rules of Procedure, the Government intends to adopt the recommendation of the Select Committee on National Expenditure and to set up one or more Estimates Committees?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Having regard to the new Rules of Procedure and to the re-appointment of the Select Committee on Public Expenditure, His Majesty's Government do not propose to adopt my Hon. Friend's suggestion this year. The matter, however, will be reconsidered before next year in the light of the further experience which will then be available.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recommendations of the Select Committee were based upon advice received from many of the principal officials of the House, and some of the most experienced members of the Committee do not regard the new Rules of Procedure as at all meeting the recommendations which they have made?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am very familiar with the recommendations of the Committee and, as I stated, what we have done is to set up the Select Committee on Expenditure, but we have concluded that from this year the course suggested is not practicable.
  Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: Will the new Committee on Public Expenditure cover the same field as the Select Committee of last year or a wider field?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not looked at the terms of reference, but I think it will be pretty well on the same basis as the last Committee.

  GERMAN PROPAGANDA (AMERICA).
  Mr. HIGHAMasked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the extensive German propaganda now being carried out in the United States of America; and what steps, if any, are being taken to see that this propaganda does not lessen the present good will existing between the people of the United States and the people of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think my lion. Friend must have put down this question by mistake. Reply was given yesterday to a question put by him which differed only verbally from this, and I fear that I cannot add anything to that reply.

  RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

    ANTICIPATED LOSS ON TRAFFIC.
    Major NEWMANasked whether, without taking into consideration any further charges on revenue resulting from the demands for increased salaries, extra pay for overtime, and shorter working hours, he is now prepared to make a statement showing the net prospective loss of revenue for the current year on the rail way systems of the United Kingdom which may have to be met by the taxpayer?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge on Tuesday last.
    Major NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the railway managers themselves say that up to last year the Government were making a profit out of the railways? Is there a loss now?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That was indicated by my right hon. Friend. Up to the Armistice, owing to the large quantity of Government material carried, there was a loss.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Is the estimated deficit based on the continuance of the present 50 per cent. increase of passenger fares?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; it is based upon conditions exactly as they exist now.

    FARES INCREASED.
    Major NEWMANasked whether the 50 per cent. increase in railway fares for passenger traffic and corresponding increases in season tickets was imposed as a war-time emergency measure to check civilian travelling; and is he able to give an assurance that with the signing of peace a reduction of railway fares will take place?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. It is the case that increased railway fares were brought into operation primarily with the object of checking unnecessary civilian travelling, but although this is not now to the same extent an essential consideration, the general position of the railways, as I have explained in previous replies on the subject, precludes the hope of any early reduction of fares.
    Major NEWMAN: Will the Board of Trade make a difference between pleasure travelling and necessity-travelling?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That question has been answered several times on the subject of cheap fares.
    Major NEWMAN: I mean commercial travellers and those who travel for pleasure.

  ARTIFICIAL LIMBS (AIR RAID CASUALTIES).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether a civilian who has lost a limb as a consequence of enemy air raids is entitled to the provision of an. artificial limb at the public expense; and, if so, will he state the procedure necessary to obtain the limb?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): Grants from the National Relief Fund are available for this purpose. Application should be made to the local representative committee of the district in which the applicant resides.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL.
  Lieutenant-Colonel ARCHER-SHEEasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, before consulting the French Government with reference to the proposed Channel Tunnel, the opinion of the Army Council was obtained as. to the strategic advantage or disadvantage of such a tunnel; if so, whether a White Paper may be published putting forth in general terms the advantages of such a tunnel from a military and commercial point of view; (2) whether he is aware that it has been estimated that about 2,000 labourer would be required at each end to construct the Channel Tunnel; if this figure is approximately correct, will he state why it is necessary to spend £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 of public money in order to find employment for 2,000 men; and whether, other things being equal, he will consider the desirability of employing these men on the other useful work of reconstruction, such as housing, canals, etc., in our own country?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot at present add anything to the answers I have already given on this question.
  Lieutenant-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the setting up of a Select Committee to consider this question before the country is involved to any greater degree, in view of the great change in all the armaments which has taken place since the last Committee?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot make that definite promise, but I think my previous

  2229
  answer was entirely misunderstood. I gave no answer which implied that a decision had been taken. My answer was that I thought it was time we should come to a decision, and that I was communicating with the Prime Minister about it. That is exactly the position.

  LIGHTNING STRIKES.
  Lieutenant-Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHERasked whether, in view of the danger to the industries and trade of this country through the menace of lightning strikes which would provide an opportunity for Bolshevist agitation, he will be willing to receive at an early date a deputation from the National Security Union and other institutions formed to combat this specific danger?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are fully alive to the dangers indicated in the question, and I do not think that any Useful purpose would be served by seeing such a deputation as is suggested.
  An HON. MEMBER: What are the credentials of the National Security Union—who are they?
  Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what is a lightning strike?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I certainly cannot give the hon. Member any information, but I should think that it meant a strike that occurred without notice.

  HOUSING.

    REPAIRS (PROTECTION OF LESSEES).
    Captain HAMILTON BENNasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the present position of the building trade and to the high cost of materials, it is the intention of the Government to introduce a measure for the protection of lessees against forfeiture and hardship owing to the difficulty of getting repairs executed during the War and for some time after peace is signed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As at present advised, the Government is not prepared to take any further action in this matter.

    MARYLEBONE BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
    Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the President of the Local Government Board
    2230
    whether any request from the Board of Guardians of St. Marylebone has been made for an inquiry into the housing conditions of certain parts of Marylebone; and what action he proposes to take?
    Major ASTOR: My right hon. Friend has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Board of Guardians of St. Marylebone confirming a resolution passed by them in 1915 which requested the Board at the conclusion of the War to institute an inquiry into the housing conditions in Marylebone. The whole question of housing in London is now under consideration, and my right hon. Friend thinks it would be expedient to defer any action in the direction indicated in the resolution refered to until the Housing Bill which he has introduced has become law and the local authorities concerned have decided what action they will take inview of the provisions contained therein.

    LOCAL RATING.
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that there is a good deal of misunderstanding in regard to the application of the 1d. rate in connection with the Government's housing policy; and whether he will give an undertaking that when the houses are valued in seven years'time there will not be, in any change of the financial arrangements, a heavier burden upon the local rates than the 1d. which is to be charged for the first seven years?
    Major ASTOR: The Local Government Board's Circular of the 6th February makes it quite clear that, at the final adjustment to be made at the end of seven years, the future annual subsidy will be fixed at an amount calculated to cover any excess of expenditure over income, be far as such excess cannot be met by the produce of a 1d. rate. I will send the hon. Member a copy of the Circular.

  NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
  Mr. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether he can state whowas responsible for initiating the policy of the national shipyards at Chepstow; whether further expense is being incurred there and why were those yards transferred to the charge of the Minister of Shipping?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The principle of establishing national shipyards was ap-

  2231
  proved by the War Cabinet in 1917 on the recommendation of the then First Lord of the Admiralty. As regards the second and third parts of the question, I can add nothing to the answers already given on this subject by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping on the 25th and 26th of February last, and to the very full statement made on behalf of the Government in Debate by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping on the 14th of November last.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any truth in the rumour published, I think, in the "Times" this morning, that these national shipyards had been transferred to the Office of Works?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir.

  ST. SOPHIA'S, CONSTANTINOPLE.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether any responsibility rests upon the British Government or upon the Governments of the Allied nations for the character or denomination of the religious services held or to be held in the church of St. Sophia, at Constantinople?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: As regards the services at present held in St. Sophia, the answer is in the negative. Whether any responsibility will rest on His Majesty's Government or the Allied Governments, or any one of them, after the conclusion of peace is a question that remains to be determined.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he can give any information as to the proposals made for the future of St. Sophia's Church in Constantinople; whether it is to be handed over for the exclusive use or control by any sectional or national Christian community; and whether, in the event of its being no longer under Mahomedan control, it willbe placed in trust for Christendom as a whole and not for any particular Church or creed?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. and gallant Friend was invited by the Foreign Office not to put his question, on the ground that the public ventilation of the matter at the present stage can be attended with no advantage. I can give no information as to proposals for the
  2232
  future of the building in question, since all such proposals are addressed to the Peace Conference at Paris, with whom the solution will lie.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the Foreign Office realises that we are the principal protectors of the Mahomedan religion in the world; and are we to understand that the Foreign Office is looking after their interests and seeing that no unnecessary outrage is done to their feelings in the matter?
  Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESS: Does the Foreign Office also realise that the Moslem community in Constantinople is more than double that of the Greek community?

  ROAD IMPROVEMENT.
  Major PRESCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can announce the result of the conference of the Metropolitan borough councils referred to in paragraph 13 of the Road Board's circular letter of the 17th December, 1918?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The Road Board have not been informed of any conference of the Metropolitan borough councils having been held. Each application received is being dealt with, and provisional indications have been made to several authorities.
  Major PRESCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total estimated cost of the schemes submitted for the approval of the Road Board by highway authorities in connection with the road and bridge programme for 1919–20 as detailed in the Road Board's letter of the 17th December, 1918, and give the total cost of the schemes actually approved by the Board and authorised by them for execution; whether he can also give the total amount of the Grants recently made for bridge work; and if he will consider the expediency of modifying paragraph 10 of the above letter, with a view to larger Grants being available for bridge work, and thus encourage highway authorities to submit further schemes of bridge reconstruction?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The total estimated cost of the schemes submitted by highway authorities up to and including the 11th instant is £3,409,840 for road works, and £139,544in respect of bridge works. Grants amounting to £2,814,644 have been indicated to works estimated to cost

  2233
  £3,258,349. Grants provisionally indicated towards the cost of bridge works amount to £21,577. In view of the large amountof road improvement works requiring to be done, it is not anticipated that the funds available at present will allow of Grants being made in excess of the estimated figure.

  INCOME TAX.

    MARRIED WOMEN.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the feeling which exists among married women to the effect that it is unfair that their incomes should be jointly with those of their husbands assessed to Income Tax, and whether he will give this feeling due consideration in the preparation of his forthcoming Budget?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer my hon. Friend to a reply given on the 5th inst. to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of public feeling on this subject, would my right hon. Friend be willing to receive a deputation?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. A Royal Commission will be appointed very shortly to inquire into this and other matters arising out of the Income Tax. I think it would be most inexpedient, and, indeed, disrespectful to the Commission and the gentlemen who are asked to serve upon it, ifI were to prejudge the result of their inquiries in a series of interviews with people who are interested in particular phases of the controversy.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Is not this a separate and separable question which could be settled without considering the whole question involved?
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not very probable that this Commission will not report for two years?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With regard to the question of the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher), of course he may separate any question arising out of the Income Tax from any other, but I do not think it is possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do that, and if I begin to tinker in respect
    2234
    of particular complaints by leaving others unredressed I think both I and the House will find ourselves in great difficulty. The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) inquired whether it was not likely that the Commission would be unable to report before two years have expired. That is neither my hope nor, I think, that of the Chairman of the Commission.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: But will the Report be issued before the Budget?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. My hon. Friend must see that when you appoint a Commission at some date after 20th March to inquire into questions of difficulty and complexity, to expect a Report before the Budget of the year is introduced would be, I think, to stultify the inquiry.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Then what is the use of the Commission at all?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to give-notice that I shall raise this question on the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Is the House to gather from my right hon. Friend's reply that no alteration is to be made in the incidence of the Income Tax until the Commission has reported?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not prepared to give an assurance. What I did call the attention of the House to is the extreme difficulty of dealing with a. grievance of one particular class of taxpayer, whether well-founded or not, in anticipation of an inquiry to which all these questions are referred.
    Sir M. DOCKRELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the terms have been settled of the reference to the Committee on Income Tax; and if they will permit of a Report upon the existing practice of adding a wife's income to that of her husband when ascertaining either the rate of Income Tax or of Super-tax for which the husband is liable?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope to announce the constitution of this Commission and the terms of reference in the early part of next week, or perhaps it would be safer for me to say in the course of next week. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

  TAX CLERKS' SALAEIES.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has under consideration any scheme for the revision of tax clerks'salaries; and, it so, will he consider the advisability of setting up a national and departmental Whitley Council to advise him on the subject?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Very considerable improvements have been made in the emoluments of male clerks in surveyors'offices in the course of the last fifteen months, and the question of any further change in the organisation in this branch cannot be dealt with apart from the consideration of Civil Service conditions as a whole, and in anticipation of the establishment of a general system of Whitley Councils for the Civil Service.

  RACING (TOTALISATORS).
  Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the present state of national finance and as a purely temporary measure, the Government will consider instituting the totalisator on every racecourse and levy a charge on the use of each?
  Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend cannot anticipate his Budget Statement.

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (CLERKSHIPS).
  Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether assistant clerks in the Customs and Excise Department who are ex-Service men are eligible for second-clerk clerkships in the Ministry of Pensions; and, ifso, whether their cases will be carefully borne in mind when nominations are made by the Customs and Excise Department for these clerkships in the Ministry of Pensions?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer my hon. Friend tothe last sentence of the reply I gave him on the 13th instant. Further appointments to second-class clerkships will be made under the pooling arrangements instituted by the Treasury Circular of 29th January last.

  POST OFFICE (SUB-OFFICES).
  Mr. JOHN DAVISONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that orders have been issued to all sub offices instructing those in charge to revert to the pre-war times of opening and closing; and whether, in view of the labour now available, it is necessary for these officials to work from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): Instructions have been given that scale payment sub-offices should be open at 8 a.m., and that the normal hour of closing should be 7 p.m. Sub-postmasters are not themselves compelled to be in attendance during all these hours if they provide other suitable persons to attend to post office business.

  WIRELESS SERVICE (CIVILIANS IN NAVY).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that four civilians attached to the shore wireless service were asked in April, 1918, to volunteer for service in Italy under civilian conditions as to pay and privileges similar to those they were enjoying; whether these men were required to proceed from Ancona to the Bosphorus and kept on board His Majesty's ship "Cæsar" under naval routine and conditions; whether he will say why payment has not been made in accordancewith the agreement under which the men accepted this service; and will he make arrangements for them to be released by naval ratings?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I understand that the men referred to have been released, but the question is one that should be addressed to the Admiralty.

  CABLE MESSAGES.
  Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSONasked the Postmaster-General whether he has made any representations to other Government Departments as to the length of Government cable messages and as to the comparative unimportance of some of the subjects cabled about; whether there is any check on extravagance in the use of cables by Government Departments; and if he is aware of the delay in trans-

  2237
  mitting commercial messages owing to the congestion caused by Government business on the lines?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am fully aware of the delay to commercial messages which is caused by the pressure of Government traffic, and I have made repeated representations to other Government Departments in the sense suggested. These representations have, I think, had some effect as regards outward traffic, but practically none as regards inward. The Post Office from time to time draws attention to individual messages which it seems unnecessary to send by telegraph, but the only check which can be relied upon is that of the controlling officers of the various Departments. The whole question is under the consideration of the War Cabinet Committee on Unemployment and State of Trade.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently a cable was fourteen days being delivered from Alexandria, and that a large order, which would have helped our export trade, was thereby lost; and is he further aware that a considerable number of messages are held up on arrival in London by the Censor's Department for a period of ten days?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am sorry; I am aware of the facts referred to in the first part of the hon. Member's question, but I have not heard of the delay in London. If the hon. Baronet will be good enough to give me any instances I will have them inquired into to see the reason.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently the wires were held up for some time while a priority message was, at the public expense, sent from the War Office recommending a party candidate at a by election?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: No, Sir, I am not.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Has not the right hon. Gentleman arrived at the conclusion that the Censor's Department should now be demobilised?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: That question should be addressed to the Secretary of State for War.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSONasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the congestion on the cables and the ter-
  2238
  mination of hostilities, the use of private codes with India and Overseas Possessions for commercial purposes can now be permitted; whether registered telegraphic addresses from and to the Continent may now be used; and whether the practice of compelling persons to sign their Christian name as well as their surname to a cable can now cease?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. As I stated on Monday last, the use of private codes cannot be permitted so long as it is necessary to maintain the censorship, and the same applies to registered telegraphic addresses on the Continent. I am not aware of any regulation requiring persons to sign their Christian names in addition to their surnames.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman not permit the use of private codes to countries outside Europe, such as South America? If he cannot give any such general permission, and it is necessary to impose a limit, could not old-establishedand well-known firms be permitted to use their private codes?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If my right hon. Friend will communicate with me, I will look into the matter; but the rules governing the censorship are the result of a good deal of painful experience.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked the Postmaster-General whether letters and telegrams take six days and three days, respectively, between London and Brussels; and whether he can expedite their delivery?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: It has not yet been found practicable to establish a daily steamer service between this country and Belgium, and letters are sometimes delayed forty-eight hours for that reason. Some delay is also caused by the postal censorship, and by the difficulties of internal communication in Belgium. Many letters are nevertheless exchanged between London and Brussels in considerably less than six days. The direct cables to Belgium have not yet been repaired owing to the presence of mines on the line of route, and telegrams are therefore forwarded viamp#x00E2; France and Holland. The cables to these countries have been much congested, and this, added to difficulties of internal communication, has caused heavy delay on

  2239
  telegrams to and from Belgium. Every effort is being made to improve both postal and telegraphic communication.

  INFECTIOUS ILLNESS (HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION).
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Army Medical Council have, in conjunction with the Local Government Board, expressed the view that the port sanitary authorities at Liverpool should provide hospital accommodation for influenza cases; and whether he is aware that a grave recurrence of the influenza epidemic there is attributed by the local medical officer of health to reimportations of the disease by patients for whom hospital accommodation could be found only after delay and with difficulty?
  Major ASTOR: The Local Government Board asked the Liverpool port sanitary authority and other port sanitary authorities in October last todo everything possible to provide hospital accommodation for cases of influenza and other infectious illnesses requiring isolation amongst the crews of transports and other vessels arriving at the port, and the naval and military authorities promised their assistance. My right hon. Friend has no information as to the statement in the last part of the question, but he has communicated with the port sanitary authority with regard to it.
  Mr. SCOTTasked the President of the Local Government Board (1) whether he is aware that repeated appeals to the War Office by the port sanitary authority to release the largest Liverpool fever hospital, the only place in which suitable accommodation for influenza patients during an epidemic can be provided, from the present military occupation have been without result, in spite of the fact that ward pavilions in that hospital are being used for storage, for clerical staff, and in other inappropriate ways; (2) if he is aware that the acceptance by the War Office of the offer of the American Red Cross Hospital at Mossley Hill, which is no longer required for its purposes, would meet all local military needs, and permit the release from military occupation of the fever
  2240
  hospital, for which the need in the city and port of Liverpool is at present exceptionally great?
  Major ASTOR: My right hon. Friend is aware of the requests of the Port Sanitary and Hospitals Committee of the Liverpool Town Council to the War Office that the Fazakerley Fever Hospital, which has been in military occupation since the beginning of the War, might be at once released, and the Local Government Board have already supported this request and have suggested to the War Office that they should at once consider whether the American Red Cross Hospital at Mossley Hill might not serve the purposes of the military authorities.
  Mr. SCOTTasked the President of the Local Government Board what practical assistance he can offer to the port sanitary authorities of the country towards providing hospital acommodationfor influenza cases, as urged by the Army Medical Council and the Local Government Board; and whether he will use every effort to assist them in making such provision?
  Major ASTOR: A conference has been arranged with representatives of the port sanitary authorities, at which this question, amongst others, will be discussed.

  VOTERS' LISTS.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing that the absent voters'list is compiled exclusively for Parliamentary election purposes, he will consider the possibility of the Treasury bearing the whole cost of preparing and printing it; and in view of the heavy expenditure, will he further consider whether these lists and registers might be prepared annually?
  Major ASTOR: Under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, the cost of preparing and printing the absent voters'list is defrayed by the registration officer as registration expenses, and the Treasury are required to contribute one-half of these expenses, the remainder being a charge on the rates. It will be remembered that under the previous, system the whole cost, except half the cost of revising barristers, was borne locally. An amendment of the law would, therefore, be necessary to enable the Treasury tocontribute the whole of the cost of the

  2241
  absent voters' list. I will communicate with them on the subject. I may observe that the bulk of the absent voters were naval or military voters, and that on demobilisation of men in the forces, the cost of preparing and printing the absent voters' list will be very materially decreased. As to the latter part of the question, I think it will be wiser to wait until experience has been gained of the system of half-yearly registers under normal conditions before proposing legislation to alter the Act in that matter.

  REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS (APPOINTMENT).
  Mr. ATREYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has read the correspondence between a member of the Basford Board of Guardians and the Registrar-General as to the appointment of a registrar of births and deaths for the sub-district of Carlton, Notts; whether he is aware that the Registrar-General waived the age limit in favour of an applicant already holding a lucrative appointment, although a number of eligible candidates, including a discharged and crippled soldier, were applicants for the post; whether, seeing that it is laid down by the general rule, dated 16th May, 1905, with respect to the qualification of every person who may be appointed to the officer of registrar of births and deaths, that every registrar's age shall not exceed fifty years, but in case of an exceptional nature the Registrar-General reserves to himself the right to modify this limit of age, and that, as no circumstances of an exceptional nature existed or were suggested on the occasion of the appointment of the successful candidate, the Registrar-General will review his confirmation of the appointment, seeing that the successful applicant exceeds the age limit and is unable to personally make the necessary morning attendances as registrar by reason of his duties as schoolmaster?
  Major ASTOR: I have read the correspondence to which the hon. Member refers, and am aware of the action taken by the Registrar-General. As I explained to the hon. Member for West Nottingham on the 11th inst., the Registrar-General advises that the claims of eligible men discharged from the forces should be preferentially considered by guardians when making these appointments, but he has no power to insist on the appointment of
  2242
  particular individuals. With regard to the last part of the question, I understand that the Registrar-General considered the applicant exceptionally qualified and that he is satisfied as to his ability to make the attendance necessary for the adequate performance of his duties.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION).
  Mr. ALBERT GREENasked the President of the Local Government Board at what stage the Committee who are considering the question of the establishment of a scheme of superannuation for the local government service have arrived; and if he can give any idea when their Report is likely to be laid before the House?
  Major ASTOR: The Committee to which the hon. Member refers is hearing evidence. They will report as soon as possible.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (WALES).
  Mr. MORRISasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received representations from county councils, insurance committees, approved societies, trade unions, and other public bodies in Wales requesting the Government to establish a Ministry of Health for Wales, with powers and authority independent of the proposed Ministry of Health for England, and identical with the Government's proposals for Scotland and Ireland; and whether it is the intention of the Government to table Amendments to the Ministry of Health Bill giving effect to those demands, or is it proposed to present to Parliament a separate Bill for the Principality?
  Major ASTOR: My right hon. Friend has received a number of resolutions to the general effect indicated in the first part of the question. As regards the second part of the question, he cannot anticipate the result of the discussion of Clause 5 of the Ministry of Health Bill in Committee.

  LONDON NIGHT TELEPHONISTS (PAY).
  Mr. ALFRED SHORTasked the Postmaster-General whether night telephonists employed in the London tele-

  2243
  phone area are paid upon two distinct scales of pay; whether he has drawn the dividing line in such a way that men living in contiguous areas and subject to the same expenses are paid at varying rates; and whether, seeing that the London telephone area is comprehensive and does not cut through any populous district, he will agree to pay the London rate to all night telephonistsin the London telephone district?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The London telephone area at present extends beyond the limits of the London postal area, and telephonists, like other Post Office servants employed outside the smaller area, are paid at provincial rates. This arrangement is in accordance with the recommendations of a Select Parliamentary Committee which reported in 1913, and I see no reason for altering it. At whatever point the limits of the London area may be fixed for wage purposes, differences of pay must exist as between officers living in contiguous areas.

  GOVERNMENT FACTORIES.

    TRANSFER TO TRADE UNIONS.
    Mr. JOHN DAVISONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether, arising out of the proposal of his Department that one ofthe best factories should be utilised by an organisation of trade unions and others where the interest of the workers will be equal with the interests of the employers, the employers being in this case the representatives of the workmen, he will state thefactory referred to; what trade unions and what others are concerned in the proposal mentioned; what sense is to be attached to the phrase that the interests of the workers will be equal with the interests of the employers, and in what sense the employers in such a case will be the representatives of the workmen; whether this proposal has yet resulted in any definite transaction; and, if so, what are the terms of such transaction and the purposes for which the factory is to be used?
    The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): A proposal has been submitted that the Ailsa Craig National Projectile Factory, Chiswick, should be disposed of, and operated on a co-partnership or profit-sharing basis,
    2244
    either by the trade unions concerned or by persons interested in experiments of this nature, who would be prepared to provide the necessary capital. A reply has been made that any well-considered proposal on these lines will be sympathetically considered, on the clear understanding that a fair market price must be offered for the factory. No definite transaction has been carried out, and further details with regard to the proposal are awaited.

    ARMAMENT FIRMS (AMALGAMATION).
    Mr. ROSE: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the amalgamation of Messrs. Vickers, Sons, and Maxim, Limited, and the Metropolitan Wagon Company, Limited; if he can say over how many firms these two companies have already acquired a con trolling interest; whether it is within the power of his Department to prevent the tendency towards a monopoly by certain armament firms; and whether he proposes to take any measures with that end in view?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I am aware of the amalgamation referred to, but have no information as to the number of firms affected. The matter is not one which comes within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Munitions. For information as to the last three points in the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Board of Trade.

    MUNITION WORKERS' HOSTELS.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions how many hostels used during the War for the housing of munition workers are not now required for that purpose; what is being done with them; and whether they willbe used temporarily to relieve the dearth of housing accommodation for the general population?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: About 150 hostels of various sizes, in eighteen different centres, were used for the housing of munition workers. Fifteen of these hostels have been closed. The hostels in occupation are in fact used by workpeople of various classes, many of whom are not munition workers, and so serve to relieve the dearth.

    2245
    of housing accommodation. The Training Department of the Ministry of Labour have under consideration the possibility of using some of the hostels in connection with their proposed schemes of training.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Cannot the fifteen closed hostels be used in this way?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: It is with regard to those fifteen that the observations in my answer refer. I am quite prepared to submit to my right hon. Friend the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

    WAR MATERIAL CONTRACTORS (BLACK LIST).
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir JOHN HOPEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he has yet decided to lay upon the Table of this House the list of firms which have been guilty of misconduct in connection with contracts for war material during the War?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I propose within the next few days to lay on the Table the list of firms who have been convicted of misconduct in connection with contracts for war material during the War.

    TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.
    Major JOHN EDWARDSasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction prevalent among teachers arising out of the unequal method of computing years of recognised service as regards college-trained and non-college-trained teachers in the Teachers' Superannuation Act; and whether he will consider the advisablity of counting the years spent in training colleges as a part of years of recognised service?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): There is no such inequality as is suggested in the hon. Member's question. In both cases years of recognised service are the years of service as a teacher. I am advised that, under the definition of recognised Service in the Teachers'Superannuation Act, years spent in training colleges cannot be counted as years of recognised service.

    INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE (COURT OF INQUIRY).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the desirability of appointing a direct representative of the assurance agents and collectors upon the Committee of Inquiry into Industrial Assurance?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the right hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 12th March to a question put by the hon. Member for Wednesbury.

    BOARD OF TRADE WATER POWER RESOURCES COMMITTEE.
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware thata survey of the water-power resources of North Wales, as it was clearly understood that the Board of Trade Water Power Resources Committee had undertaken, has not yet been made, and that there is danger of their Report being issued before the said surveyis carried out, and consequently without adequate information on the subject so far as North Wales is concerned; and whether he will see that the survey above referred to is carried out forthwith, and that meanwhile the said Committee delay the issue of its Report on the question of the development of electric power in this country?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I understand that certain water powers in North Wales have been surveyed on behalf of the Water Power Resources Committee, and the Chairman informs me that the question of making further surveys is under consideration. I should like to make it clear that the Committee are not investigating all possible water powers, a task which would be quite beyond the capacity of a temporary body; they are only selecting cases which appear to them to be of special significance or importance. The Report, which is being issued to-day, is an interim one only.

    PETROL CONTROL COMMITTEE.
    Major BLAIRasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the amount of the receipts from petrol licences, the number of the staff, and the salaries, for February, 1919, at the Petrol Control Committee, Berkeley Street?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The amount received by the Petrol Control Department as Motor Spirit Licence Duty in February, 1919, was £71,859 4s. 9d. The number of the staff was 438, as stated in the reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Ipswich on 27th February, and their salaries for the month amounted to £3,993. I may add, that by 14th March the staff had been reduced to 382, and that a further reduction is about to be made.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: When will the Department be closed down entirely?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot say.

    ARMY COURTS-MARTIAL.
    Major O'NEILL: May I remind the Secretary of State for War that he promised to make a statement to-day as regards the constitution of the Committee to inquire into courts-martial in the Army?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I was waiting to be asked that question by the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), but I asked him to put it to me On Monday, as I had not received an answer to one of the invitations I have sent out.

    "NO RETURNS" ORDER (WITHDRAWAL).
    Sir H. NIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to name a date on which the order known as the "No Returns" Order will be withdrawn?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It has been decided to withdraw the Paper Restriction Order, 1918, known as the Prohibition of Returns Order on and from the 31st inst.

MOTOR REPAIR DEPOT, CIPPENHAM.

  MR. CHURCHILL'S STATEMENT.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: By leave of the House I will make a statement which I promised with regard to the motor repair depot at Slough. I have now had an opportunity of considering a special report
  2248
  which I told the House I had asked Sir James Stevenson, the new Surveyor General of Supplies, to make for me on the present position of the Motor Depot at Slough. I have also studied to the best of my ability the official papers connected with this subject, including a recent report by Sir Benjamin Johnson. During the War the Mechanical Transport Department of the War Office were providing spare parts not only for the Army but for all the large Government Departments using motor vehicles. This service necessitated us using a large storage accommodation for the very large quantities of spare parts and components, which I am advised are at present of a value, excluding motor vehicles, of over £15,000,000. These are housed at present in a large number of separate and most unsuitable depots in London, which in manycases have been commandeered under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. For the use of these premises we are paying nearly £50,000 a year, and the owners in every case are protesting against their Continuous compulsory detention The need of a central establishment for the storage of spares in addition to motor vehicles therefore did not disappear when the Armistice was signed. On the contrary, in some respects it became even more acute. Existing depots in London are being required by their owners, and the large depots in France are, of course, being evacuated and their contents brought home.
  For these reasons, my predecessor, Lord Milner, in the middle of December last, on the advice of Lord Inverforth, who then occupied the position at the War Office now filled by Sir James Stevenson, sanctioned a new contract transferring the work from the Works Department of the War Office to Messrs. McAIpine, in order that the construction of the Slough depot should be pushed forward with the greatest speed and with improved methods. There is no doubt that a marked improvement has been effected and that progress has become rapid. Shortly before this decision was taken, it had been found possible materially to reduce the scope of the original scheme by eliminatingsome of the buildings at a saving of £136,000. Lord Milner's policy in December was to reduce the extent of the demands and accommodation and to accelerate the completion of these operations, which were not less but, indeed,

  2249
  more necessary in the best interest of the country. I am further informed that the estimate for the complete scheme prior to the reduction, excluding land, was £1,750,000, since reduced to about £1,600,000. The total liability incurred up to 6th March, 1919, which is the latest date up to which I have been able to obtain a report, is approximately £1,100,000, of which rather more than £600,000 has been actually spent, leaving an outstanding liability of nearly £500,000. If the whole scheme were abandoned now, I am advised that about half of this outstanding liability might be saved. Thus a total probable dead loss of about £900,000 would be incurred and a further payment of £700,000, plus the cost of the land, would be avoided. The choice which is therefore presented to me is to throw away nearly £1,000,000 without any result at all and to remain burdened with a heavy rental of the present inconvenient storage accommodation for the £15,000,000 worth of spare parts and components, or, on the other hand, to carry the modified scheme to its proper conclusion and secure for the Government an invaluable and indispensable central establishment for the storage and handling of spare parts and motor vehicles.
  I do not believe there can be any doubt whatever as to whichof the two courses is the right one. Both Sir James Stevenson and Sir Benjamin Johnson, after quite separate investigation, are of opinion that it would be folly not to complete the work. Lord Inverforth, who is himself an expert, who was Lord Milner's responsible adviser and who has been closely connected with this undertaking, most strongly endorses this view. In his opinion, and in that of his advisers at the Ministry of Munitions, the functions hitherto discharged by the War Office of controlling the pool from which other Government Departments using motor vehicles have drawn their supplies of spare parts and components should, now that the War is over and military interests are no longer paramount, be transferred to the Ministry of Supplies. The Ministry of Supplies ought in this as in other directions to become the common service Department from which not only the War Office, but the Post Office, the Board of Agriculture and other Departments will draw their motor supplies. Slough Depot, when completed,
  2250
  will be adequate, but not more than adequate, for this purpose, and will be incomparably better adapted for the purpose.
  These conclusions have been accepted by the Cabinet and embody the policy which the Government intend to carry out. The Ministry of Supplies will therefore take over the charge and superintendence of the work, and the work will be pressed forward to its conclusion with all possible speed on commercial lines. The Leader of the House further authorises me to add that if the House desires to debate this matter, an opportunity will be provided at an early date, and, further, if after the Debate the House is still generally desirous that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire intothis subject, the Government will agree and will take the necessary steps to set it up. It must be understood, however, that no interruption of work will be permitted, as the completion of this depot is an important matter.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Of course now is not the opportunity for any comments at all upon the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made, but I would suggest that the reports to which he has alluded should be accessible to Members of the House, and that the subject should be one of those which we might debate next Thursday. The Leader of the House has asked us to intimate what subjects we consider sufficiently important for discussion on that day, and I therefore suggest that we should have next Thursday for this subject, and meanwhile the reports to which my right hon. Friend has alluded should be accessible to hon. Members.
  Captain TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what the cost of the land is?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The land is to be taken over under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and it is a matter for regular procedure.
  Mr. INSKIP: How much, if anything, has been included in the figures mentioned for the sums allowed to the contractors for their services?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that is material. The general scope and merits of the argument I have submitted to the House, but I will find out exactly what the position is, andit is certainly a

  2251
  matter which could be referred to in the Debate if the Debate takes place. I do not think I am prepared to lay these reports. They are very brief reports for my own personal information and for the information of Lord Inverforth. They are not in the nature of a report of a Committee; they are simply advice as to what is best to be done. I do not think it will facilitate the transaction of Government business if such reports wore to be called for. I am perfectly prepared to defend this matter and debate it if it is raised in the ordinary course.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: If we do not have the reports we shall be fighting in the air again. We shall only be making statements on outside information which we pick up from the Press. The only way out of it is an inquiry held in public.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the question put to me about time, it is obvious that if there is to be a Debate and the work must clearly go on while the subject is under discussion, the earlier the Debate takes place the better. Therefore I shall be quite ready to have the Debate take place on Thursday.
  Colonel WEIGALL: Before Sir James Stevenson and Sir Benjamin Johnson made their reports, did they have their attention drawn to the last Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.
  Mr. LAMBERT: In putting down the Vote on which the question of the Slough Depot can be discussed, can the Vote be put down so as to include the national shipyards at Chepstow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that one subject of that kind ought to be enough for one day. In any case, I think it would be better to arrange it in that form. All I wish to do is to give a day as early as possible. It must be one of the allotted days I have undertaken to give to the House.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Sir Samuel Roberts reported from the Chairmen's Panel, That they had appointed Mr. Brace to act as Chairman of
2252
Standing Committee B (in respect of the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

NAVAL, MILITARY, AND AIR FORCE SERVICE BILL.
Bill reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee D.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 33.]

SELECTION.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had added to Standing Committee B the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Ministry of Ways and Communications: Bill): Sir William Ryland Adkins, Sir Frederick Banbury, Captain Hamilton Benn, Mr. Evelyn Cecil, Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Gould, Captain Rupert Guinness, Mr. Haslam, Sir Henry Norman, Sir William Raeburn, Mr. Renwick, Mr. Royce, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Waterson, and Mr. Wignall.
  SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee, That they had added to Standing Committee B the following Members: The Attorney-General, Major Baird, Sir William Howell Davies, Sir Eric Geddes, Mr. Grundy, Major Hayward, Sir Evan Jones, Mr. Joynson-Hicks, Mr. Lindsay, Sir Francis Lowe, Sir Donald Maclean, Mr. Manville, Sir Herbert Nield, Sir William Pearce, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Short, Sir Albert Stanley, Mr. John Henry Thomas, Colonel Sir Rhys Williams, and Mr. Wilson-Fox.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the marriage of George Fitzroy Cavendish Clarke, of The

2253
Steeple, Antrim, in the county of Antrim, Major in His Majesty's Royal Irish Rifles, with Florence Jean Cavendish Clarke, his now wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other purposes."[Cavendish Clarke's Divorce Bill [Lords].

CAVENDISH CLARKE'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Hugh Thorn Barrie, esquire, for the County of Londonderry (North Derry Division).
BILL PRESENTED.
GOVERNMENT OF SCOTLAND BILL,—"to make provision for the better government of Scotland," presented by Sir Henry Cowan; supported by Sir Donald Maclean, Sir Henry Dalziel, Mr. Hogge, Mr. Harry Hope, Major M'Micking, Mr. Alexander Shaw, Mr. Murray Macdonald, Sir John M'Callum, Mr. James Gardiner, Mr. John Deans Hope, Colonel Greig, and Mr. Neil Maclean; to be read a second time upon Friday, 16th May, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House what is to be the business next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday we propose to take the Lords Amendments to the Kent Bill, the Public Health (Ireland) Bill, and the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, Second Reading.
  On Tuesday, the business will be the Report stage of the Naval, Military, and Air Forces Bill.
  As to Wednesday, I should like to state the business next Monday—not now.
  On Thursday we propose to give an Allotted Day for the discussion of any subject that may be arranged in the usual way.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: When will the Budget be introduced?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say. I hope in future that question will be addressed to my right hon. Friend.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: When is the Housing Bill likely to be taken?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We should have been glad to take it next week, but thought the House would prefer a little longer interval, so it will be taken the week after next.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the Financial Resolution for the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill to-night?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We hope so.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any statement to make as to the findings of the Coal Commission?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Reports of the Coal Commission have been signed and sent to His Majesty. Copies were given to me a very short time before I came down to the House. I have summoned a meeting of the Cabinet to deal with them, and I hope it maybe possible to make some statement during the sitting to-day, although I hardly expect that can be until a late hour—not before nine o'clock.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Will copies be available for Members?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have inquired as to that. They will be available in the Vote office.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: Is there only one Report?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I said "Reports." There are three.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No.1) BILL
  Considered in Committee; and reported without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No.1) BILL

    AGRICULTURE.
    4.0 P.M.
    Captain FITZROY: I make no excuse in introducing the question of agriculture into the discussion on this Bill, because I can assure the House that the anxiety which has prevailed for a long time among the agricultural community is growing worse every day. That anxiety has been by no means allayed by the speech which was made by the Noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture at Taunton. As far as I can make out from the report of his speech in the newspapers, he seemed to Lake an almost unnecessarily gloomy view of the situation, and he held out to agriculturists the prospect, that they were to take two lines of action. Both these lines of action, he told us, had risks attached to them. As far as I can make out, if we took the first line of action the risk was disaster to the nation, and if we took the second line of action it was disastrous to ourselves. The first line of action was that of "taking it lying down"; the second was the "lighting action." The only prospect he held out was that if we took that line of action we should at any rate go down with flags flying. I hope the Government as a whole do not take that view of the agricultural position. I do not want to go down, anyhow, with flags flying or otherwise. I would prefer to keep the ship afloat, and I do beg of the Noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture to be more cheerful on these occasions. I can assure him that if he will only take firm hold of the helm and steer a straight course, without being diverted from his lines by the influence of other Government Departments, that at any rate we agriculturists in this House will give him all the support we can. If he does that, and we have confidence in his pro-

    2289
    found knowledge of the industry and his shrewd common sense and statesmanship, he will steer that ship into calmer waters in the near future.
    The Noble Lord told us that after all agriculture was only on exactly the same footing as all the other interests of this country. I beg to differ on that point. In the first place, it stands on a different footing from almost every other industry in that any increased cost of production which the industry has to bear cannot be put on the consumer in the same way as in other industries. Besides that, we have been, through the action of the Government, put upon a different footing to other industries by the Corn Production Act. We have had maximum prices put upon the produce. We have, on the other hand, had wages boards to fix the wages, and when it is said that industry all through the War has had support and help from the Government, I absolutely deny it. If we had been allowed to take advantage of economic prices as they were, we should have made enormous profits, no doubt, but to say that we are on the same footing as other industries is to take a wrong view of the case. One of the chief things that the agricultural industry suffers from, which is not the case with other industries, is the want of interest which is taken in it by the public in general and the apathy of the House of Commons. Nothing could prove this to a greater extent than an article which I saw in the "Pall Mall Gazette" the other night. I have no doubt that that is a newspaper which has high standing in this country, but the remarks that it made with regard to agriculture were as misleading as they were untrue. If that is the kind of stuff on which the public are fed as regards the agricultural industry, there is not much doubt as to why misunderstanding exists in the public mind and why so little interest is taken in it.
    But I do not intend to take up the time of the House by ranging over the whole field of agriculture. I only want to approach the question from one point of view, and that is the disadvantages from which the agricultural industry hag. suffered—certainly in the past—and will suffer in the future if nothing is done—from being unable to afford as high a wage as can be paid by other industries. I propose to confine my remarks more especially to the interests of the agricultural labourer in the prosperity of the industry. I believe that of all classes en-
    2290
    gaged in that industry there is no class whose interests are more affected by it than that of the agricultural labourer. I think there is no doubt that the agricultural labourers' wages even now do not compare favourably with the wages paid in other industries. I am quite certain that the men themselves to not think so. We have had recently a great dearth of employment, a great lack of men coming into the agricultural industry, and, notwithstanding the fact that men have been recently demobilised from the Army to come back to agriculture at the rate of 4,000 a day, yet of these 4,000 only a very small proportion indeed ever find their way back to the land. It is quite true that the moment the man is demobilised the War Office or the Government ceases to have any control over his action, and if He chooses to get an advantage over his comrades, by being demobilised on what one might call false pretences, that is his own look out and no one else's; but I must say that I find considerable fault with the Government in that they are the very worst offenders in inducing him to take up some other employment instead of going back to the land. I have had several instances recently brought to my notice. One is in my own county, near to Peterborough, where a Government aerodrome is in course of construction. I understand that many firms in that district have applied for and got the demobilisation of men with the view of taking them back into their employment, but when they came back and had enjoyed their period of leave the Government contractor from the neighbouring aerodrome comes along and offers them £3 a week, and not only does that, but sends a motor lorry to fetch them. That really is notfair of the Government, because the agricultural industry has not got the long-suffering taxpayer behind it to pay these very high wages, which are out of all comparison even with the highest wages paid in other industries for ordinary unskilled labour.
    I understand that the question of the minimum wage is now under consideration by the Central Wages Board, and I understand certain proposals have been, made by the representatives of the labourers and by the representatives of the farmers, and at present no definite decision has been taken, between these two proposals. I understand, also, that the suggestion on behalf of the labourers

    2291
    for an increased minimum wage is based on the rise in the cost of living and the fact that the agricultural labourer's wage, at any rate before the War, with which I entirely agree, was not sufficiently good to maintain him in a decent standard of life. But I also understand that the original demand which was made by the representatives of the labourer was that his minimum wage should be increased to correspond in amount with that which prevails in the railway industry. As far as I understand it, the prevailing rate of wages in the railway industry is, for an ordinary labourer, a platelayer or a porter, 50s. a week, and I should be the very first to support any proposal to increase the agricultural labourer's wage—indeed, not only to put it on the same footing as the wages which are given in other industries, but, if I had my way, I would make it a higher wage than can be given in these competing industries.I should much prefer that agriculture should be looked upon by the labouring classes in this country as a privileged industry to which they could all go if they could get the chance, and they were anxious to go andwork on the land. But it is no good holding those views and putting forward those suggestions unless you can show that the wages can be borne by the cost of production, and that reasonable profit can be given to him who invests his capital in the industry. I know there are some who hold the view that however prosperous agriculture is, it does not by any means follow that the agricultural labourer's wage rises accordingly, and I have often had it held out to me that previous to 1870, when agriculture was very prosperous, the wage was lower than it was after 1880, when the great period of depression was at its height. I believe that is true, but no apprehension need be felt on that subject at present, because conditions have entirely changed. Before 1870 there were more agricultural labourers applying for places than the industry could absorb. Subsequent to that time, the demand for labour in industrial centres has enormously increased, and from that point of view, if from no other, the whole situation has changed. But of course at present, what with the Corn Production Act and the public feeling behind it, it is obvious that if the industry is able to afford a good wage that good wages should be paid by the industry.
    2292
    There are three distinct classes—though I dislike class distinctions—engaged in agricultural industry—the landowner, the farmer, and the labourer. As far as I can see it, the landowner, at any rate for the moment, is going out of the picture. I regret it for more than onereason, and when one contemplates that shortly we are going to have a great Housing Bill, to meet the demands not only of the town but of the rural districts, I am quite sure, if he had been fairly treated in the past, one of the greatest helps we could have had in securing housing for agricultural workers would have been the large landowners. Of course, when they go out of the picture they will not be available for that purpose. They saved agriculture in the worst time of depression. Since that time theyhave been content to take certainly not more than 2 per cent. on the capital value of their money and now that they are taking advantage of the opportunity that presents itself to them to get out on the most favourable terms they are abused by the generalpublic for taking that course. Therefore for the moment they disappear from the scene. That leaves the agricultural labourer and the farmer. The farmer provides capital for the equipment and stock of the farm, but he has a certain amount of capital at hisdisposal, and although in most cases he is a man who has pursued the industry for the whole of his life, and perhaps his family before him, he is in a position, especially at this moment, to sell his stock at a very high, price and invest his money on the most favourable terms. But the agricultural labourer is not in that position. His capital is his labour, and if he and his forebears have been employed on the land for generations, and he is anxious to continue on the land, unless the industry is in a prosperious condition He must be the one to suffer, for his wages must come down or he must clear out.
    Formerly the agricultural labourer was in a bad position for no other reason whatever than that the industry could not afford to pay him a sufficient wage. During the War, through the enemy's submarine activity, our position as an island became very much more dependent on its own food supply than it had been in the past, and it called upon agriculture to come to its assistance, which it did to the best of its ability. The Government forced farmers to plough up the land, against their better knowledge, knowing that it

    2293
    was not the most economic way if prices remained as they were to continue the industry, and they did it on the understanding that after the War they would not be left in the lurch. At present not only is there plenty of opportunity for men to get employment on the land, but a good many farmers in many districts are complaining that they cannot get sufficient labour to work their farms, especially at present. I quite agree that in many cases the farmers are quite capable of paying the minimum wage which is fixed by the wage board. I go further than that, and acknowledge that many farmers can afford to pay the increase which is suggested, but at the same time, there are many farmers who cannot do so. If statistics could be obtained of the condition of the industry during the last few years, you would find that the large farmer with good soil, in spite of the restrictions, has made very large profits; and also the small farmer on moderate soil in many districts has made not very large profits. It costs just as much to grow 3 quarters of wheat on some land as 5 quarters on other land. As long as you accept the principle of a flat rate for the agricultural labourers wage you must do a great deal of injustice to some people and you must let off some others extremely lightly. But it is quite certain that unless the Government will at this period safeguard the interests of agriculture, under these conditions of high wages and poor land in some districts, the labourers wage will have to suffer or there will be fewer of them employed on this land. I must almost apologise for the referring to agriculture in the way I do. Before the War ploughed land was laid down to grass, not as some people think because the farmer liked to do it for a hobby, but because it did not pay as arable. There is no other reason. I have been farming for a great many years and I can remember well the time when the agricultural labourers' wage was only 15s. a week at the same time that wheat was being sold inthe market for 20s. a quarter. It did not pay me anything like as well to grow wheat then as when agricultural wages had risen to 35s. I was growing wheat at that time at an absolute loss, and in 1892 and 1893, when wheat was at its lowest, the farmers in my district, instead of selling it for human consumption were feeding their cattle and their pigs on it.
    2294
    I only put this question before the House because I want to know what the country wants. Does it want to return, to that condition?Wheat is the foundation crop of British agriculture. In a great many parts of this country wheat and beans are the only crops that can be grown. We want to know what the country wants. Of what advantage is it if, after ail this legislation, the effect is that you, reduce the numbers working on the land? There is not the smallest doubt as to what the Government's policy was during the War so long as there was some danger to the country. I took the opportunity the the other day of looking up a speech which was delivered in this House by the Prime Minister on 23rd February, 1917. He said:
    "No doubt the State showed a lamentable indifference to the importance of the agricultural, industry, and to the very life of the ration, and. that is a mistake which must never be repeated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1917, Vol. 90, col. 1398.]
    Speaking of the farmer, he said:
    "You must give him confidence. It is no use promising him big prices for next year and then dropping him badly for the next few years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1917, Vol. 90, col. 1600.]
    That was the policy of the Prime Minister in 1917. I went a little further in my researches and I found a speech which was delivered on the Second Reading of the Corn Production Bill by the then Parliamentary Secretary for the Board of Trade, who is now the Minister of Food. At that time he was a Labour representative in the Coalition Government as a Labour Member, and he was speaking, as he stated, from the point of view of the agricultural labourer. On 24th April, 1917—the date in question—he said:
    "I veature to submit that the only possible security will come when this country is self-contained and able to produce its own food necessities….Who will deny that the neglect of agriculture in the past and our extreme dependence upon overseas supplies is the main cause of weakness in this war…..I therefore, respectfully submit that one of the lessons that we have learned from this war is that agriculture in the future shall not be neglected. It must be regarded as a matter of primary concern to the State…..You will not attract men to the land under existing conditions."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT. 24th April, 1917, Vol. 92, cols. 2303–4.]
    If the Government and the country do not want to attract men to the land, let them tell us so. What cant and hypocrisy it is for this House, for the country, and for the newspapers to suggest that they are going to ask soldiers and others to settle on the land if they are not going to give

    2295
    some security to agriculture in the future. I referred earlier in my remarks to the attitude taken up by those who directly represent labour on the wages, boards. I understand their demand—with which I sympathise entirely—for an increased minimum wage for the agricultural labourer was based almost entirely on the rise in the cost of living and on the rising standard of life of the agricultural labourer. But I think we must take into consideration also the cost of production and the profit of the industry for those who have invested their capital in it. We have the instance of the railways before our minds. It was brought to our notice, in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who introduced the Ways and Communications Bill. We know that the average minimum pre-war wage of 33s. for the railway labourer is about 49s. to 50s., and the right hon. Gentleman told us that the railways represent a loss at the rate of £2,000,000 a week or £100,000,000 per annum.
    I do not know whether the Government are prepared to treat the agricultural industry in the same way that they are treating the railways. Is the Government prepared to say, "No matter what the wages are, we have a long-suffering taxpayer behind us who is willing to supply £100,000,000 in order to pay the wages of the agricultural labourer." If that is the position, let them say so, and let us know clearly where we are. If you do not take some notice of economic laws, it is quite certain that the cold grip of economic laws will come in at some time or other. You can carry on by assisting economic laws and getting the best out of them that you can, but if you ignore them I am quite convinced that whether it is in railway management, in agriculture, or in coalmining, the economic laws will turn some time or other and destroy you. It is not a question of what the position is at the moment. We have been assured by the hon. Gentleman who represents agriculture so admirably in this House that, at any rate for this harvest, we are to be safeguarded by the Government, but that is not enough. We want to know what is the policy of the Government in regard to agriculture, so as to be able to attract men to the land instead of the men taking up employment elsewhere.
    I have been asked, and it is a very frequent question, what one would do, what is the best thing to do to give this
    2296
    safeguard. I have quoted from the speech of the Prime Minister in 1917. I know that that speech was made when the country was in great danger; I know that he wanted at that time to get Parliament to accept a certain policy in regard to agriculture, and for that reason he may have produced arguments which in other times he would not have done, but I can hardly think that is the case, otherwise it would lead me to have a very poor opinion of the Prime Minister. I have not a poor opinion of him. What I want him to do at the present time is to tell us definitely, in exactly the same wayas he did two years ago, that the policy of the Government is that it shall not neglect agriculture in the future.
    I have tried to put the point of view of the agricultural labourer, because I am convinced that his interests are identical with the interests of the industry in which he gains his livelihood. I have ever since I have been in this House represented a purely rural constituency, and I have been sent to this House largely by the votes of agricultural labourers in my Constituency. If anybody thinks that on this occasion I am out either to get votes or to retain them, they are perfectly welcome to that idea, but I can assure them I do not do it with any motives of that kind. I have the greatest possible regard for the agricultural labourers of the country. I have amongst them many close personal friends. I have always found them men of broad-minded views, with a great sense of duty, and loyal to their calling. I think that they gain some of their charm from being always at work in close contact with nature, which never does anyone any harm. If I can do anything for them as their Member I shall always try to do it, knowing perfectly well that if they choose at any time to select someone to take my place they are perfectly at liberty to do so, and the only wish I should have in that event would be that they would get a representative who would much better serve them than I do. I have put the case on their behalf, because I know they are the backbone of British agriculture. It is no use at this late stageof agricultural discussion to go into the questions of the physical condition of the people and into the question of the towns being constantly recruited from the country. That is a fact, and it is a fact we ought always to bear in mind. I implore the House to unite with the agricultural representatives in this, House to safe-

    2297
    guard the interests of agriculture upon which, whether in peace or in war, so much of the welfare of this country depends.
    Major LANE-FOX: I do not think there is any need to apologise for again bringing agriculture before this House after the recent discussion. I think we are justified by the fact that on the previous occasion and on a good many previous occasions we have tried in vain to get a definite announcement by the Government as to what their policy would be as regards the future of agriculture. I hope to-night that the definite announcement will be made, and that before we finish this discussion we shall have some greater knowledge as to the policy for the future than we have obtained on other occasions. Farmers are getting very disheartened. They want to know their position. They have the future of their farms to consider, they have their programmes to set out and their whole policy to decide, and unless they know whatthe future policy of the Government is to be and what are the lines of action the Government wish them to take, it is absolutely impossible for them to put any energy or any money into their farms, or to settle on and carry out any fixed definite policy. We have had on other occasions many pleasant assurances and smooth words, but those pleasant assurances and smooth words amount to nothing, and if nothing is to be done, that is far worse than telling the farmer now straight out that the Government have absolutely nothing for him, that the Government have no hope for him, and that he can go back to the old bad days and try to raise a certain amount of meat and milk and to struggle along as best he can. The Parliamentary Secretary with perfect courtesy and studied vagueness has put us off in the most pleasant and agreeable manner, but this subject will be raised again and again until we get a definite answer. The time is passing and the Board of Agriculture do not seem to realise that this question which is being brought forward now is intended to be brought to their notice until we get an answer. It is impossible to leave things as they are now.
    I hear that a circular has been sent round to various war agricultural executive committees stating that all ploughing-up orders are cancelled, also that the supervision of farmswill not be carried out so long as they are kept reasonably free from weeds, and that as an ample supply of foreign corn is coming in now
    2298
    there is not such an urgent need as there was forgrowing a home supply. If that is a blunt blank announcement of the future policy of the Government, by all means let us have it here in this House. If that is the real policy which the Government wish to pursue why on earth tell the war agricultural committees and not the House? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will state now to the House what is the definite policy of the Government. The farmer wants to know before he can settle what he is going to do. He wants to know what is to be the labour position, how is the shortage of men to be settled, what are to be the arrangements in regard to hours and wages? He also wants to know what the Government are going to do about the prices that are going to be paid for corn, meat, potatoes, and other things; in other words, what is he going to do on his farm? Is he to produce a certain amount of milk with a little meat, and to grow cereals at a dead loss? There has never been such uncertainty in his position before.
    The labour position is obviously difficult. Men are being demobilised from the Army, but are not coming back to agriculture. I partly blame for that the unemployment donation. I believe that the situation is improving, but as long as you go on paying men a considerable sum of money in order that they may do nothing, obviously a great many of them will continue to do nothing. I heard only the other day of a party of three girls who were working on a farm. One of them got rather bored and went away and got the unemployment donation. She wrote to her pals and said: "What fools you are! You are working hard and only earning 27s. 6d. a week. Here am I doing, nothing and getting 25s.!"Very naturally, one of the other two tried to do the same thing. It has the same effect on agricultural labourers. What the hon. Gentleman has. said aboutpaying the agricultural labourers as compared with other trades cannot be too strongly emphasised. We heard only the other day a speech made by an hon. Gentleman, one of those who are supposed specially to represent Labour—though I do not know why, because I contend that we all represent Labour: there is not one of us here who has not a very large proportion of labourers among his supporters—that the railwaymen are not prepared to be sweated in order that the public might be convenienced by cheap travelling. That

    2299
    is a perfectly reasonable thing to say, but does it not apply to other industries also I Why should not the same consideration be given to the agricultural labourer as to other classes? If you are going to allow a position in which the agricultural labourer cannot be employed because wages are too high or that else wages are to be put down to a scale corresponding to prices, then that it is a gross injustice to him. As much as anyone else he is entitled to afair return for his work.
    As the hon. Gentleman has said, a great deal of grass has been ploughed up. Farmers were perfectly willing during the War to take these risks and make some sacrifice. I admit that they have not done badly, but they cannot go on, in view of the future, without some certainty as to what the position is going to be. Unless the Board of Agriculture can give us some assurance that growing cereals in this country will be profitable for farmers to continue, then undoubtedly a large proportion of the ground ploughed up will return to grass, and we shall be back to the old state of things. It is for the Board to decide, but I do plead again that they should decide before this afternoon is out, and let us know. If we are to employ a large proportion of labour on the land, something must be done to maintain the prosperous condition of the agricultural community. It is a perfect farce to pretend that you are going in for any large scheme of settlement for soldiers coming back if all the time weknow perfectly well that you are not preparing for a position in which prosperous settlement on the land will be possible. It is a most dishonest thing to do to invite these men to come back, as we all want them to come back, knowing all the time that we are making no preparations for their prosperity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some definite announcement as to the policy of the Government.
    Lieutenant-Commander WILLIAMS: It is with some considerable fear that I rise for the first time to address this House, and I ask you to give me the usual indulgence which you give to a new Member. I have the good fortune to represent one of the largest agricultural divisions in the West of England, and I follow in the footsteps of a Member who at any rate knew as much about agriculture as the average Member of the House
    2300
    of Commons. I have listened to the two previous speakers. Both of them are very unhappy as to the future possibilities of agriculture in this country. At the last General Election we were told by the Prime Minister and others, and we in turn told our constituents, that it was absolutely essential in the immediate future that the whole of the agricultural policy of the country should be reformed. I cannot see how that can be done by subsidising the production of corn. It may be a help; it may be a temporary alleviation of the trouble. To my mind you must go right down to the root of the question and see if you cannot make agriculture permanently prosperous in every way. I have always believed that to get the best out of the agricultural labourer you must make it easier for him eventually to become the owner of the land he cultivates. I would like to impress as strongly as I can on the members of the Government—perhaps they may want some little encouragement—that, though we may bring forward this Bill, yet unless the Bill is based on continually increasing the numbers of the cultivating owners of the land in the future our position as a nation is hopeless in this respect. We are told that you will have a very increased number of smallholders in this country. I do not think it would be altogether wise to take from towns men who have absolutely no knowledge of agriculture and place them on small holdings in any part ofthe country you may choose. The policy which would be best to follow would be to encourage the men who are already on the land and who know their job to stick on the land and produce according to the best of what they know.
    To do that you have got first of all to make it easier for them to get a bit of land. There are, I believe, possibilities of obtaining land under the Small Holdings Act. There are also ways of obtaining land by direct intercourse with the present owner. I believe that many of us who have had a very close connection with the agricultural labourer during the last four years, though we may have lived with him before, have come very much closer to him than before, and we wish that his whole position may be made stronger and better, and thatit may be easier for him to obtain the land which he does desire more than anything else. You cannot hope to get him and his children to remain on the land with the attractions which the town offers, and the attractions

    2301
    which the Government itself have held out by high wages in aeroplane factories, docks, and other places, and the attractions of picture shows and things of that sort, unless you can give him on the land definitely better attractions than the towns have got. Otherwise, he will go to live in the town. The only attraction which I can see which will be sufficiently strong will be to give him facilities to obtain land, first in small quantities, perhaps half an acre, and then making it possible for him continually to increase his holding until he may have forty or fifty acres, or perhaps a large farm.
    5.0 P.M.
    But before you can hope to make agriculture permanently prosperous, one of the first obstructions you must take away is the enormous cost which our legal friends have artificially set up with regard to the buying and selling of land. I have followed closely the system in Canada. We had set up in this country some few years ago a very expensive, costly, and not very profitable system of registration of land for the purposes of taxation. Icannot see why those same offices should not, with a very little change, be altered so that the whole of the land of this country is automatically registered, and anyone can find out exactly whom the land belongs to on payment of a small fee to keep thoseoffices running. Then, when that is done, any two men can buy and sell land as freely and easily as any other article of commerce to-day. That system works fairly well in Canada; it works fairly well in other countries. Then, again, if the man whom you propose to put on the land to work it is to prosper in the future, it must be made far easier for him to get the goods which he produces from the country into the markets. That is absolutely essential, and I do hope that in the new Ways and Communications Bill, which will probably be costly, and which may not be quite such a success as some of the hon. Gentlemen on my right think it may be, will, at any rate, give increased facilities for us to bring our goods from the country districts to the market. When wehave got them there, I maintain that it is the duty of the Government in the immediate future to do all that they can to protect those markets—not in the case of food—from the foreigner, so that, instead of having low-paid, badly-conducted British industries in our big towns, the men in those big towns may be well paid, and a big demand may be created for the
    2302
    products of the country districts. I think, if I may be allowed to say so, that beyond that particular point there is one question of vital importance, which was brought up the other day. It is a financial question, and one of very great interest to those of us who live in the country districts, especially in the South of England. Under any future control of the railways of this country, it is absolutely essential, if we are to give a through preference to anyone, it should be given to our own people, and especially our people living in agricultural districts, and not to the foreigner, over the Englishman living in this country. I should like to thank the House for the way in which they have listened to me. I do not pretend to be an agricultural expert, but I have had the fortune to live in a country district, and I do hope, and I think everyone in this House hopes, that in the immediate future the whole of those districts may be placed on a basis of permanent prosperity, and not left to lump it as the Governments of the past have left them.
    Mr. G. A. TALBOT: I rise with some diffidence to address the House for the first time, but I have been in it long enough to see the kindness which new Members receive, and what I may call the hospitality extended to them, and so I address it in the confidence that what I say will be listened to with attention. I wish to approach this subject of agriculture from a rather different point of view. Nobody who has listened to the previous speeches in this Debate can fail to see that at the present time agriculture is disorganised, and that as far as we can see, if nothing is done, it will become still further disorganised. The cause of that disorganisation is, I may say, in a great measure the interference of the State in the industry. In the first place, one of the matters which has disorganised it is the rise in wages. I may say at once that the farmersI represent have no objection to that at all. The farmers that I have met will be quite willing that wages should be raised, because we shall get a better class of labourer. They have in some cases objected to the system of overtime being stopped, but on the wages question the agriculturists whom I represent are quite satisfied. Another matter leading to disorganisation is the ploughing up of pasture. I am a member of the county agricultural executive committee, and I have gone round to persuade farmers to plough

    2303
    up their land. They have done that willingly and loyally in the interest of the country, and neither the farmer nor the landowner, knowing that it was in the interest of the country, objected. But it meant State interference. I admit that allthis was necessary because the War was going on, and because the price of food had to be regulated and supplies obtained in anxious times. But now that the War is over, I think everyone will admit that we must do what we can to reorganise this industry for the good of the country. In the first place we must reorganise it because it is the largest employer of labour in the country, and therefore it is absolutely necessary in the interests of all classes that we should reorganise it as successfully as we can. We must also reorganise it for the sake of increased production. In all these discussions which have taken place lately we have heard that increased production is necessary in order to establish the better financial position of the country. That will notbe denied, and if agriculture is more productive it is more to the benefit of the country in every respect than importing food from outside. What is essential for the reconstruction and reorganisation of this industry? The one thing necessary, in the first place, is information. We must have information as to the policy the Government wish to pursue. Everybody who knows anything about agriculture knows that you cannot settle to-day what you are going to do to-morrow.
    You must settle to-day what you are going to do for the next two or three years, and the agriculturist must be in a position to know what style of farming he is to pursue—whether it be corn growing or the raising of stock or of small products—in order that he may organise his industry and be successful in the future. Therefore I say without hesitation that one of the chief things we want to know is the policy which the Government are going to pursue for the next three or four years. If agriculture is to succeed another thing that we must have is information as to cost. Information is necessary for all classes that are engaged in agriculture. It is necessary for the landowner who has his own farm—generally run at a loss for the benefit of the neighbourhood; it is necessary for the farmer; and it is necessary, most of all, for the smallholder. In the county from which I come we have
    2304
    started committees to push forward the acquisition of land by smallholders. Committees have been started and are working successfully for selecting land and interviewing smallholders and settling them on the land that is most suitable for them. That is working satisfactorily. They have also determined to have an inspector to go round these small holdings and assist by advice or information the smallholders in order that they may carry out their work properly. But there is another matter in this respect that is very much more important and absolutely essential if these small holdings are to be successful—that is information as to what cropsshall be grown or what products raised, and the cost of their production, so that the smallholders may determine for themselves what they shall grow and what it will pay them best to grow. That determination of cost, as everybody knows who has had any experience of agriculture, is a very difficult matter indeed. The manufacturer can tell from time to time what his products cost him, but it is very difficult, indeed almost impossible, for any individual to say what a certain crop or what a certain operationcosts from one year to another, so that he may be able to determine what pays best. That information can only be collected by collaboration, over large areas and over a series of years. I submit that the only way in which this, information can be securedis by some action taken by the State.
    I am sure I do not wish to advocate the formation of any further Government Department. Nobody who listened to the Debate yesterday would wish to start new Departments or new officials. But we have already the Board ofAgriculture, and I am informed, after inquiry, that it is in a position to collect and supply information, as to the cost of growing different products. It may be argued that this should be done by the farmer or the landowner, but, as I have said, it is very difficult for any individual to determine successfully the cost of raising any agricultural product. It is sometimes said that the farmer is very ignorant or very pigheaded. I should like to quote something which I heard from the late Sir John Lawes at Rothamsted when I went there to inspect, his experiments. We know that he was one of the greatest agricultural experts in the country. I asked him who would benefit most by his experiments, and he said, "Well, the people who will benefit least are the English farmers, because they knew

    2305
    more before." I submit that the English farmer in his way knows his business as well as anybody else, but this matter of cost, which is now becoming such a serious one, is almost out of his reach, and he must be assisted in it by the State if it is to be done successfully. It has been argued that agriculture should not be sacrificed to other industries or other interests, and I feel perfectly certain that it is the wish of all classes of the community, and I am sure ofall parties in this House, that agriculture should be made successful, as it can be, by every possible means, and for the benefit of all classes.
    I may say that, knowing as I do what farmers have done in the past, they have a great claim to assistance and direction from the State, for they have made very great sacrifices in ploughing up their pastures. I have heard the Noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture on various occasions give them credit for patriotism, public spirit, and industry in making that sacrifice of their pastures for the good of the State. Therefore I have no hesitation in saying that if there is one class which deserves some consideration—I do not say any concession, but some consideration—it is the class who inthis time of trouble assisted us in supplyng the food of the country at a very critical time. They have a further claim because, now that the land has been ploughed up, it has become very much diminished in value, and, owing to difficulties in regard to labour, the transport of fertilisers, and so on, it is very difficult to get it back into an effective state of cultivation. That, I think, cannot be denied. With regard to general policy other questions, of course, arise. What is to be the future of agriculture? Is it to be carried on by subsidies or is it to be protected? I take it for granted that it is not the intention of this House or this country to let agriculture fail. Agriculture will be carried on, and I feel perfectly certain that this House is quite willing that it should be carried on. But if any State assistance is given, there is not the least doubt that efficiency will be demanded from those who cultivate the land. It is necessary that we should give them the opportunity of having that efficiency, and the only way of giving them efficiency is to supply them with information as to the cost of the different products of their land. I would ask the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Agriculture to consider very carefully whether they couldnot forthwith start a costing de-
    2306
    partment, which should have branches at different centres with the latest information available for agriculturists, so that they may cultivate their land to the best advantage.
    Nobody who has any experience of small holdings can look upon this matter without some misgiving. In my county small holdings, as a whole, have been a success, but I can say, as one who has inspected them and taken an interest in them, that a good many are a failure. We have every wish that they should be carried on successfully, and it would be a calamity if we settled upon the land men who have fought for us gallantly and if their work and labour were a failure. I am bound to say that during the election, when addressing farm labourers or agricultural labourers, and when speaking about small holdings and the facilities that would probably be given for obtaining them, I did not get much encouragement or much applause. They knew the difficulty of working small holdings under present conditions. Those difficulties are real, and if small holdings are to be a success, as we all hope that they will be, there is not the least doubt that the men who work them must have all the information and all the assistance that can be given them by the Board of Agriculture. I feel perfectly certain that all the Members of this House of every party are only too willing that this matter should be carried through, so that agriculture may be successful. I remember a very eloquent speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. H. Roberts) in the autumn. He quoted the amount that we spent in 1913—it was some millions of money—upon importing food and corn, and he said that he was quite sure that it was not to the interest of this country that we should spend all this money upon importing food. We should do all we could to push forward agriculture in the interests of the labouring classes as well as in the interests of others. I am ashamed to say that in this respect we are very much behind other countries. In the United States, for instance, they have set up a department, and information as to the cost of the different products is available to all. In Germany they were very much more advanced than we were before the War. Therefore, for the sake of the honour and credit of England, which in the past has had some success as an agricultural country, I would beg the representative of the Board of Agriculture most earnestly,

    2307
    in the interests of agriculture, to set up a costing department, giving information to all classes.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not wish to weary the House with a further long disquisition upon agriculture, nor do I desire, and I do not think that any of us desire, at this particular period to add to the difficulties of the Government, which are great enough. If the Government had only been content to leave agriculture and the agricultural community to try and struggle through on their own, we should not have to come here and ask the Government for their consideration. But the Government have taken the responsibility of interfering with agriculture—I do not say that they were not obliged to do so owing to war conditions—and have created for themselves a responsibility, we are bound to ask them to fulfil that responsibility. I should like, in the first instance, to show how the Government have dealt with agriculture in ways which are not quite fully understood by the public. When, for instance, the Government fixed maximum prices for agriculture, or when they fixed minimumprices under the Corn Production Act, I well remember the great flourish in the Press and among those who knew nothing about agriculture, proclaiming the enormous advantage those minimum prices were going to confer on agriculture. Everybody who had any real experience of agriculture knew perfectly well at the time that the Bill was before the House that there was no human probability that any of those minimum prices would ever operate to the extent of one penny, and they never have operated. The impressionwas created in the public mind, however, that by putting those minimum prices upon paper an enormous benefit was being conferred upon the agricultural industry. That kind of impression prevails, and where agriculture is in a difficulty it is supposed to be the industry's own fault. There is an impression amongst those who are not agriculturists that the country is making sacrifices for the sake of agriculture.
    Let me give one instance of the way agriculture and those interested in it are dealt with by Government Departments. I do not say by the Board of Agriculture, because our greatest trouble is that we are not dealt with by the Board of Agriculture, but by about fourteen other Government Departments, who all work with
    2308
    agriculture as they like. My complaint with the Board of Agriculture is not that it ill-treats agriculture, but that it does not sufficiently stand up against other Government Departments. Let me take the interesting case of wool, and let me show how it has been dealt with by the Government and how it affects the industry and the country as a whole. The wool is first produced by the farmer and the shepherd. It is next commandeered by the War Office at a price below the cost of production. I have been into the matter very closely, because I happen to have been President of the National Sheepbreeders'Association. I have had to go into all these figures most carefully, and I can tell the House with full responsibility that the wool has been commandeered below the cost of production. The, wool having been commandeered below the cost of production, part of it, very properly, is used for the manufacture of khaki and the remainder, which is not required for the making of khaki, is sold to the manufacturer at a large profit by the Government. May I say, incidentally, that that appears to me to be taxation which is unauthorised by Parliament. I have never yet heard any authority given by this House for the imposition of that indirect tax upon the consumer and the farmer. The manufacturer having got the wool, he proceeds to turn it into cloth, and a good deal of light was thrown upon the matter by a very interesting speech that we had yesterday from the hon. Member who represents Dewsbury (Lieutenant-Colonel Pickering), who told us that the manufacturer who wanted to make an extra shilling profit on a yard of cloth put on an additional price of 5s., of which the Government took 4s. in Excess Profits Duty, leaving him a shilling for himself. Then we get to the next stage, when it passes to the wholesaler, who has a similar transaction and a similar Excess Profits Duty. Possibly the retailer has one as well. The Government in each case take 80 per cent. of the Excess Profits Duty. The result is that although the farmer has had his wool requisitioned below the cost, of production it is doubled or trebled in. price by the time that it gets to the consumer. The agricultural labourer who has produced the wool when he goes to purchase the coat which he wants to wear has to pay two or three times the proper price for it, not because the farmer who

    2309
    employs him has got an excess profit, but because the Government at three or four stages have taken a large profit on the wool on its way. What is the next stage? The next stage is that the agricultural labourer, very rightly and properly says, "If I have to pay so much for my coat, I must have more wages to pay for it." The Government say, "Quite right. The wages board will see that you get a much higher minimum wage. You are absolutely entitled to it. But we are not going to pay it out of the excess profits that we have made on the wool. The farmer must pay it, although the wool was taken from him below the cost of production."That is an instance of the way in which the Government deal with the agricultural industry. I say that the Government, having taken the responsibility of fixing these prices, must take the responsibility of seeing that the industry is able to pay the wages which are a consequence of the high prices which the Government themselves have caused.
    Here is another small instance. The War Office have commandeered a large quantity of hay. Hay in this country is very badly required on the farms, and every stack of hay, particularly in the light land district where I live, is precious. In many dry seasons we get no hay. We cannot grow permanent pasture. We have to plough up land and put in temporary pasture. Some seasons we get a hay crop, and some seasons we do not. When we get a hay crop we preserve our hay most jealously in case we do not get a crop the next season. The Government come along and commandeer our hay in the natural interest—I do not complain—and they pay a controlled price for it. I had two stacks of hay commandeered. I do not complain, although I very urgently required the hay for farming an area of poor light land. When the Armistice came and the demand for hay for the Army was reduced, many farmers like myself immediately asked that some of our hay might be released from requisition, because we considered it more in theinterests of the nation that we should be able to use it to feed our stock than that it should be taken by the Army and possibly re-sold. Some of the hay has been released. I have had a stack released, and, curiously enough, this morning I received from the War Office a little bill of £6 6s. 8d. for releasing me a stack of hay.
    2310
    There is a stack still standing on my home farm. The Government have never paid me one single farthing for it. I am about to use that hay to feed my own stock, and I have grown it and have paid agricultural labour to help me, and I am now asked to pay the Government £6 6s. 8d. Here is the bill, and I see that it is for the costs of commandeering. This is a case where I venture to appeal to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to stand between me and my brother farmers and the War Office. I shall not pay this bill until my hon. Friend has assured me that he is unable to get it remitted. I have heard of a similar case with regard to straw. I really think whorethe farmer produced articles for his own use on his own farm that he should not be charged by the War Office for their expenses in having to commandeer it before they released it. I do not mean to labour this point, but that just shows the kind of spirit,and that is what I dislike, in which Government Departments deal with agriculture. I am glad to see present the right hon. Gentleman who was lately Food Controller (Mr. Clynes), and who through that obtained a very great insight into agriculture and food questions. I read with very great pleasure the speech which he made yesterday, and in which he distinctly stated to the House that in his belief it was absolutely necessary, if we were to maintain our industries and our position in this country, to increaseproduction. That really is the crux of the whole matter. If the agricultural industry is to pay the continued minimum wage, or, as everybody desires to see, to pay a still higher minimum wage, it is absolutely necessary that it should be done in one of three ways, either better prices should be obtainable for the produce, or the produce must be produced at a lower cost, not at all by reduction in labour, or we must be enabled by some kind of State assistance to increase production in a greater proportion than the cost of producing that increase.
    We hear constantly from those who are so ready to tell the farmer how to improve his position that what we want is intensive cultivation. I have seen so much of it and heard so much of it that I know perfectly well what intensive cultivation means. It means spending a sovereign to get so much more produce as you would sell for 10s. Anybody could show how by intensive cultivation you are going to get bigger production; but that is not what

    2311
    you want. No doubt that bigger production would be good for the nation, but if that bigger production is produced at a cost which exceeds the additional value of the crop, then it is not economic, and you cannot get the farmer to undertake it. The real test of successful production, from the point of view of the industry, is not how much you get on an acre, but what balance there is in the value of each unit produced over the cost of production. Take meat. On an English farm you will get three or four times more production of meat per acre than you will get on a ranch in the Argentine, but the man on the ranch in the Argentine can undersell the intensive farmer in this country in beef because he produces each animal at an infinitely less cost under the conditions there than the farmer can produce meat here under the intensive cultivation conditions in this country. Exactly the same thing would apply if you tried to grow wheat in a garden. Everybody knows that a garden is cultivated intensely and more so than a farm, but does anybody suggest that a gardener with his intensive cultivation growing a small plot of wheat could compete with a large farmer growing wheat under less intensive conditions, but at the same time under conditions which enable him to produce each unit of wheat ata cheaper cost than the gardener, although the gardener has got more on his half acre than the farmer has on any half acre on his large farm. That is where intensive cultivation fails, because it only goes half way, I am not opposed to intensive cultivation provided that those who advocate it will make the increased produce grown more than cover the cost of that intensive cultivation. If that is understood, I think it will go a long way to remove misapprehension.
    As regards the agricultural labourer, I think it might perhaps be interesting, in view of what is happening to make not an invidious but a friendly comparison between him and the miner. We have at this moment very vividly the position of the miner before us, and we have, every one of us, seen the miner's case put before the country. What is the case the miner puts before the country? He puts the case that he has a moral right to a better standard of living and to more leisure, mainly because his industry is a hard one and a risky one. I do not thinkI misstate the case in saying that. But not only has the miner a moral right, and a recognised
    2312
    moral right, to those advantages and improvements, but he has also the material means to get them, pretty simply, because when his wages are raised the price of coal is immediately and consequentially raised to the consumer, so that the industry can bear the increased wage which has to be paid by shifting it on to the consumer. I claim that the agricultural labourer has just as much moral right to a betterstandard of living and more leisure as the miner. I was amused to see in one of the discussions which took place before the Mining Commission a comparison which was drawn between the conditions of the miner and the conditions of the agricultural labourer,and the one instance selected as a soft job in agriculture was that of the shepherd. The miners are asking for a six-hours day and a very high wage. I should rather like to see one of the miners spending the month of March with a shepherd lambing down a flock of four hundred ewes. [An Hon. Member: "Why not put a miner there?"] Because all the sheep would die. [An HON. Member: "A mine-owner!"] A mine-owner either, if you like. I am not finding fault with the miner. Nobody has a greater admiration for him than I have. They are a fine body of men and we are all proud of them, and why should they not have the improved wages and leisure if they can get them. I am speaking of the agricultural labourer, who is just as fine a man as the miner. [An Hon. Member: "We agree!"] And has just as much moral right. The difference is that the miner has not only the moral right but the material, because he can shift the improvement on to the consumer, while the agricultural labourer, who has as much moral right, has no materialmeans by which the money can be found. That is the difficulty. If the Government impose a minimum wage it is their duty to see that the material means are there to pay it. I venture to say that it is deceiving the country and agricultural labour or any other form of labour to put a minimum wage on. It is like putting a price on paper, and to make the country and the Government responsible for that wage being paid without being absolutely certain that there is sufficient money in the industry to pay the wage which has been imposed. In other words, what happens? What is the use of promising a man a minimum wage when the only result is that he is discharged and gets no wage at

    2313
    all because there is not sufficient money to pay him. How is that going to help him?
    I venture to lay down this proposition, that it is and must be a definite responsibility on any Government which imposes a minimum wage or a maximum price that it must ensure to those who are to receive the minimum wage that that wage is payable, and that it must ensure to the industry to whom the price is guaranteed that there shall be a market in which those engaged in the industry can obtain that price. Otherwise it is all smoke and hot air and the industry cannot live upon that. The Government have already taken that responsibility and that is why we are pressing them now. My hon. Friend, who made a very admirable speech in opening this Debate, pointed out that the agricultural industry is not like any other industry. There is no industry in whichyou have got to look so far ahead as agriculture or in which you have to fight the weather as you have in agriculture. Look at this month. I venture to say that there are thousands of acres of heavy land which will not be sown this year at all, and, as far as I have heard, not a single acre has been sown with oats yet, and it ought to be in in the first week in March. There is a little in on the light land. Here we have had forty-eight hours more rain, and as to what will happen I tremble to think. The farm labourer has got a minimum wage which apparently falls on the farmer, but it also falls on the labourer from the point of view I have been stating, because if the farmer cannot make enough to pay the wage then it will fall on the labourer who will sufferas well as the farmer. Agriculture is an endless circle. I listened with great interest just now to the speech of an hon. Member who suggested that we should have a Government Department to get out the costs of each particular crop. I venture to say it would be as easy to square the circle. It is the same problem as trying to tell what is the actual cost of any crop in any field. It is literally squaring the circle, because agricultural operations are an endless circle. Every crop contributes something tothe crop which follows it and owes something to the crop which precedes it. You have got to value in and to value out and the real value in and value out must be a matter dependent upon circumstances which no man can foresee. People, for instance, talk about stock farming as if it were a different kind of farming from that of grow-
    2314
    ing cereals, but you cannot grow stock on arable land unless you grow cereals. How are you going to keep stock without straw? It is impossible. You cannot shift your farm about according to some political nostrum of the moment. You have got to farm your land according to the local conditions of the district in which you live, because you may alter the laws of man, but you cannot alter the laws of nature. The farmer has to deal more directly with nature than any other industry. You may do what you like in this House, but the Government cannot alter the weather or the quality of the land by one hair, and the farmer has got to deal with the weather and the land, and they are inexorable. Therefore, all that the Government can do is to give him what help they can, and try and realise his difficulties.
    I do appeal to this House to try to realise what the difficulties of agriculture are. There are two definite principles, and the House has got to choose between them. One definite principle, which, I think, we have always accepted here, is that it is desirable that the people of this country should be able to obtain the necessaries of life at the cheapest possible price, and an addendum to that, which, I think. I heard stated from the Labour Benches, is that no industry ought to be carried on unless it can afford to pay a proper living wage to the labourers who are engaged in it. Now apply that to agriculture. You get the definite alternative principle, which has been very fully accepted by this country and House, and has been enforced upon us by the War, that you must cultivate all the land in this country, as far as you possibly can, and get the largest amount of produce out of it. Those two principles come into direct issue on poor land. You cannot get more than a certain amount of produce off poor land on the average, do what you will. In 1917, I grew 400 acres of oats, and I have not one single bushel of oats to sell. The land was well farmed. It was the doing of the Almighty, and not of man. We had a. drought in the summer and a wet harvest, and not only was there not a bushel of oats to sell, but there was not enough to keep the stock on the farm. In a season like that, on poor land, we cannot pay these very high—for that land—wages, which we are delighted to pay if we have got the money. We recognise the full moral right of the men to have a living wage, and to live under proper conditions, but we cannot pay the money if

    2315
    we have not got it, and if we are to farm this land at all we must have sufficient profit off it to pay the wages. It is for the country to decide between the principle that the industry of agriculture on poor and moderate land is not to be carried on, because the country desires cheap food and will not have cheap labour, and the principle that the land of this country must be cultivated. Therefore, some means must be found by which this poor and moderate land may grow a crop. That is what the Government have to decide, and they have to decide it for a long period ahead.
    There is an idea that every farmer is making a large profit. I have no doubt whatever, as has been pointed out, that many farmers on good land have made considerable profits, and are making them now, but I would make one comment on that. They have grown the maximum of cereals to meet a national need, and the land is impoverished and run down, and a lot of what appears to be profit has got to go back into the land again. And, therefore, just as it is impossible to get the cost of a particular crop, so you cannot, merely by looking at a farmer's books, estimate what is the real position, and where he stands. I do enter that caveat. I have never been lucky enough to farm good land, but let us hope and believe that those who do farm good land have made a good profit, and boon able to pay more wages. But I say those who are farming poor land cannot do so. I have had notice of two large farms from two responsible tenants, each giving solelythe ground that he cannot afford to go on farming because he cannot find the money to pay the present minimum wage. Those two farms, of over 1,000 acres between them, will be on my hands next Michaelmas, and not an offer for them. That does not look as iffarming is profitable. My own experience in farming 4,000 poor acres through the War is that we have just been able to make ends meet. The question is, Can we go on or not? I hope we may continue as long as we can. We will do our very best. We have been farming all our lives and working with men doing their best, and who are the salt of the earth. At any rate, we have provided them with what, according to the evidence, the miners have not got. Labourers in my district have a five-roomed cottage, a garden, and pigsty. Their surroundings are not bad, anyhow. But we cannot get
    2316
    the money off the poor land, and unless the Government, who have put this minimum wage on us, and treated us in the way I have suggested, act up to the responsibilities they have undertaken, I tell them this minimum wage cannot be paid, and that tens of thousands of acres of this poor land will go out of cultivation. I do not believe that is the wish of the House, and I do not believe it is the wish of the country.
    Mr. W. R. SMITH: I have been extremely interested in the way previous speakers have spoken on behalf of the agricultural labourer. One could have hoped that the great interest they seem to display at the moment had been displayed years ago, because I can say, from personalknowledge, that when the industry was in a condition to permit of better wages being paid those better wages were not forthcoming, and I am rather inclined to think that this great interest in the labourer at the moment is but a peg upon which they are attempting to hang their hat, in order to get consideration for their own specific point of view and their own specific remedy. I do not deny the need for this House to give a serious consideration to the question of agriculture in this country. It is an important question, and one that demands the development of a national policy. I think the country generally is of the opinion that this nation ought never to be faced with the same risk it was during the past four years, and that, if possible, we ought to grow the food that is necessary for the people, and it may be that that will not be possible unless there is established some national policy which will give to the industry some greater guarantee than exists at the present moment. Whether we be able to agreeon what the exact policy shall be is a matter of speculation, because I am inclined to think that those of us who sit in this part of the House will require to be convinced upon certain points before considering the advisability of adopting some suggestions that are put forward in order to save the industry of agriculture. We should want, I venture to say, something in the nature, possibly, of an inquiry similar to that which is taking place in connection with the coal industry. We should want to know if the industry is carrying more dead weight than is reasonable for it to do. We should want to know how far the land is being properly farmed,

    2317
    because some of us, who have been associated with the work of organising the agricultural labourers, in our travels through the country have seen fields that by no means suggest that good farming is the universal condition of the industry. When one sees fields growing three crops at a time, with the heads of the dock soaring majestically over the struggling corn and the competing thistles, showing evidence of a very bountiful supply of their species for the coming season, one is not convinced that the land of the country is being used in a way and fashion that is in the interests of the nation or in the interests of the industry of agriculture. It may be argued that these are the exception, but at least we should want to be assured that the land is being put to its proper use, is being properly cultivated, and that the principle of three crops in one field is not a paying proposition so far as agriculture is concerned.
    I have always felt that our friends who speak on behalf of the farming interest in this country have always been far too ready to complain of their conditions. In fact, I think their readiness to complain has very largely destroyed their opportunity of getting a ready ear to any real grievance they may have. I think it would be well to concentrate on what are real difficulties rather than to put forward what, in my judgment, in one or two instances this afternoon have been more or less imaginary ones. It was suggested that the unemployed benefit now being paid is a serious handicap to the industry of agriculture. That means, if anything at all, that men are not prepared to go to work whilst they are receiving unemployed benefit. I want to say that that is a charge that ought not to be made unless it can be backed up with facts, and I am in a position to state at the present moment that labourers drawing unemployed benefit in the county of Norfolk are unable to obtain employment in the district in which they reside.
    Major E. WOOD: My hon. and gallant Friend is not here; when he made that statement he gave facts in support of it.
    6.0 P.M
    Mr. SMITH: All I can say is, that I have put down a question asking for information, if possible, as to the number of agricultural workers who are drawing unemployed benefit. Possibly when that information is forthcoming, we shall be better able to say how far it has any real bearing on the question. But the real
    2318
    reason why I put it down was that I have been informed on reliable authority that labourers at the present moment are out of employment, and, although they have sought strenuously in their neighbourhood, they have not been able to obtain it. [An Hon. Member: "Where is that?"] That was in the village of Heacham in Norfolk, and when, as I say, we get this further information as to how far unemployed benefit is being drawn by men or women associated with agriculture, we shall be better able to say how far these charges are justified. I am more concerned at the present moment with the position of the agricultural labourer from the standpoint of his wages, and I want to put before the House the position in which the labourer is at the present moment. I happen to be a member of the Central Wages Board, and have taken part in the discussions of the past few weeks on the question of the labourers' wages. It is quite true that we have put forward a claim on behalf of the labourer for an increase of £1 per week on his present wages. We make no apology for putting that claim forward. We are convinced that a minimum wage of 50s. a week is absolutely essential if the labourer in the villages is to be assured of that standard of comfort in his home to which he is reasonably entitled. We have been told that this country is to be made a place fit for heroes to live in. Some of those heroes reside in the villages of this country. They are looking forward to a condition of things in connection with agriculture which will permit them to receive wages that will convey into their home life a far different state of things than that which obtained previous to the War. The previous speaker, in drawing comparisons between the miner and agricultural labourer, stated that there was one point in which the agricultural labourer had an advantage, and that was in connection with his cottage. He said that he had a very good cottage to live in, and a good piece of garden ground. That may apply in the districts with which that hon. Member is best acquainted. But it cannot be said to be a general condition so far as the agricultural labourer is concerned.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I guarded myself against claiming it to be universal. I was referring only to my district, and I was referring to the poverty of that district.
    Mr. SMITH: I think it would be very undesirable to have it go forward that this condition of things has any general application in this country. I know cases where the housing conditions of the agricultural labourer are absolutely disgraceful. The accommodation is entirely inadequate. Growing boys and girls have to be herded together in the same bedroom in a way that makes it impossible for us to expect them to grow up the men and women that we should like them to be. I have known caseswhere the only ventilation of the bedroom came through the roof, which not only let in the sunshine but the rain as well. Umbrellas have had to be spread over the beds to prevent the children getting wet with the heavy rain. Overcrowding is prevalent in anumber of these districts. Some time ago I was discussing with a medical man in the county of Norfolk the position of the agricultural labourer with regard to the disease of consumption. I said it appeared to be a disease more prevalent in the industrialcentres. This gentleman was a medical officer for the county health insurance committee, and he informed me that consumption was as prevalent amongst the agricultural labourers as it was in the case of the town workers. [Hon. Members: "Worse!"] He said it ought not to be so, and the only explanation he could give of the fact was the wretched housing conditions and the overcrowding, which lowered the vitality of the workers, and which, coupled with low wages, made it impossible for the housewife to provide all that was so necessary and essential for the well-being of the family.
    The agricultural labourer at the moment is attending to these things differently to what he did previous to the War. He has seen in the papers how other sections of labour are receiving consideration so far as their wages are concerned, and also in regard to their working hours. He is demanding that some of these advantages shall be brought into his life. He is taking this question very seriously—so much so that I would like tosay to the House in all sincerity and earnestness that we may have to face what is known as industrial unrest in the villages almost as intensified as we may have to face it in the towns. I happen to be an official of the Agricultural Labourers'Union. Letters are daily coming to our office showing the im-
    2320
    patience of the men in regard to this question of the advancement of their wages. Thirty shillings is an entirely inadequate sum for an agricultural labourer at the present time. It is not an adjustment that even corresponds to the increase in the cost of living. Although that is a phase of things which is not entirely absent from our claim, yet we want to point it out to the House and the country generally in order that the seriousness and importance of this question may be properly understood. The labourer is looking at his position not so much from the point of view of adjustment to the cost of living as he is from the establishment of a standard of comfort in his home that harmonises with his human needs. We have to face this fact, that whilst most other classes of labour previous to the War had their trade unions that secured adjustment approximating to a reasonable state of things, that did not appertain to the agricultural labourer.
    Mention has been made that the wages previous to the War were in some districts 15s. It will be interesting to note how far what I am about to say bears out the suggestion that the farmers have the interests of their labourers at heart and desire to give them better conditions, if they can. It is well-known that agriculture was more flourishing just previous to the War than it had been for some years. In the county of Norfolk some of the agricultural labourers asked for an increase of wages from 13s. to 14s. They wererefused. When they went on strike they were kept out for months, because the farmers would not concede the shilling a week, making the total 14s. Therefore I cannot accept the suggestion that this great interest has always been displayed in the welfare ofthe agricultural labourer. Although the statement may be challenged, as it has been, that we have a special claim to speak on behalf of labour—and it might, I think, be quite true that hon. Members do represent in their constituencies large elements of the working classes—yet so far as any organised expression of labour goes, the trade unions are the natural channel through which, labour can express itself, and we are the special representatives.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
    Mr. SMITH: We feel that such a claim as I put forward is a legitimate one. The

    2321
    labourers are just as anxious as are the farmers for something in the nature of a national policy in connection with agriculture. They recognise full well that unless the industry is flourishing that their position must necessarily be a precarious one, and they are, therefore, concerned with the prosperity of the industry itself. I hope, however, that the House will not view the question from the standpoint that the payment of good wages to the labourer is prejudicial to the industry as a whole. Every time the workers have asked for better wages they have always been told that if their claims are conceded the particular industry would be ruined. Concessions have been made from time to time, and it is interesting to note that the industries which are the most flourishing in this country are those which pay the highest wages, whilst those that are languishing are those where the lowest wages are paid. We look forward to the time when the labourer willbe placed upon a footing more or less equal with his fellow-workers, and we do not think that is possible unless and until his present claim has been conceded.
    I would like to impress upon the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is representing the Government or the Board of Agriculture in this Debate the importance of considering this question from the standpoint of the unrest that exists in the villages of this country. Those of us who are associated with the labourers'own organisation have no desire that anything should take place which will prejudice the industry at this juncture when the atmospheric conditions have already made things very difficult indeed. But if we do get a change of weather, as I suppose we must have shortly, which will permit the land to be worked, and the spring crops to be sown, we have no desire that that work shall be in any way disturbed because of any dissatisfaction or unrest that exists amongst the labourers. At the same time I would like to impress the point upon all that thereis a real danger that this unrest will develop into an activity which is exceedingly undesirable unless the labourer is met in his claim for better wages. I very much regret that a deadlock has been reached so far as the Central Wages Board is concerned. Whether to-morrow's meeting will find a way out of the difficulty time alone will show. But I will say that we have a right to appeal to the Government on this question, for they are the custo
    2322
    dians at the moment of the nation's interest, and it is the interest of the nation that agriculture should flourish, and that nothing should be put in its way at this or any moment which will prevent its development. We do hope on this question of wages that they will be able to view it from the standpoint of thedesirability of the labourer having better conditions than he has enjoyed up till now. We do not think the claim we put forward represents anything more than necessary to give to him something which is comparable to his fellow workers in the other industries of the country.
    Lieutenant-Colonel WHELER: The Huuse must, I think, rather regret the tone, at any rate, of the beginning of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The situation of agriculture is far too serious at the present time, and We had—speaking myself as an agriculturist—hoped from the hon. Gentleman that we should get some suggestion and advice, and possibly some policy; but so far as I can see, while he quite rightly, from the point of view of the agricultural, labourer, put forward his claims, he has never touched at all on the great economic question which has got to be faced. There is no doubt about it that we cannot make any man produce a thing which it does not pay him to produce. Therefore, you cannot compela man to employ labour to produce an article which he knows, when produced, is going to cause him serious loss. Though I believe every man in this House wishes, and is most anxious—and has been—to see the whole standard of agriculture, and especially the standard of the agricultural labourer, improved in every possible way, we have to come to the bedrock of the whole question before we can deal with this matter. It is no good anyone putting forward one aspect only, without considering the broad aspect of the industry as a whole. Therefore there must be a feeling of regret that the hon. Gentleman who spoke last has not contributed anything to the Debate in the way of solving the difficulties of the situation in which we are placed. The weatheris now causing thousands of acres to remain under water, and this is undoubtedly increasing the seriousness of the situation, and if we are to get the spring corn in, all these circumstances are making the position more difficult and oven disastrous to agriculturists at the present time. On behalf of the agricultural association I represent in the City

    2323
    Chamber of Agriculture I wish to emphasise the urgent need on the part of the Government of a definite policy. No agricultural association or agriculturist knows how he is going to fare or what his prospects will be in a year's time. We are secure as regards prices for the next winter, but every agriculturist, whether he be owner, farmer, or labourer, must look further ahead than one year. While it is true that on the good land money is made and will be made this year, I venture to say as one who has been endeavouring to farm scientifically and to the best advantage poor land, that land cannot stand the increased wages, and, therefore, although we want to pay the labourer well we have not got it to pay with, and the result may be that the land must go out of cultivation again. The laying down of land to grass is not a cheap matter—in fact, it is very expensive. It means very great care, not for one but for several years, to see that the grass seeds are properly treated, so as to give it a chance of getting thoroughly established. The laying down to grass is not an undertaking which can be lightly taken up by any agriculturist at the present time. I am asked by the Central Chamber of Agriculture to urge very strongly upon the hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Agriculture that it is time we had a very definite policy put forward, so that agriculturists know how they stand, and in order that theymay make their plans for a year to come.
    Allusion has been made to the speech of the Noble Lord who represents the Board of Agriculture in another place. In a speech last Tuesday the Noble Lord gave us some facts, and also a rather depressing summary of the situation, which he said was very difficult, but it was not entirely hopeless. He also said that something like 1,500,000 acres had been added to agriculture, and that there was a deficit of at least 150,000 men who were wanted for agriculture. Out of that 1,500,000 acres a very large proportion is not the very best land, because the very best land has been retained under cultivation, and, therefore, a very large percentage of that land will not, probably, pay in the ensuing year. Employment on the land is a very difficult question, and it is a question whether the farmer can afford to employ labour at the present crisis. Everybody wishes to see the condition of agriculture improved, but I am convinced—and it must be the opinion
    2324
    of every practical, thinking man in this House—that unless there is a definite policy it cannot be improved, because the security is not there. Agriculture suffers from the weather in a way no other industry does, and that fact has to be taken into consideration.All I wish to say is, I hope that before this Debate ends we shall have a definite statement from the hon. Gentleman representing agriculture in this House which will go forward as an encouragement to agriculturists, and I trust we shall then be able to continue our work during the coming year and maintain the standard which we have tried to maintain and bring agriculture up to during the War.
    Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: I wish at the outset to strenuously resent and refute the statement of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and who said that the interest taken in labour by those who represented agricultural constituencies in this House was an entirely newly-found one, and was merely a political hat-peg which they were using for their own interests. I havebeen in this House long enough to assure my hon. Friend that he is absolutely and entirely mistaken. I was enormously interested in my hon. Friend's speech, but if he will allow me, speaking for the National Agricultural Council, which represents all interests in this industry, I say that you cannot give any useful consideration to this question unless you recognise that the industry is a triumvirate, consisting of the landowner, the farmer, and the labourer, and all the three parts of the industry are absolutely interdependent one upon the other.
    I wish to see the labourer have the highest standard of wages that the economic condition of the industry will stand, but, equally, I cannot put out of my mind that the same industry has also at the same time to find a fair rate of interest for the moving capital and for the skill and energies of the farmers, and a fair return for the landlord. My hon. Friend makes a fundamental mistake if he imagines that he is going to get 50s., 60s., or 70s. a week for the labourer, because all that depends whether the occupier and the owner are making sufficient from an economic point of view to carry on and provide a living for all those engaged in the industry. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, and I feel that I owe him an apology, which I tender most fully now. For the last four

    2325
    weeks regularly for two days a week so much so that you, Mr. Speaker, have had to call me to order, I have deluged the hon. Member with questions on the agricultural situation, and he has always answered courteously, and no one recognises more than I do the difficulty of the position in which he is placed.
    I want to add another to the appeals which have been made to the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, and I place it on a different ground. Every single hon. Member here who was returned to support the Prime Minister is fully pledged to see that the agricultural industry flourishes. We have that responsibility to our constituents. The Prime Minister, with all the Celtic fervour and the emotional eloquence he has at his command, told the country on three different occasions that it was the definite policy of his Government, if returned to power, to see that the agricultural industry never fell back to the state it was in in the 'seventies and the eighties. We carry that responsibility on our shoulders, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture to recognise that, as the mouthpiece of the Prime Minister, we are entitled to ask how these promises are going to be put into operation.
    Then there, is another serious point. There is nothing so bad for the agricultural industry as a feeling of lack of confidence either in the words of the Prime Minister or in the Government Department which is responsible for agriculture. The agricultural industry is beginning to feel that they are going to be thrown over. I only want to say a word from the point of view of the labour position, which has considerably altered since the pre-war days. Then the agricultural labourer had not the advantage of the great organisation to which the hon. Member for Norfolk belongs or the Rural Workers'Union. He is now fully organised, and has the power of collective bargaining, which I am only too thankful to think he has got, and in my humbleway I have done everything I can to help and improve those organisations in the part of the world in which I am interested. I have obtained for them representation on the National Council, and they now have an equal right and can speak with unity and authority on the National Council. That is all to the good so long as collective bargaining is used only to improve the standard of life and the
    2326
    wages of the labourer, but if it is going to be used, as I am afraid it is being used, to engineer disturbance in the industrial world as well as the agricultural world, then I cannot be a party to advancing the interests of any one section of the agricultural community at the expense of the other. I say that because only this morning I received a letter from the secretary of the Agricultural Labourers'Union in the particular part of the world in which I find myself. The writer is a personal friend of mine who started life as an agricultural labourer, and he has worked himself up to the position of foreman on oneof the farms. He writes to me this morning as follows:
    "The aim of my youth is political power to be used for constitutional purposes. If you prefer to resort to Bolshevism, well you must take the consequences. We would like to remind you that behind the labourers'union stands the railway union, and behind the railway union stands the miners, and behind all three stand the soldiers and sailors of the country. Our members run from hundreds into millions, and our aim is political power. It rests with you, gentlemen, in Parliament, how we obtain it."
    I must say that if that is the sort of thing that is being instilled into the agricultural labourer by those who are responsible for the organisation of his union, I want here and now, at the earliest moment, to denounce it with all the language at my command. Do let us make these men understand that their future depends entirely on the economic prosperity of this industry and that they cannot possibly swim by sinking either the farmer or the landlord. I have toldthe men over and over again that their one, salvation is to ensure that they join hands with the other two interests and that by that means and that means only can they ensure a prosperous future. There is nothing so pointless as to endeavour to use thesemen for political purposes. A lot of them have joined this union wholly unconscious that they are being made the tools of a political movement. All I want to point out to them is that if they will stick to those whose interests are theirs, who belong to the same industry as themselves, and who have lived all our lives among them, I think we can carry them much further than if they link themselves up with a movement which, if its aims and objects are attained and the final goal reached, means the end of the agricultural prosperity of the country.
    In conclusion, I would point out to the House that it is no good our joining in a great campaign with organised labour on

    2327
    the one hand and farmers' unions and landowners' unions on the other. We shall never get any "forrader"by recriminations of that sort. Assuming that the wages fight goes on and there is no solution and you fight to the death, what happens? If the farmers win, the labourers go back to the time of 13s., 14s., and 15s. a week. None of us want to see that. If the labourers win, the farmer goes out of business. Again, where is the future of the industry? Do not let us recriminate in that way. Let us see if by joining hands we cannot impress ourselves so much on the country and on the Government that the whole industry will be placed on a sound economic basis. It is not for me, it is not for private Members here to say how this is to be done. I rely on the promises of the Prime Minister and on the performance of those promises. I most seriously urge the Parliamentary Secretary to realise that there is an extremely ugly feeling, not only among the farmers, but also among the labourers. Let my last word be this, that I hope by this discussion to-day we can bring all these three interests a little closer together and link them up in their own interest and go forward in this House and in the country to make the country feel that now the danger of war is over, at the same time it is up to the Government, in the interests of the nation as a whole and of this industry in particular, to see that neither the labourer on the one hand nor the farmer on the other is crushed out simply because the country has forgotten the history of the last four years.
    Mr. HARRY HOPE: The agricultural industry has never been a spoon-fed industry, and no one at this time would advocate that it should become so. We know that in the past our industry has gone through many hard times. Perhaps the hardest times of all were the years 1893–4, when wheat fell to something like 22s. a quarter. No doubt some of the results of those bad prices were what the hon. Member opposite has told us this afternoon, namely, that the agricultural labourers were badly paid, badly housed, and brought to work under conditions under which they should not have been asked to work. But, on the other hand, we can fairly say that the farmers of this country, by their energy and enterprise, have successfully managed their business. We see that the production per acre of our crops and the quality
    2328
    of our stock has been higher and better than that of any other country in the world. Therefore, in the face of all these adverse circumstances, we can credit the farmers of this country with having done their part of the work fairly well. The War came, and we know what was done then. We saw that something like 3,000,000 acres were added to the cultivated area of the country. May not we say that the farmers responded loyally and properly to the obligations which rested upon them? All that ought to win for the farmers at this time the sympathetic consideration of this House. We see now that a new state of affairs is opened up. Personally, I welcome very much what was said by the hon. Member who spoke from the Labour Benches, namely, that the labourers now were determined to get better terms and higher wages. They are entitled to get those higher wages and better terms, and it is quite possible for all sections of the industry to combine together and secure that great result. We know that economic laws cannot be disregarded, and that unless the price of the produce is sufficiently high, the land cannot be kept under cultivation to that produce if adequate wages are to be paid.
    Therefore, we are brought as practical men face to face with this question: How are you going in the future to enable these proper and adequate wages to be paid? We are bound to recognise that it is only possible if the prices obtained for the produce are compatible with those wages. It is not enough merely to consider what should be the fixed prices in the future for cereals. Cereals, after all, are not the pivotal crops in this country. I consider that our green crops are the pivotal crops, because any practical agriculturalist knows that if he goes on, year after year, growing cereal crops hisland will deteriorate and in a few years will grow nothing at all. If we are to consider how we are going to bring the best improvement to our agricultural position, we have to take into consideration the green crops. As I said at first, I am no believer in this industry being a spoon-fed industry. We who work in it have to exercise energy and enterprise in carrying it on and to make use of science in every direction where we can bring it in to help us. The green crop is the pivotal crop for our agricultural system, because without it the land cannot be kept in proper condition. As regards these green crops the Government can do a great deal to help us. For instance, they

    2329
    might do a great deal in connection with the potato crop. I am not asking them tofix prices for the 1919 crop of potatoes, although I should like to see them do it. But by establishing mills, if you found a large quantity of potatoes in excess of the natural requirements for which potatoes are grown, they could be utilised, and thereby farmers would be encouraged to grow more of that valuable crop. They might also establish sugar-beet factories. They would thereby bring into being an outlet for another green crop which would be of immense benefit to our agricultural system. Not only would it bring into existence an outlet for a green crop, but it would encourage the growing of leguminous crops, which would do an enormous amount of good in the way of improving the soil. In all these directions the Department of Agriculture might do a great deal to help us without in any way giving a dole.
    There is a responsibility resting upon every cultivator of the soil at the present time. We want the proper and the best use to be made of it. No bad farmer should be allowed to occupy land in the country, and if we had, as the hon. Member for the Wellingborough Division (Mr. W. R. Smith) said, procedure brought into being whereby farming would have to be carried up to a certain standard of excellence, we should do a great deal to remove the feeling of unrest and suspicion to which he referred. On the other hand, I consider that farmers would benefit very much at the present time if they had more of what I might call security of tenure. We know that an enormous amount of land is changing hands, and has been changing hands in recent years. We all know how well the old owners who used to possess that land treated their tenants. But that land now is passing into the hands of others who look upon land more from a commercial point of view than did the old families previously. Therefore I think you would probably find at the present time that the farmers of this country would be in a position to lay out more capital on improvements, and would be better able to develop their land to its highest possible pitch of productivity, if they had more security of tenure. A few years ago I introduced a Bill into this House providing that by a system of Arbitration to be established security of tenure might be obtained. Now, when we see so much land passing into changed ownership, I think there is almost more
    2330
    need than then for a system of arbitration to be brought into being, so that the farmers of the country would know that if they farmed their land according to the best rules of husbandry, and if they showed themselves experts at their business, they would be secure in their occupancy. Besides that, I think it might be of great assistance of a practical kind to the country if our Board of Agriculture would do a little more in the way of experiment. We see how, in othercountries—in the Colonies and in America, for instance—the various Departments of Agriculture carry on experimental work, and give instruction in all branches of farming, which brings in a more skilled and highly-trained class of worker to carry on the work. Therefore it would be well if our Department of Agriculture would only copy some of the good work which is being done in other countries, and is being done, also, in Ireland. We do not need to go to Ireland very often to get an example, but I think that on this occasion we can profitably look to what is going on in Ireland. If we could only follow the good work which the Board of Agriculture there has been doing for some years, we might, by bringing technical instruction, experimental work, and research work more into this business, which is of national importance, do a great deal to improve the productivity of our work. In all those ways, I think, we can, directly and indirectly, bring benefits to bear on this great national industry of agriculture. On the other hand, do not let us forget the great economic law, which has been referred to by every speaker, that the price of the produce must be such as would enable a fair wage to be paid and proper conditions to exist in the industry.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I cannot complain of the fact that my hon. Friends have brought forward this question again, I think, for the third time in a Session which is yet young, because I know they are dealing with a very serious matter, and that they feel very strongly about it. Their demand that there should be a definite agricultural policy is, in my opinion, a perfectly proper demand to make. I regret that, owing to the difficult position in which I havebeen placed, I have not been able fully to answer their demands up to the present moment, but I can assure them that the

    2331
    promises which were made by the Prime Minister, and which were supplemented by the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister again on the eve of the election, that agriculture is not to be allowed to slip back into the condition of neglect in which it had existed for so long before the War, are going to be carried out. It has been only on account of the tremendous preoccupation ofthe present day—you have only got to take all the circumstances of to-day, the Peace Conference in Paris at its most critical stage, the terrible industrial unrest which is pressing, I hope, to a satisfactory solution—that it has been impossible for the Government to deal adequately with the subject up to the present time. My hon. Friend who spoke first in this Debate referred to a speech by my Noble Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, which he seemed to think was couched in terms of pessimism. He spoke about my Noble Friend having suggested that the outlook for agriculture was black, and that the whole question was whether the farmers were going down with the flag flying or not. I do not think my Noble Friend intended anything ofthe kind, and, for my part, I am not prepared to believe that agriculture is doomed in any way. I certainly do not believe that it is going down, either with the flag flying or in any other way. If I did, I certainly would not occupy for a moment the position which I hold at the present time. I believe that the agricultural interest which weathered the storm of the great depression of twenty or thirty years ago and which, when it was called upon, rose so splendidly to the emergency in regard to food production during the War, will rise to this present position, and I am perfectly certain that the Government does not intend to leave it in the lurch.
    May I say one or two words about specific questions which have been asked me, some of them by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Lieutenant-Colonel Weigall). I do not object to his reiterated question at all. The question of this year's cereal prices has been debated more than once, and a statement was made by the President of the Board of Agriculture, last November, to the effect that the cereal prices for the 1919 crop would not be less than those then current. I had hoped to be able to say this evening precisely how that was going to be carried out. I have been present at several conferences on the
    2332
    subject, and I do not mind saying that the matter was considered by the Home Affairs Committee this morning. I had hoped that the Cabinet would have been able to give me a specific statement this-afternoon. That was not the case, owing to theirpre-occupation. But I can say in the first place that it is proposed, so far as possible, to carry out the pledge on the principle of the Corn Production Act, that is to say, to pay the difference on an acreage basis between the average market price and the guaranteed price. That is the proposal, and it has this advantage, that it is the plan to which the House assented in relation to the Corn Production Act. I would enter one caveat, however. In the case of wheat, the matter is comparatively simple, as practically all the wheat is sold off the farm for human consumption, and so on. But when you come to oats and barley the position is not quite the same. Take oats, for example. The greater part of the oats grown on the farm are consumed on that farm, and are not sold off. I do not suppose it is really intended that the farmer should be paid the full amount of the difference between the market price and the guaranteed price on that part of the oats that are not sold off but are merely fed on his own farm.
    An HON MEMBER: Why not?
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Might I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether that was not understood in the House at the time the Corn Production Act was passed?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, as regards the Corn Production Act, but I am now dealing with the question of the cereals grown in the year 1919, and we are giving a very much higher figure than the figure in the Corn Production Ast.
    Major WOOD: I only want to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in order to make the point quite clear, why it costs less to grow oats to be eaten on the farm than it does to grow oats to be sold?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It does not cost less, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will take the actual words used in the pledge given, he will see. I will read them. The question was asked by the hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) whether the prices paid for cereals in 1919 will be not less than those then current? "Price paid" obviously

    2333
    means a, sale, and we hold that the pledge is quite properly and fully fulfilledif we deal only with what is sold, and not with what is consumed on the farm. I have merely said that this is a proposal. It was put forward by the President of the Board of Agriculture and, as he announced in his speech at Taunton, no definite conclusion has been reached on it. In any case we shall have to fix the figure which would represent a fair proportion of what on the average is sold off, and what on the average is consumed on the farm.
    Lieutenant-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean that if one farmer sold to a neighbouring farmer, then there would be a Government guarantee in regard to what was sold?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No; if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had followed me he would have seen that it is proposed to pay on an acreage basis, and if, for example, we said that half the oats were sold on the average and half were consumed on the farm, the plain fact would be this, that we should not pay on the whole of the acreage—we should pay on a half of it. Therefore youwill strike an average in respect of farms alike. I will not pursue this further, but I hope a full statement will be made shortly, and I should like to assure the House that the Government are aware of the pledge they have made, and that they are prepared to carry it out in a manner which they believe will be absolutely fair. Equally, with regard to barley, the proposal is that we should not pay on the entire acreage but only on a proportion, because, as everybody knows, though the greater part of the barley is sold for malting purposes, a certain amount of English barley is used, as a rule, for feeding on the farms.
    Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: May I ask what is to happen to the farmer who grows no malting barley?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Again, my answer is that it is going to be done on the acreage system, and the proposal is that we should pay on four-fifths and not on the whole of the acreage. May I come to the much bigger point of the policy of the future? I have been pressed very much here to indicate some extension and some amendment of the Corn Production Act. I realise, as fully as any man, that if we
    2334
    are to carry on the extension of farming; which has occurred during the War, the Corn Production Act will have to be extended and amended. Later on I hope an announcement will be made on that subject. The matter is one of supreme importance on account of the Labour question, which was mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend who spoke first, and also by other speakers.
    7.0 p.m.
    I should like to say a word on the question of the labour we have available. It is perfectly true that for the last few years we have been working our farms with a great shortage of labour. Before the War there were 718,000 male labourers employed on the farms. The number regularly employed at the time of the Armistice had fallen to 412,000—that is to say there was a deficiency of 306,000. Since then 161,000 agriculturists have been demobilised, and they are being demobilised as rapidly as possible. At present something like 2,500 are being demobilised a day. Deducting 161,000 from the number I have given, it reduces the deficiency to 145,000. That, I grant, is serious, and I cannot see how very largely to improve on it. A very large number of the agriculturists were enlisted after the big German push a year ago. They, therefore, enlisted long after 1st January, 1916, and they are not eligible for demobilisation. Still, the Board of Agriculture is using, every possible effort to induce the War Office to demobilise agriculturistswherever possible, and I think the fact that 2,500 a day are being demobilised is some proof that our efforts have not been altogether unavailing. The figure is rather better than I have given, because at present we still have 30,000 soldiers of the agricultural wages company working, we have 30,000 German prisoners, and we have 10,000 women of the Land Army who are doing splendid work in place of the men. Of course, the prisoners will go, and a certain number more of the Agricultural Companies will be demobilised. Still, that reduces the deficiency by 70,000.
    But there is a far more serious problem than the question of the actual number employed, and that is the rate of wages. You may demobilise the agricultural labourers in the Army, but you cannot be surethat they will go back to agriculture. You can take a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink Here we are up against a great difficulty. Notwithstanding all that is being done by agricultural

    2335
    wages boards, and so on, to improve the positionof the agricultural labourer, he remains, I am sorry to say, a good deal worse paid than men in other industries, and if he sees a chance of getting into another industry we cannot prevent him, and into another industry he will go. This labour question seems to me to lie at the root of the whole agricultural question. What has happened in regard to agricultural labour? There has been a large increase in money wages. They have gone up, roughly, I suppose, since the War began, something like 80 to 100 per cent. In 1907 the average wage for agricultural labour in England was 18s. 4d. There is no absolutely certain figure I can give later than 1907. Now it is 33s., taking all classes, but it is only fair to say while there has been this increase in money wages,having regard to the extra cost of living, there has been no real increase at all in real wages, and the agricultural labourer to-day, having regard to what he has to buy and consume, is no better off relatively than he was tome time ago. But that is notall. He is asking for better conditions, and, whatever our political views may be, it is very difficult for any of us to refuse to have sympathy with his ideals. I am sure, if the agricultural labourer could be not a mere drudge, if he could have somethingbetter for himself and his family, greater opportunities for living a broader and a bigger life, and better chances of education for his children, we should all desire it, and with the ideal of a better life we are all in sympathy. The whole question is Can the industry afford it? That is where the absolute duty of the Government comes in to make the conditions of agriculture such that we can support not only a prosperous race of tenant farmers, but also agricultural labourers enjoying not merely a livingwage but one which will enable them to better themselves and go ahead in this world. How is that to be done? It seems to me to be an absolutely certain argument first of all for the extension, amendment, and adaptation to present conditions of the Corn Production Act, and I should be only too glad if I could announce that such a thing had been settled to-day. But, for the reasons I gave on a previous occasion, at a time when the world prices of commodities are so doubtful, this is hardly the moment in which to make a definite fixture. You might fix it either too high or too low
    2336
    and suffer in consequence. But still it seems to me, if the Corn Production Act was rendered necessary in order that we might have that increase in money wages that we have already, if it is to be maintained, certainly if it is to be improved upon, you must have an extension and amendment of the Act. It is a temporary Act. The Agricultural Wages Board is a temporary measure. The minimum wage depends upon a temporary Act. I do notbelieve this House, I do not believe public opinion in the country, and I do not believe the Labour Party is ever going to allow this Agricultural Wages Board and the minimum wage to disappear. That in itself means an extension of the Corn Production Actand when it is extended in one direction it must be extended in all—the guaranteed price, the minimum wage and the control over farming to see that it is properly conducted, all of which are contained in the Corn Production Act.
    But I will appeal tomy hon. Friends who are so interested in this subject and in this great industry that we must not depend for the future of agriculture simply and solely on Government subsidies or doles. There are other ways. I am not rejecting this way—I think itis necessary—but there are other ways whereby we can assist agriculture and by which I think agriculture will have a great chance. The guaranteed price is for cereals, but cereals are not the only thing. There may be a considerable fall in the priceof cereals, I cannot tell. But apart from that there is going to be a very big development in other directions. I think there is going to be a big development in live stock, in milk and in meat. There has been vast devastation in Europe, and we are beingcalled upon to try to supply people with cattle in the devastated areas of France and Belgium. I think there will be a big demand for export, which will be profitable to our farmers, in the restocking of the devastated areas of the world. I believe a greatdeal more can be done in the production of milk. I am told by those who study these things that a great deal more milk ought to be consumed in this country. I have some rather interesting figures. For the country generally the consumption of milk is about a quarter of a pint a head a day. Consumption is at its highest at Bournemouth, where it is about half a pint a head a day, but in some places it is very low. In Hull it is only a seventh. In London it is about a

    2337
    quarter, which is about the average for the whole country. In New York it is about a half, but I cannot give any definite figure as to what it may be in America generally. I am convinced that more milk should be consumed in this country, and that there is a great opportunity for additional and better dairy farming than we have at present. That does not necessarily imply that our land which has been ploughed up is to go back to grass. Certainly the last thing we desire to see is land which was ploughed up during the War tumbling back to grass.It is an old theory in this country that in order to produce meat and milk on a large scale it is quite necessary to have a great deal of grass land. I think that theory has been questioned, and to some extent exploded by recent investigations. I will quote the Report of the Agricultural Policy Subcommittee on Reconstruction—
    "The impression exists in certain quarters that more milk and meat can be produced on grass than on arable land. This impression is quite unfounded. The reverse is nearer the truth of the case. As a general proposition, it is correct to assert that more milk and meat can be produced on a given acreage of arable than from the same acreage of grass, although it in probable that from the economic standpoint a considerable area willalways be under grass. The agriculture of Denmark is an interesting illustration. In Denmark there is hardly any permanent grass. Almost the whole of the farmed land is under rotation of crops, and yet Denmark carries a specially heavy proportion of livestock to the acre."
    I submit that it is not necessary that all this land which has been put under the plough should go back to grass if we develop our production of milk and meat. I believe a great deal can be done most profitably by farmers at the present time in that direction.
    I said just now that our agricultural policy must not consist merely in a crutch, in a guarantee, in a Government subsidy on the price of cereals. What else can we do? I can tell the House what else can be done and what is being done. The Board of Agriculture is taking every conceivable step to increase agricultural education and research, because we believe in that way lies the hope of the future. It is quite true that for a long time very little was done in this country. In the year before the War the total amount expended out of public funds in agricultural education and research was £120,790. That does not compare very well with £840,000 spent in Canada, £1,000,000 spent in France, and £4,000,000 spentin the United States of
    2338
    America. In our Estimates of this year we are providing for these objects £227,000, and, in addition to that, we have £35,000 which will come from the local rates—a total of £262,000. My belief is that that money will be very well expended in research and in providing an agricultural education, which means progress and improved and greater production all over the country. Research comes before all things. Our total of knowledge is increased by research, and therefore we propose to spend much more in research in the present year. One hon. Member spoke about the absence of any plan of ascertaining the cost of the production of any particular kind of agricultural products. In connection with what we arespending on research we have an institute at Oxford which is engaged in determining farming costs, and I hope that will be of the greatest value to farmers, if they will only take advantage of it and co-operate in what we are doing.
    Secondly, there is collegiate education. We have our colleges for those who are going to be large farmers, or the sons of large farmers, or who are going to become land agents or managers of land. We have our farm institutes for the sons of smaller farmers, where they can go fora short course and at the same time retain practical touch with the land, and we are trying to establish, and have got Treasury sanction to establish, ten demonstration farms, where new processes, or at all events processes which are new to particular neighbourhoods, will be carried out on strict commercial lines so that the results can be seen and made known. For example, as regards the question of the production of milk on arable land, we hope to establish ten of these stations to show what can be done successfully on a commercial basis with a view to utilising some of the land that has been ploughed up. We all know with what immense and good results certain parts of the country can be used for market gardening—for vegetables and fruit. See what has been done at places like Evesham, or in Cambridgeshire, at Wisbech, by intensive cultivation, and what large profits have been made. In our opinion a demonstration farm, where the land is suitable, and which can show what can be done in a neighbourhood where it has not been attempted up to date will be very valuable. There, again, we hope to assist agriculture.

    2339
    Take transportation. There can be no doubt that the farmer suffers terribly, especially in the remote country districts, through want of transport facilities. Under the new Bill for Ways and Communications that question is to be tackled. Already the Board of Agriculture have taken certain steps. We have acquired a great deal of information as to places where suitable motor services can be established or light railways can be laid down for the purpose of collecting the agricultural produce and taking it to the main transit line, and thereby getting it more rapidly to market than at the present time. That is not all. The Board have a plan, whereby before the Ministry of Ways and Communications actually gets to work, we may experiment in districts which we regard as particularly suitable. For instance, in the Biggleswade district of Bedfordshire, as soon as we get Treasury sanction, we propose to lay down a line of about twenty-five miles. There is to be a smaller scheme in the Fen district, and another small scheme in market gardening districts in Worcestershire. In certain parts of Cornwall we are proposing a big system of motor lorries to collectthe produce and take it either straight to market or to the transit lines. My belief is that we can greatly help agriculture by developing this transportation as soon as possible. Then there is organisation and co-operation. In every way we are trying topromote more co-operation among farmers, so that they may both buy and sell to the best advantage. To-day the farmer neither buys nor sells to the best advantage. I am glad to say that the principle of co-operation is growing, and much is being done by the Agricultural Organisation Society, which we are supporting as far as we can. We hope to help agriculture in that way.
    The Government are absolutely determined that they will not abandon their pledges to agriculture, and I must ask hon. Members to make allowances for the present difficulty and not to complain unduly if I am not in a position to announce everything. I can assure my hon. Friends we are very sympathetic. We are well aware of their difficulties. We know that the farmer's position to-day is particularly difficult. We know that the position of the labourer is difficult and that the position at the moment is critical, and we are trying in every possible way to see that agriculture shall be supported
    2340
    by the State and not allowed to drift as inthe past. We realise that in this transitory period of peace and war there must be guaranteed prices at a high figure, as in this year, and we realise also that for several years to come—I cannot say for how long—a State guarantee is absolutely necessary if farming is to go on and the labourers are to be paid a sufficient wage; but we say that there are other ways in which agriculture can be helped. Speaking for the Board and speaking for a band of officials second to none in this country, men whose knowledge is of the best and who are some of the ablest administrators we possess, I can assure the House that we are doing everything possible to guide and direct agriculture into the best course. Whereas, in the past the Board was regarded rather as a negative department to carry out certain acts of Parliament and to act as a sort of policeman, more or less, we now realise that our duty is to do all we can for what I may call the constructive development of agriculture.
    Mr. ACLAND: I realise that the House has not been filling up in order to listen to me. I know that the Leader of the House is going to make a statement, and I will not commit the solecism of continuing my speech a moment after he comes to tell us something about matters of far moreimportance. We realise that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture has done his best in difficult circumstances. The Government not having made up their minds what the agricultural policy is to be, he could only report progress and say, "Let us wait and see, and let us hope that they will give a decision at the earliest possible time."Let me utter one word of warning. It is a mistake to think that this House or the country will accept complacently a policy which merely guarantees a minimumprice for agricultural produce. That, of course, is not what the farmers are wanting. They want to get rid of all control and to get permanently as high prices as they can. That will not do. I hope it will not be proposed by the Government. If it were proposed by the Government, it might for a time be accepted by the House and the country, but in that sort of policy there is not stability or chance of stability. Elections come and elections go, and parties change, and a policy which merely guaranteed prices and a certain standard of wages could not in this country be permanent. There seems

    2341
    to me to be only two conditions in which there is any probability of anything like stability in the policy of guaranteeing minimum prices for agricultural produce. Those conditions are, in the first place, that the country should agree that agriculture is for the future to make a perfectly definite and agreed contribution towards national safety. There is no doubt that farmers in general and all agriculturists have welcomed the present removal of restrictions, a sign that in all probability those powers will never be resumed; that they were in for easy times for the rest of their lives and that they may go back to grass, which pays and is easier and less risky. Therewill be other opportunities of developing this matter, but let me assure the representative of the Board of Agriculture that unless the Government announce some perfectly definite plan of maintaining food production and arable cultivation, so that in a time of emergency this country shall be self-supporting in its food supply the great parties in this country will not think that there is sufficient quid pro quo in the arrangement to consent to pay a higher price for home-grown food, as has been proposed. The suggestion that because farmers have to pay wages, therefore they can draw indefinitely on the profits of the taxpayers for a guaranteed price will not permanently hold the field. The country must be convinced that it is getting a national food supply, a better food supply and a better organised food supply, if it is to be asked to pay the farmer an extra price for what he produces.

  COAL INDUSTRY.
    COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

      GOVERNMENT DECISION.
      Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I am sorry to have tointerrupt the speech of my right hon. Friend, but as I indicated at Question Time, I hoped to be in a position to make some statement on the Labour situation, and the House will recognise the seriousness of that situation, and the necessity of making a statement as soon as possible. I should like here to claim the indulgence of the House for this reason: it is obvious, as I have only had the Reports for a very short time, that my statement must be
      2342
      less complete than I should desire. There are, as theHouse well knows, three directions in which at the present moment Labour trouble is threatening. First, there are the transport workers. With regard to them I can only say this, that under the direction and the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour (Sir R. Horne), negotiations have been going on for some time between the employers and the men. The offers of the employers to the men seemed to the Minister of Labour and to myself to be reasonable, and I have good reason to hope that theyare not unacceptable to the men. As regards the railways, negotiations are also going on at this moment. I had hoped to be able to give to the House now a clear statement of what the demands of the men are, what they mean in money, and in the same way whatthe offer of the Government is. It is not possible for me to do that now, though I hope that a statement may be issued in time to appear in the papers to-morrow morning which will convey the position quite fully to the public. Meantime, however, I think it right to say that the Government have made this definite proposal: that the wages of the railway workers—and by wages I mean not only the fixed pre-war wage but the war bonus—will be retained at their present level until the end of the current year. In addition to that, the men have pressed particular demands, which I cannot discuss now, which will involve an additional expenditure which it is impossible to estimate, but it will be considerable. I cannot give any estimate that is more than aguess, but I think that it is perhaps right that I should give to the House some indication of the guess, and it is nothing more, which has been put before us by those who are responsible for these negotiations. It may be a sum of something over £10,000,000. I would point out to the House that, in the present position of the railways, that is a very serious thing. As indicated when the Ways and Communications Bill was under discussion, some addition to the railway rates is in any case inevitable, and it must be obvious to the House, and to the public, that these additional concessions will probably have the result of making that increase even larger than it otherwise would be. I think it right that not only Members of this House, but the public generally, and railwaymen in particular, should realise to what extent we have gone in endeavouring to meet the claims that have been put forward.

      2343
      Now I come to the Coal Commission Report. Three Reports have been presented, and will be available to Members in the Vote Office when I sit down. The first of these to which I will refer is the Report of the miners'representatives, which has also been signed by the three gentlemen who were put on specially to represent Labour. I need not now go in detail into that Report. I think it is sufficient to say that it recommends the granting of the full demands of the miners, including nationalisation. A second Report has been issued by the representatives of the coal owners. They report that wages should be increasedat once to the extent of 1s. 6d. per day, and that the hours of labour should be reduced from eight, at which they now stand, to seven. There is, in addition to these two Reports, the Report of Mr. Justice Sankey, which has also been signed by the three representatives of the employers who are not concerned with the coal industry and it is to that Report that I shall refer in some detail. In the first case this Report recommends that there should be an immediate advance in wages of 2s. per day, which is, itis perhaps as well to say, two-thirds of the full demand made by the men. As regards hours, this Report recommends that there should be an immediate reduction, that is assuming the necessary arrangements can be made—the date is fixed at the 16th ofJuly—to seven hours. But in addition it recommends that two years after that date there should be a further reduction to six hours, but that is qualified by the recognition of the necessity for some examination at the end of 1920 as to what the position of the coal industry is. I think perhaps that it is right that I should read the exact words of this recommendation:
      "We recommend that the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, commonly called the Eight Hours Act, be amended by the substitution in the Clauses, limiting the hours of work underground, of the word 'seven' for the word 'eight'as from July 16th, 1919, and, subject to the economic position of the industry at the end of 1920, by the substitution of the word 'six' for the word 'eight' as and from July 13th, 1921. Certain adjustments must be made as to hours and classes of under ground workers specifically mentioned."
      And in regard to the proposal that the hours should be reduced to six in 1920 the Report gives the reason for coming to this eonclusion in these words:
      "The reason for recommending the further reduction in July, 1921, is that we think we are
      2344
      justified in assuming that in two years the output would have reached, by the united efforts of all concerned, the amount of coal raised in 1913, namely, 287,000,000 tons."
      As regards the cost of the Committee's recommendations, I think it right to give the estimate given in the Report. The additional cost for the current year is put at £43,000,000, but it is part of the proposal in this Report that the profits of the coal masters should be limited to 1s. 2d. per ton, and it is estimated that the difference between the limit of profit and the profits which under present circumstances might be obtained is £39,000,000, but againstthat the Report recognises that there must be a fall in the value of the coal for export which will take away £9,000,000, and on that basis £30,000,000 will be got and there will remain £13,000,000 as an additional burden. But it is right to point out to the House, what is evident to those who are giving thought to this subject, that the £30,000,000 which is to be deducted from the whole £43,000,000 is not, as might be assumed, simply taken from the profits of the coal masters and given to the miners. On the contrary, under the Excess Profits Acts a very large part of it, very much more than half of it, comes to the State. Therefore, in estimating the amount offered to the miners under this Report, we must take into account not merely the £13,000,000, but a very large part of the £30,000,000 as being directly paid by the taxpayers of this country.
      The next point to which I shall refer in this Report is the question of nationalisation. The Report does not recommend nationalisation, but I think it right to read the exact words dealing with this subject which are in the Report.
      "Even from the evidence already given the present system of ownership and working in the coal industry stands condemned, and some other system must be substituted for it, either nationalisation or a method of unification by national purchase, and, or, joint control. To some of our colleagues, whose opinion we greatly value, nationalisation has been the study or ambition of a lifetime, and they are prepared at once to report in its favour. We understand that to others, whose opinion we equally value, some scheme of joint control appears to be the solution of the problem. No detailed scheme for nationalisation has as yet been submitted to the Commission, nor has any scheme for joint control been placed before it. No sufficient evidence has as yet been taken and no sufficient criticism has as yet been made to show where nationalisation or a method of unification by national purchase and, or, by joint control is best in the interests of the country, of the export trade, of the workers and the owners. We are not prepared to report one way or the other now on evidence which is at present insufficient, and

      2345
      after a time which is wholly inadequate, nor are we prepared to give now a momentous decision upon a point which interests every citizen of this country, nor, as appears from the report above referred to did our Chairman ever pledge himself to do so."
      As the House knows, Mr. Justice Sankey gave a promise to the Prime Minister that he would report on hours and wages on the 20th of this month. He has kept his promise. At the same time he made it perfectly plain that in his view it was quite impossible to report in such a time on the subject of nationalisation. That view was, I thought at the time and I still think, recognised as inevitable by the country, by the House of Commons, and, indeed, by the Labour representatives when the discussion took place. It seemed indeed to me, and I am sure the House will agree, that no Government, no party, and no House of Commons should take a decision so momentous, and which affects vitally the life of the whole community without proper examination. On the other hand, I have had a long conversation with Mr. Justice Sankey this afternoon. He is prepared and has given me a similar pledge to that which he gave to the Prime Minister, to this effect, that if the Commission is allowed to continue its work he will undertake to report on the principle of nationalisation bythe 20th May. Now the problem—it is one which leaders of the miners have to decide—is whether or not, so far as this aspect of the question is concerned, they will wait a time which in the view of everyone must appear not only reasonable but remarkably short, or whether they will insist on the decision now, when it is obvious to everyone no decision can be taken except by those who have entirely prejudged the question.
      But this is not the full Report of Mr. Justice Sankey and those of his colleagues who have signed it. It is a very ambitious Report. I think it is a very statesmanlike Report. It proposes, if the Commission is allowed to continue, to deal one by one with all the problems of economy and improvement in connection with the coal industry. I will mention some of the problems as they are specified in the Report. Housing. With regard to that I may say that this Report, without making any definite recommendation, urges that full and careful consideration should be given to the suggestion that one penny per ton on all coal extracted should
      2346
      be used for the purpose of improving housing in the mining districts, and that is one of the problems which this Commission seeks permission to deal with. Among the others are baths at the pit head, clearance, continuity of transport from the colliery, reduction of voluntary absenteeism, the use of machinery in mines, pooling of wagons, elimination of unnecessary distribution costs and uniformity of contracts. If this Commission is allowed to continue, what is proposed is that it should from time to time issue interim Reports dealing with all these questions, and that these should be not merely reports, but that the proposals should at once be put into action. That is the suggestion. It involves thecontinuance of the Coal Control for a certain length of time—probably two years, for in no other way could these interim Reports be tried, and in addition the continuance of the Coal Control is necessary for this reason, that if the proper output from all mines is to be obtained it may be necessary to put in improvements, such as coal cutting machinery, which would be possible under this arrangement since the whole coal trade is treated as a unit, but for which it might be impossible to obtain the capital if left in ordinary circumstances.
      This proposal, as I have said, is a very ambitious one. In regard to this whole Report we have had it discussed at the Cabinet this afternoon, and I say now on behalf of the Government that we are prepared to adopt the Report in the spirit as well as in the letter, and to take out all the necessary steps to carry out its recommendations without delay. I submit to the House that there never has been so good an opportunity of all these problems being considered and dealt with, with a view of having the trials judged by experience and the total results focussed in a Bill before control comes to an end—there never has been such an opportunity for real progress being made in connection with the coal industry. But the House must see that that does not now depend on the Government. We have said that we will adopt this Report so far as we are concerned. But if strikes take place, of course the Commission inevitably comes to an end; it is quite obvious it cannot go on sitting under such circumstances. I am sure of this, that the miners' leaders never had and will never again have such a good opportunity of

      2347
      having all their problems, including nationalisation, considered by a Commission which has shown itself very sympathetic to the miners'demands. They will never have such an opportunity again, and if they reject it, it will be, I believe, the greatest mistake which has ever been made by the leaders of a great industry and by men who, in my belief, have the interests of the men at heart. That is all that I intend to say on the subject. But before I sit down there is something else which I must say as regards nationalisation. I am sure there is no one in the House, and I feel certain the miners'leaders themselves will recognise it, who could maintain that such a subject as this, which does not affect a particular trade alone but which affects the whole life of the nation, is a subject which can never be decided by any section, however important it may be, of the nation, but must be decided by the Parliament which represents the community. I wish to say, further, that the Government has shown a desire to go to the utmost limits, to take the greatest risks, risks of experiments which I have indicated, as well as on the question of wages—they have shown their determination to go to the utmost limits which they believe are possible in order to meet the demands of the men at this time. But this, if the strike comes, will not be like an ordinary strike; it will not bea strike of wage-earners against their employers. In the case, both of the railways and the coal mines, the employers under present conditions are the State. It would, if it comes, be a strike against the community. The Government have gone all lengths toavoid such a calamity. If such a strike comes the Government—and no Government could do otherwise—will use all the resources of the State without the smallest hesitation—
      HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
      Mr. JOHN JONES: We might talk just as big.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry if—
      Mr. BRACE: They regard it as a threat.
      Mr. JONES: Then let them stop shouting.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Then I will continue—
      Mr. JONES: We object to the cheering.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite feel the seriousness of the situation, and they will recognise that I am dealing with it in a serious spirit.
      Mr. JONES: Keep some of these people quiet.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: We shall, and no Government could do otherwise, use all the resources of the State to win, and to win quickly. This is not a threat. I am sure my right hon. Friend recognises that.
      Mr. ADAMSON: Hear, hear!
      Mr. BONAR LAW: No Government could possibly do otherwise. If in a strike between any section, however important and however much sympathy we may have with it—between any section and the community as a whole, of which the Government is representative—if such a struggle comes it can have only one end or there is an end of government in this country.
      Mr. JONES: Do not gloat over it.

    EGYPT.
    8.0 P.M.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I understand that the subject of the Coal Commission is not to be debated to-night, and that the discussion is to continue on the Consolidated Fund Bill on other matters. So far, this afternoon, agricultural topics have been under consideration, but by an arrangement with the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs I desire to raise the question of Egypt. At this present moment the condition of Egypt is causing considerable disquiet amongst those who care both for Egypt itself and for the part which the British nation has played in bringing that country to a pitch of prosperity and progress which it has never known in all the days of its age-long history. Readers of papers have been much disturbed during the last few days by accounts of riots and the cutting of communications between Alexandria and Cairo, and of the general political unrest in that country, and I rise this evening to ask the representative of the Foreign Office in this House if he will give us somethingmore than was given by the Lord President of the Council in another place with regard to the origin of the troubles now prevalent in Egypt, and with regard to the policy which His Majesty's Government intend to pursue in future in that country. In particular I

    2349
    want to ask the hon. Gentleman if he will give us fuller information regarding the events which led up to the unfortunate resignation of the Prime Minister in Egypt. I have considerable personal regard for the Prime Minister of Egypt, who, before the War and throughout the War, has loyally stood by England, and has done his best throughout his long official life to work with the British as the British have done to work with him, for the prosperity and good government of this country. I approach this question as one who is, above all, anxious to see British influence and British control maintained in Egypt. It is not merely essential from the point of view of British interests throughout the world—in the interest of the communications of theBritish. Empire—but, having some considerable acquaintance with Egypt, I am absolutely convinced that British influence and British control must be maintained if Egypt is to continue to prosper and to advance. We are in Egypt, not for our own purposes so much as to help Egypt, and the record of England's work in Egypt, from the time when Lord Cromer first became Consul General, is one of which every Britisher is proud. It is most unfortunate that the end of the War, in which our troops operating from Egypt have defended that country from German and Turkish aggression, should be marked by unpleasant scenes, and by the bad news that we have had during the last week.
    I would like to tell the House why, in my opinion, it is absolutely necessary in the interests of Egypt herself, that British influence and British control should be maintained. Take the irrigation service alone. The life-blood of Egypt is the water of the Nile, and it is absolutely essential that the greatest amount of engineering skill which is available should be applied to the conservation and the distribution of its water. It is only people who have been in Upper Egypt—south of Cairo—during the heat of the summer, in June and July, when water is short and when every cultivator in Egypt regards every drop of water as something to be eagerly sought, who knows the real value of the skilled British irrigation service. If you remove that service, I am perfectly confident that there are thousands of peasants in lower reaches and the Delta of the Nile who will not get a drop of
    2350
    water. I have been up on the irrigation launches with the British and Scottish and Irish engineers, whose duty it is to gauge the coming flood and its exact height and to see that in each particular district the local population build up the banks of the Nile not for the immediate use and protection of the people of that district but for the use and the protection of the crops of people hundreds of miles below. I am convinced, if British influence and the British irrigation service were withdrawn from Egypt, that thousands of acres would go out of perennial cultivation, that the prosperity of that country would go down, that unrest and injustice in regard to water distribution would increase, and that, instead of getting as you do get under British guidance and with British help literally millions of acres brought under perennial cultivation for the first time in history, and instead of perpetually increasing the food and cotton crops, you would have the same terrible state of affairs that you had in Egypt during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when things were left more or less to themselves.
    I have the firm conviction that British influence and British control must be maintained in Egypt not merely in our own Imperial interests—they are obvious, the Suez Canal being truly the neck of the British Empire and the foreign policy of Egypt being one that it is absolutely essential that we should control—but in the interests of Egypt herself. The present situation which has led to the resignation of the Egyptian Cabinet, the trial and deportation of the leaders of the Nationalist party, followed by riots of a somewhat serious kind, has come from a situation which I certainly think that a great many people have foreseen, or should have foreseen. What is the fact? I In the early days of the War the political status of Egypt was changed. A British Protectorate was declared, the Ottoman suzerainty was done away with, and in place of a British Consul-General a British High Commissioner was appointed to advise the Sultan in the selection of his Ministers and in the government of the country. We established a Sultanate in the place of a Khediviate and made quite superficial changes in the constitution of Egypt. It was understood by everybody in Egypt that our declaration of a Protectorate in war-time would, as soon as peace was declared, have to be denned in greater detail, and that some definite statement

    2351
    with regard to the constitutional position in Egypt would have to be made. Since that time there has been all over the world a growth not merely of the idea of self-determination, but also of the idea of government with the consent of the governed, and that has been proclaimed in the East as well as in Europe. In the days before the Armistice a joint declaration was made by the French and British Governments in Syria and Mesopotamia, countries of Arabic speech adjoining Egypt, and with regard to the first of which the Armies of Occupation had come from Egypt. England and France made the following declaration:
    "The aim which France and Great Britain have in view in waging in the East the War let loose upon the world by German ambition, is to ensure the complete and final emancipation of all thosepeoples so long oppressed by the Turks, and to establish national governments and administrations which shall derive their authority from the initiative and free will of the people themselves. To realise this, France and Great Britain are in agreement toencourage and assist the establishment of native governments in Syria and Mesopotamia, now liberated by the Allies, as also in those territories for whose liberation they are striving and to recognise those governments immediately they are effectively established.
    Far from wishing to impose on the peoples of these regions this or that institution, they have no other care than to assure, by their support and practical aid, the normal workings of such governments and administrations as the peoples shall themselves have adopted; to guarantee impartial and even justice for all, to facilitate the economic development of the country by arousing and encouraging local initiative, to foster the spread of education, to put an end to those factions too long exploited by Turkish policy—such is the part which the two Allied Governments have set themselves to play in the liberated territories."
    Those liberated territories are at the door of Egypt, and any proclamation which is made in Syria is bound to have its reflex in Egypt. I understand, from what the Lord President of the Council said the day before yesterday in another place, that something of the same kind has already been communicated to the late Prime Minister of Egypt. Lord Curzon stated that His Majesty's Government,
    "while sympathising with the idea that the Egyptians should be allowed an increasing share in the government of Egypt said that they could not abandon the responsibility for order and good conduct in Egypt and of safeguarding the rights and interests of the native and foreign populations, etc."
    That is the same thing shortly. The British Government policy is I understand, and I hope to hear so in the speech
    2352
    by the hon. Gentleman who represents the Foreign Office to-night, "while sympathising with the idea that the Egyptians should be allowed an increasing share in the government of Egypt."That is their declared policy. I believe that the trouble in Egypt has arisen largely because the Foreign Office have not sought an earlier opportunity for discussing with the Egyptian Ministers the meaning of those declarations. There is no use in making vague declarations to an eastern people unless you consult with them as to what you mean in practice by those declarations. The resignation of the PrimeMinister of Egypt and all that has followed since has arisen, I understand, from the refusal by the Foreign Office to permit the Prime Minister of Egypt and other representatives of Egyptian opinion to come here to London to discuss the meaning of the phrase which His Majesty's Government say is going to be their policy in Egypt. I think nothing could be more unfortunate than delay in this matter. When a responsible Minister such as the late Prime Minister of Egypt definitely asks that before you present him and the Egyptians with a fait accompli they should be heard with regard to the definition of the policy declared by His Majesty's Government, I think that it is both reasonable and right that he should be heard. I personally much regret that an invitation was not sent by the Foreign Office to the Egyptian Government, both British and Egyptian, inviting that Government to attend the Peace Conference at Paris, just as it asked representatives of India. I think it would have been useful and helpful in discussing their Eastern affairs, but that invitation was never made. I understand that the Prime Minister of Egypt and the Ministry of Egypt never made such a request. They merely asked to be allowed to come to London to state their case. I think it was most important that they should have been allowed to come to London, and I believe that much of the trouble that has arisen is due to the fact that they were not allowed to come to London. There was before the Government an alternative. It was the alternative that they should send out a Commission, not a Departmental Commission of the Foreign Office, but a representative Commission, including, I hope, Members of this House; and I am not at all sure that that is not the policy which should now be pursued. If they do not hear Egyptians in London, I think it is

    2353
    advisable that they should send out a representative Commission to hear Egyptians there, and before they make up their minds, whether it is in finance or in industries or in irrigation or in what department of the Government, that the Egyptians should be allowed an increased share, it is most important that local opinion should be heard.
    With regard to what has followed the resignation of the Egyptian Ministry, the fact is that, by refusing to accede to the request of the Prime Minister of Egypt to come here, and in default of the alternative of sending a Commission out, an opportunity has been presented to the extremist section in Egypt. The opportunity was given to the Nationalists to go about Egypt and to say, "Oh, the British Government are not sympathetic, they will not hear you or let the Prime Minister go to England. Look to us as your friends."To my mind it is most unfortunate that you waited until the Prime Minister had resigned before taking action against the extreme section of the Nationalists, if you were determined to take action. To deport the Nationalists after the political crisis was rather unfortunate. It is over a year ago since, when I was myself in Egypt, I heard that Saad Zaglone was leading an anti-British party in Egypt. It has been known for a long time that he and his extreme section had been working against all British influence and British government. But practically no action appears to have been taken and no action was taken, asit should have been made, to strengthen the party which exists in Egypt, the party of moderate men who are anxious to work with the British Protectorate, with the Sultan, and with the late Ministry, and to progress along constitutional lines. If you do not give support to that party you do not give it a chance to exist, and you, as it were, give the game to the Nationalist extremist and enable him to exploit the elements in the population which are only too ready to be exploited. Remember that in dealing with Egypt we are dealing with a country where the vast mass of the population are still illiterate, and we are dealing with a race which are substantially the same as the race which built the Pyramids, and which has been under successive tyrannies. It is only recently that they tasted anything of liberty or constitutional government whatever, only in the last thirty years. Further, you are dealing with a country which, situated in the
    2354
    East, has all the great qualities and yet all the defects of the East, and where rumours run and where rumours are exaggerated, and therefore it becomes essential that every step you take is taken with sympathy.
    I want to ask the hon. Member who represents the Foreign Office whether the Foreign Office have in this matter consistently followed and accepted the advice of Sir Reginald Wingate? That is a very important fact to find out. Did Sir Reginald Wingate recommend, or did he not recommend, that Egyptian opinion be heard before the future constitutional settlement of the Protectorate was finally decided? After the Armistice, when General Allenby's splendid victory assured, the future peace of Egypt, the feeling in Egypt was that the time had come for a clearer definition of the British Government's policy, which had been enshrined in these declarations and these promises of good intentions. It was felt that something was needed—some definite step. I, personally, have always held the view that the present administration of Egypt through the Foreign Office has a greatdeal, to be said against it. The Foreign Office is very busily engaged upon diplomatic questions, and does not pay, to my mind, sufficient attention to the many administrative questions which arise out of Egypt. The Foreign Office is not, and ought not tobe, an administrative Department dealing with administration, and Egypt is largely a question of administration. Further than that, you want essentially the sympathy of trained administrators coupled with political guidance. That is what I feel you have not got in the bureaucracy of the Foreign Office.
    Frankly, we in this House have felt for a long time that, not only in questions of foreign policy, but in all questions where the Foreign Office is concerned, there is a considerable gulf between democratic opinion as expressed in this House and the sort of tradition under which the Foreign Office works. We heard that the Foreign Office after the War was going to be reformed. I hope the hon. Member who has recently come to this office will have a beneficial effect in it. I hope he will bring to it the sympathy of modern democratic and progressive ideals, because I feel that in the Egyptian Department particularly, something of that kind is needed. What is needed, above all, is a new spirit. I do not believe you want great changes in the Constitution. I

    2355
    believe that, in the matter of the interior, there is room for considerable improvement in the relations between the British and the Egyptian officials. I believe that, in the case of the Department of Justice, the native has proved himself worthy of the responsibilities that have been placed on him. It is one of the questions which requires sympathy and guidance at every turn, and I have felt that there is a great deal to be said for moving the Egyptian Department from the Foreign Office altogether. Of course, it depends very much on who is the head of these various Departments. If it were moved to the Colonial Office, where you have got at present Lord Milner, who has unrivalled experience of Egypt and sympathy with Egypt, you would get, I think, probably greater attention and feeling for the needs and the importance of the Egyptian question than you will get, if I may say so, under the present regime of the Foreign Office. But my ideal is—I do not know whether it is too early to ask the Government whether they have made up their mind in the matter—that the Arabic-speaking world and our responsibility to the Arabic-speaking world, should be a Department, just as India is.
    It looks as if we shall have great responsibilities in regard to Mesopotamia. We have already great responsibilities in Aden and all round and in the great Arabian peninsular, and our influence has been extended to Palestine. I am convinced that neither the Foreign Office nor the India Office is so constituted as to enable it to deal adequately with the needs and aspirations and over-seeing of the great Civil Service that will be wanted by the British to help and assist the peoples of the Arabic-speaking world in their development and in their future. I do urge upon the Government the consideration of the desirability of forming a Department, either under a separate Secretary of State, or at least an Under-Secretary, which will bring greater contact between those countries and the administration in Whitehall, and will look at those countries not quite with the eye of the India Office, and certainly not with the eye of the Foreign Office. I do think we should realise that a certain constitutional development in Egypt is absolutely necessary and brooks no delay, and that is a development which will bring in some element of those many gifted foreign populations who live in Egypt—
    2356
    who hitherto have been in Egypt, but not of it. Before the War, owing to Capitulations, which, I hope, will be got rid of by the Peace Treaty, there lived many thousands of Greeks, Armenians, Syrians, Italians, Frenchmen, and others in Egypt, but taking practically no part or share in the government of that country. If the Capitulations are abolished you will have at your disposal in guiding the destinies of Egypt all those new elements which will be most helpful, which stand for a great deal, not merely in the commercial, but in the intellectual and the moral life of the country, and I hope some constitutional means will be found whereby you will adapt that source of human power and energy for the future progress and development of Egypt.
    I will give one instance which occurs to my mind. The present editor and owner of the most widely distributed Arabic daily newspaper in the world, the "Mokattam," happens to be a Syrian—at least he comes from that debated country, which is not quite in the Lebanon, and not quite under the aegis of Damascus, but just in the Jordan Valley, and, therefore, may be said to be in Palestine. Whatever his nationality may be, all his life has been given to Egypt and in Egypt, and yet, because he is a Syrian, he is practically debarred from taking his place in the governing and guiding of Egypt. I hope that will come to an end, and that these very valuable men will become part and parcel of what must always be a heterogeneous community. The Egyptian, who is of the same race as those who built the Pyramids, and who worked under Alexander and under the Cæsars, is in a majority. They have acquired the Arabic speech, and the Arabian religion of the Koran. They are in a majority. But there are large and important minorities. The Copts are of the same race and religion. These elements require representation and their interests require regard. In order to achieve this you must have a satisfactory constitution. I believe you will have to have two Chambers—a new Constitution of Egypt. You will require to have a Senate as well as a Legislative Assembly, elected as you have at present. Still more, you will have to have reorganisation of the whole of the Ministry of the Interior. I do not wish to go into great detail now, but I wish to close by saying that I am convinced that England has yet a great work to perform and a great duty

    2357
    towards Egypt and its population. The work Britain has done already on the material side has been one of the noblest monuments which she has ever erected—the bringing under cultivation of thousands of acres and the increase in the prosperity of the country, which is quite remarkable in history. We went to Egypt and found her groaning under tyranny and death. Now Egypt is one of the most financially flourishing countries, one of the richest and one of the most economically satisfactory ones. But we have not finished the work, even on the side of material progress. Much remains to be done. We are only at the beginning of the work of moral and intellectual regeneration.
    The last reports from Egypt in regard to our educational work have not been satisfactory. We have to see that more money is spent upon education. Better education is required more suited to the needs of the country. We have to see about the health of the country. In the matter of the public health our work has hardly begun, certainly with respect to hospital treatment and matters of that kind. Above all, we have to see to the matter of political education. Frequently there comes to light a scandal. Take the case of one of the men deported, and probably most rightly deported. He was appointed to a responsible position by the British Government and was subsequently discovered to be mixed up in police scandals which were disgraceful. He had been taking bribes, and was guilty of corruption. If wrong in this narrative, I can be corrected. We have yet to create in Egypt that feeling of responsibility among the Egyptians which only years of example and tuition, of assistance and sympathy, of good guidance and help, will give them. Remember that there is 400 years of tradition of theworst-governed province of the Ottoman Empire behind those people. Remember that during the whole of the eighteenth century we hardly knew the name of a single Pasha of Egypt, of a single Governor. They went there. They taught corruption, and spread it. They lived on Egypt. They were either killed or else they cleared out. That has eaten into the very soul of things. You see it in even things like water, where a man tries to get a little more water than he is entitled to at the expense of his neighbour. That is one of the great reasons why we have British irrigation.
    2358
    But I see the dawn of hope. The nation of Egypt is a nation of possibilties under British example and guidance. If we give them of our best and our best ideals we can in time—and it will take time—that sense of responsibility which alone will enable the people to take an effective share in the government of the country. It is that sense of responsibility which ought to be brought home. There should be no more attempts on thepart of native Ministers to try and shelter behind the British Adviser, or under the Moodir, the provincial Governor. The native rulers, if found responsible, should have that responsibility brought home to them. It is only by bringing them up and assisting them to achieve that sense of responsibility that the crown of British work in Egypt will be achieved. It is only by developing that sense of responsibility of the people of Egypt and of the Government that England's work will be properly fulfilled. I hope the Foreign Office, who are responsible for Egypt, who have an Egyptian Department, and who are responsible to the people of this country and to this House for seeing that progress, good government, fairness, and justice are maintained in Egypt, will dowhat they can to get out of the ugly situation at present in Egypt, and will lead us back into the paths Lord Kitchener showed could be pursued; paths which meant the health of the poorest in Egypt; which made his name a blessing and blest by every fellah in Egypt. I hope that such a policy of working with the Egyptians will bring about a better moral, political, and material state of things.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: My hon. Friend has made a speech full of weight, bold outlook, and first-hand knowledge, above allof wide and alert sympathy, and one which is worthy of a larger audience than he has had. I hope it will find an audience beyond the walls of this House. There can be no question but that our administration in Egypt at this time is at a very critical point. My excuse for intervening now is because, while I agree with the matters raised by my hon. Friend, and particularly feeling the same difficulty that he feels with regard to administration by the Foreign Office, I wish particularly to draw attention to one point, and one sphere, in which that administration by the Foreign Office is very seriously defective. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Foreign Office is, perhaps, too old an office, and the very last that should be

    2359
    entrusted with the supervision of the administration in Egypt. It lacks sympathy. It lacks ready touch with those who really are in touch with and know Egypt. On the other hand, it is far too much occupied with diplomatic considerations, and it is not concerned with direct administrative questions. We know from experience in Egypt that too often projects are started, looked upon sympathetically by those in Egypt, pushed forward with the ardour of those working for the good of the people, and then are checked by some bureaucratic influence within the Foreign Office. Particularly I wish to draw attention to the very serious responsibility we have for the public health in Egypt.
    The other day I put a question to the Foreign Office in regard to this, and asked whether the Report of the Commission which had lately sat, and which had unanimously reported in favour of the appointment of a Minister of Health, was going to have any realisation. I was answered by the usual bureaucratic "put-up" answer, "that certain measures would be taken, but no decision had been arrived at,"or some words of that sort. This is a typical example of the method in which things are treated in regard to Egypt in the Foreign Office. When that question was put down, was Sir Reginald Wingate consulted? Was there any communication with him? I Were any of those who know the position in Egypt consulted before that "put-up,"evasive, and unsatisfactory answer was given? I can hardly believe it Let us see what is the history of this question. It was started in Egypt with the sympathy of the authorities there, with the goodwill of the High Commissioner, Sir Reginald Wingate. It was first mooted in 1917. Delays took place, but the Commission was ultimately appointed in June of 1918. Lieutenant-Colonel A. Balfour, whose investigations into, and whose benefits to humanity in the matter of zymotic diseases is well known, was made chairman.
    That generally consisted of four well-qualified experts all interested and all with high experience. Their report was delivered with promptitude. The Commission was appointed on the 1st June, 1918, and so urgent did they feel their work that they reported under two months. They examined an enormous number of witnesses; they were full of knowledge of the subject, and they unanimously recommended the appointment of a
    2360
    Minister. They admitted that certain steps had been taken which were beneficial, but they pointed out that the one necessity was the appointment of a responsible Minister of Health, and that it would not do to leave this question of such vital interest to the people of Egypt to a Department of the Home Office, whose head was an Under-Secretary, absolutely unversed in all these matters, and it was through him alone that the responsible experts could have access to the Council of Ministers or the High Commissioner. That was at once condemned.
    It is a matter of vital importance to the well-being of Egypt and the Egyptians that there should be a Minister of Health. The importance of the problem of health as one of the necessities for the people of Egypt was seen by Lord Kitchener. This Report says that Lord Kitchener in his Report had foreshadowed certain measures which must form an integral part of any future health campaign, such as the need of education and the element of hygiene. Itrequired a moving spirit and a man determined to drive through all this bureaucracy. This was an essential need of the Egyptian people, and when this strong hand was gone, bureaucracy had the higher power and stopped all these efforts.
    Is it any wonder that the men who sat upon that Commission, who spent their lives in the work, made sacrifices and incurred dangers perhaps as great as those who fought in the War, that they should express their feelings strongly? What can their feelings now be when the Report is stopped, not for any lack of sympathy or realisation in Egypt itself or by the responsible Government, but by this bureaucracy. It has been stopped by the evasiveness of a bureaucratic representative. The necessity for this Ministry is sufficiently proved, and I should prove false to the aspirations and wishes of many of those who have given their lives and sacrificed their health in this work, many of whom I am proud to number amongst my own Constituents in the University of Scotland, if I did not tryto give an echo to their feelings in this House. We want organisation, and that can only come from a responsible Minister and not from a mere director of medical services who has to report to some under-staffer at the Home Office in Egypt to have his views represented to the higher authorities, and finally to be decided upon and perhaps shelved indefinitely by some bureaucratic influence in the Foreign Office. There has

    2361
    been placed in my hands a memorandum by Dr. Goodman, who, amongst his colleagues, is distinguished for the work he has done in Egypt. Dr. Goodman says:
    "The peculiar necessity for a Ministry of Health in Egypt lies in this—that as there is no public opinion in the country demanding health reform the whole of the driving force infavour of health measures must come from within the Government itself, or rather that part of the administration charged with public health duties. The progress attained is directly proportional to the influence which can be brought to bear upon the Government. As at present constituted, the Department of Public Health has no direct influence upon the policy of the Government: it is represented neither upon the Council of Minister nor upon the unofficial council of British advisers which, with the High Commissioner, go to make up the somewhat informal system of government in Egypt. The High Commissioner, except in so far as he is controlled by the Foreign Office, is possessed of supreme authority in so far as he cares to exercise it, but the representative of the Public Health Department has no right of access to him to press forward public health measures or to oppose measures detrimental to the health of the country. The Public Health is a subordinate Department classed with and often below the Customs, the Coastguards, the Public Lands, and the Survey Departments, which, however important in themselves, have very little concern with the public policy of the country. The result of this system, or lack of system, is, as might be expected, a reign of disorganisation and misunderstanding. No opportunity is ever offered for the consideration of the health problem as a whole; lack of co-ordination between the various Departments has led to conditions injurious to the health which might have been easily remedied at the outset; individual public health measures are presented and pressed forward second, and very often third or fourth hand, or not presented at all—killed or mutilated for some unknown reason by some unknown official of the superior hierarchy; measures with a strong public health bearing are discussed and agreed to without consultation with the Department, which is left with the choice between silence and a belated and irritating protest."
    We have accomplished a great work in Egypt. We have improved her resources, we have developed her commerce, we have adjusted her political relations, and I hope, with my hon. and gallant Friend, that we shall be able to develop some political instincts of free government amongst her people. We may be proud of allthese things, but they bring with them their responsibilities. Our administration in Egypt will be arraigned by history, not so much for the great commercial and material results that we have obtained, or by the diplomatic successes we may have achieved;it will be judged by what we have done for the people of Egypt who are under our charge, and for whom we are custodians. The first
    2362
    necessity in order to lift them out of their misery is to provide for their health, not to allow them to rot away in insanitary villages, without water supplies, without any proper and decent conveniences of life, devoured by all sorts of plagues and vermin. We have to do that work for them, and to carry on that good work, which is by far the highest because it is the mostbenevolent we have to do in Egypt; we must have a Ministry properly organised, independent, with full access to a sympathetic administration in Egypt, and not hampered at every turn and clogged in all its projects by the paralysing effect of bureaucratic administration.
    Major Earl WINTERTON: If my right hon. Friend who has just spoken had a more intimate knowledge of the Middle East than he possesses, he would know that, important as are the reforms he has been suggesting, nothing would be more likely at the present time to increase the already exacerbated feelings of the Egyptians than to attempt to make them clean by Act of Parliament. There is no part of the world in which the people have a less idea of the value of personal or public cleanliness than inthe Near East. If he would allow me to say so, with all respect and without impertinence, the discussion of the creation of a Public Health Department in Egypt at a time when the whole future government of the country is in jeopardy, is in a large degreeputting the cart before the horse. I should like to add my tribute to the very admirable way in which my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Ormsby-Gore) initiated this part of the Debate, and dealt with the problems with which the Empire is faced in Egypt at the present time. Possibly the House is aware that certainly no private Members of the House—and this applies to some members of the 'Government—have such an intimate knowledge of Egypt, its government, and its problems as my hon. and gallant Friend. Without conceit I may claim that after him I have a more intimate knowledge of that government and its work than most other Members of the House. I have visited Egypt on many occasions. I was in the Sudan before the War. Over eleven years ago I penetrated through the Lower Sudan into Abyssinia, and I have been present for more than three years on various parts of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force Front. I have been over the whole of the Sinai Peninsula. I have

    2363
    ridden by horse and camel to theother side of Jaffa, and proceeded from Akabar to within fifty miles of Damascus. For various reasons connected with the military position in Egypt I have been brought into close and intimate relationship with the British officials who are at the presenttime faced with the very grave responsibility of administering that country under the extremely anomalous system of government we have in operation there.
    My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned that Egypt and the Suez Canal were in reality the main artery ofthe British Empire. I would like to emphasise that point, because although it may be re-regarded as a mere platitude, it is a platitude not sufficiently realised by present day public opinion in this country. Thirty-five years ago the name of Egypt was on every lip in this country. Mr. Gladstone's Government and the Prime Minister himself were the subject of attack from every quarter owing to their vacillating policy in Egypt. No political crisis in this country during the last fifty years has excited, andmore properly excited, public attention than did the Egyptian crisis in the 'eighties. Those days have long passed, but I can assure the House that the importance of Egypt and the Suez Canal to this country is no whit less to-day—not even the invention of flying has altered it—than it was then. It is deplorable to think of the small section of opinion in the Press or among the public that takes any real interest in Egypt and its future government. The other day I happened to attend a dinner given to a very distinguished Governor of a Province in India, formerly a member of this House, who will be known to many hon. Members, my right hon. Friend Lord Willingdon. He told us at that dinner that he had been enormously struck by the fact that Indians of all shades of opinion and of all classes in Indian society who came to see him, said that the fact which most disheartened and depressed them was the small interest taken by this country, and especially by this House and another place in Indian affairs, when they came to be discussed. Lord Willingdon said that he had sorrowfully to admit that so far as this House and another place were concerned that was true. If it is true of India, it is doubly true, unfortunately, of Egypt. The num-
    2364
    ber of hon. Members in this new House who have any knowledge of Egypt or of Middle Eastern affairs is very small.
    I should like to say here, if it is not out of order, how much I personally, and many hon. Members who knew them, deeply regret the loss, first, of SirClement Hill; secondly, through the elevation to a Governorship, of Sir George Lloyd, the present Governor of Bombay; and thirdly, the late Sir Mark Sykes. In all those three the House possessed members with great knowledge and experience of Eastern, Egyptian, and African affairs. I venture to say, with all respect, that I do hope that in this new House more attention will be paid to Indian, to Middle-Eastern, and to African matters than was the case in former Parliaments.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: We get no chance.
    9.0 p.m.
    Earl WINTERTON: That is going into another matter, though the hon. and gallant Gentleman may rest assured that I am not out of sympathy with his remarks, but that, on the contrary, I entirely sympathise. My experience of the House during all the years I have been in it is that all Governments seem to discourage interest being taken in Indian, Egyptian, or African administration, and my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik), who has also been with me in many Debates on Indian and African affairs, willagree with me. All I say is that I am perfectly convinced that this has a deplorably bad effect on the prestige and position of this country. It is reported in the Indian or Egyptian papers that the question of India or Egypt was taken in the House of Commons at the dinner hour, and that only a few Members were present; and immediately it is followed up by an outburst of articles in the vernacular Press, saying, "This is how the Imperial Parliament, with its pretended interest in the welfare of the native races, treats these subjects when they are brought to its notice and attention."I read an article in an Egyptian paper just before I came away on that very subject. The writer, who evidently had some knowledge of affairs in this country, said that the House of Commons could always be filled by a personal incident, but when it came to a question of discussion of Indian or Egyptian affairs, there were never more than 100 Members at the most who took any interest or wished to take part in the Debate.

    2365
    I say that the importance of Egypt and of the Suez Canal cannot be sufficiently impressed on the House, and I pass naturally to what seems to me to be the most important question, namely, that of the Capitulations. I agree with all that has been said about the improvement of the existing machinery of the Government and with the references to the public Health Department and the Ministry of the Interior. But all these matters depend on the question of the future government of Egypt, and how far the Governmentare going—or rather the Allies now in Paris are going—in the direction of abolishing the Capitulations, and what they are going to put in their place. I do not wish to go too much into details, but I should like to make one or two remarks about the Capitulations.
    In the first place, may I call the attention of the House to the fact that every British Consul-General in Egypt, and I think I am right in saying, every Report they have sent home—Lord Cromer, Sir Eldon Gorst, and Lord Kitchener—have all drawn attention to this fact, that so long as the Capitulations existed a proper system of government in Egypt was impossible. The reasons for that are really comparatively simple. Take, in the first place, the question of taxation. So long as the Capitulations exist it is the fact that foreigners are practically immune from and untouched by taxation. Great bitterness has been caused to native Egyptians, and I entirely sympathise with them, owing to the fact that during the War foreignersin Egypt have been practically untouched by taxation of any kind. I can go further, and add that many who have served in Egypt during the War in the British Army, and in the Dominion Armies as well—because the House is aware that there were a largenumber of Australians and New Zealanders in Egypt—dislike intensely the way in which neutrals and foreigners in Egypt, who come under the Capitulations, have been enabled to make huge fortunes—there is no other word for it—out of thepresence of the British Army in Egypt, and the Egyptian Government has been quite unable to touch them by taxation of any kind owing to the Capitulations. There has been the grossest profiteering by neutrals and foreigners in Egypt at a time when many of the ordinary Egyptian natives have been suffering considerable hardships through the appalling prices to which food was run up by these profiteers.
    2366
    Like my hon. and gallant Friend I have some knowledge of the inner working of the Egyptian Government, all the facts in connection with which it would not be right to mention in this House. But, without saying anything improper, I may point out that during the War the obvious difference between the position of the ordinary Egyptian native and of neutrals and foreigners under the Capitulations, at a time when the price of food was so high, and when the profit was going to many of these neutrals and foreigners, has given practically all the responsible members of the Egyptian Government very grave cause for anxiety. That was entirely due to the system of Capitulations. When I turn from the question of taxation to the even more important question of the judiciary system of Egypt, the disadvantage and hardship caused by the Capitulations becomes even more clear.It is farcical to suppose we can ever have in Egypt a judicial system, or a judiciary in which anyone can have any confidence so long as little countries like Hayti and Liberia can try and can protect their nationals. Any subject of a foreign Power, not anative of Egypt, is entitled, under the Capitulations, to be tried by his own Consular Court and protected by his own Consular system.
    There were some most flagrant scandals some years ago in connection with certain States—small American Republics whose names it is not desirable to mention—where people of the worst possible character, in some instances convicted of crime, were appointed to be Consuls and enjoyed the advantage of the Consular system. In addition, they afforded its protection totheir own nationals—in some cases criminals, amongst their own nationals—and brought the whole system into even greater disrepute than it was in by the obvious injustice of its basis. The result of all this is that Egypt at the present timesuffers probably from a greater moral stain than any country in the world. Before the War all the criminals in Europe used naturally to go to Egypt, where the native police, as a result of the Capitulations, had practically no power over them, and they were able to pursue their nefarious objects unchecked. If all the facts were to be told to the House—for example, the way in which the white slave trader is protected by the laws of his own nation which, in the case of certain South American Republicsare laws which would not be supported by any European nation, and it

    2367
    is not too much to say that Egypt has become in recent years the entrepot of the white slave traffic in the Middle East. I think there should be strong pressure placed on the Government to see that the Capitulations were abolished at the first moment, and a decent judicial system imposed.
    Apart from that, there are other grave scandals arising under the system of Capitulations, and I am perfectly sure that also helps to make the relationship between the different powers in Egypt much more difficult than it would be without them. There have been in recent years a good many incidents, the majority of which have not come to light, of a somewhat unpleasant nature, even sometimes between the Great Powers and between the Allies in the present War, almost purely as the result of the Capitulations system—questions of the interpretation of a particular decision by the Mixed Court, questions of a Consular Court decision, and matters of that kind. So long as they remain as they are, so long will Egypt be a badly governed country. It is for these reasons that the people of this country have so much reason to be proud of what has been done by British officials and British administration in Egypt. They have done the work they have done in spite of this system of Capitulations, which hampers and harasses their good work at every turn, and I think too great tribute cannot be paid to these men—Lord Cromer, Sir Eldon Gorst, Lord Kitchener, Sir Reginald Wingate, the late Lord Edward Cecil, and hundreds of smaller and greater officials who through thirty-three most strenuous, harassing, and anxious years have given their lives to Egypt, with the result that she has prosperity, peace, an incomparable railway system, and an irrigation system better than she has had since the days of the ancient Pharoahs, and, in addition, had they been allowed, which they have not been owing to the Capitulations, a free hand would probably have made Egypt the best governed of any native administration in the whole world.
    I hope at the earliest opportunity we shall have an announcement as to what form the future government of Egypt is to take. I assume the Capitulations will be abolished. In fact, we were told in the early stages of the War they were going to be abolished, but there appears to be somewhere a rather mysterious hitch. Originally it was said it had been decided
    2368
    that almost immediately after the War the Capitulations would ipso facto come to an end, but now it is rumoured—I should be glad to know the rumours are false—that it is intended to continue them, under whatever form of government there is, for two or three years longer. I consider that would be a disaster to Egypt of the firstorder, and that the future government of Egypt depends upon the abolition of the Capitulations immediately after Peace is signed. I believe a British Protectorate would be the best form of government, although that does not mean that I think there shouldnot be the fullest possible education of Egyptian natives in civic duties for the eventual goal of their own self-determination. I quite realise that, owing to the decision of the Peace Conference, that may be difficult, and that Egypt may come under the mandatory system, in which case I hope there will be no question of who the mandatory Power will be, and that it will be this country. That would seem to be forcing an open door, and it is almost unthinkable that our representatives in Paris could agree toanything else. But such is the network of intrigue in which Near Eastern and Middle Eastern affairs are being considered, at present that it is really difficult to know what decision may be arrived at by any given time and how soon it may be upset by a totally different decision in a few days', weeks', or months'time. It is absolutely essential, not only for the future of Egypt but for the British Empire as well, that this country should be the mandatory power, and that with it should go the fullest possible opportunities for the development of the country in a moral, educational, and commercial sense. There, again, it is the hampering and harassing effect of the Capitulations which have held back the moral, educational, and commercial interests of the country.
    Even if no other reason was forthcoming, the riots of the last three weeks would be sufficient to prove the urgency of this question of the future government of Egypt. I am perectly certain that had the people of Egypt known clearly what form that future government was going to take we should not have had the riots and disturbances we have had. For a long time past public opinion in Egypt has been subject to all sorts of very wild rumours as to the future form that the government of Egypt was going totake, and so long as the administrators there were kept in virtual ignorance, as they were, of what the future

    2369
    government of the country was going to be it was impossible for them to allay public alarm, some of it purely Bolshevik, but a great deal of it perfectly genuine, as to the future form of the government of the country. The British and Allied representatives at the Peace Conference are terribly overworked and overstrained with anxiety, but it is one of the primary duties of the British representatives to urge upon the Peace Conference that a solution of the problem should be sought by the mandatory system, and that we should be the mandatory Power and we ought to have no false modesty in this respect. We have made modern Egypt prosperous and peaceful, and have given to those in power an amount of personal security and comfort which is unknown in any other Middle Eastern country. It is our duty to press at the Peace Conference that we should be given a free hand subject to this only, that we should foster in every possible way the idea that eventually the people of Egypt should be given the fullest possible measure of self-government that is compatible with the situation. That, of course, is essential.
    I want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is in a position to make any announcement as regards the loan for the development of the Sudan irrigation system which was promised before the War? The House approved the principle of a loan of £4,000,000. The money was held up during the War, and the time is now approaching when it should be paid over in order that this most important work, which will mean an increased cotton area throughout the whole of Egypt and the Sudan by something like 15 or 20 per cent., should be put in hand. The organisationof the Egyptian Labour Corps, which has been of immense benefit to the British Army during the War, should be used, and the services should be utilised of the military engineers now in Egypt, many of whom would like to be employed on the work. I should like to say one word on a subject which cannot be considered apart from the recent unrest in Egypt. I have recently talked to many experts on Middle Eastern, and also on Indian affairs, and one and all have told me that at the present time there is a great deal of unrest in the Mahomedan world. I myself had two months with the Arabs, and I know from my own personal experience that the future of the Holy places, the
    2370
    question of the Khalifate, the question of the future of Constantinople, and other questions of an interdependent nature, are exercising and naturally exercising the minds of Moslems, even more than they have done in the past. As the House is aware, religious controversies in the East never die, indeed, as each fifty or hundred years pass these controversies seem to flourish and to become more intense, and although they may seem far off, old-world questions to us in this House, the question of the future of the Holy places, the question of the future of the Khalifate, the question of the futureof Constantinople, and above all the question of the future of a Moslem mosque at Constantinople, are questions which exercise most strongly the minds of Moslems, and to-day there is fierce controversy in every bazaar in the East, throughout the whole ofEgypt, Mesopotamia, Syria, India, and all Mahomedan countries.
    I would emphasise this, but it ought not to be necessary to emphasise it, that there are in the British Empire a considerably larger number of Mahomedan subjects of His Majesty the King than there are Christian subjects. That being so, and the fact that as it happens in this House, which is indirectly responsible for the Governments of these Mahomedans, there is no representative, and, so far as I can see, there is never likely to be a representative, of the Moslem religion here; it does behove this House and the Government to be most scrupulously careful to avoid doing anything in their policy, and it behoves private Members of this House, in making speeches, to be most careful, to do and say nothing which casts any aspersion upon the Moslem religion, or which can arouse in the minds of Moslems any suspicion as to the good faith of the British Government and of this House, in the treatment of Moslems, and particularly of the Moslem subjects of the King. That fact it ought not to be necessary to emphasise, but it is necessary to emphasise it at the present time, when there is controversy proceeding as to the future of Constantinople, and especially as to the future of a certain mosque in Constantinople. I make no comment on that controversy, because it does not concern the subject which is being debated to-night, but I say this, that these disturbances which are taking place and this unrest which exists throughout the

    2371
    Mahomedan world at the present time cannot be considered apart from these controversies.
    I do urge most strongly upon the hon. Gentleman who represents the Foreign Office that no action should be taken by his Department—and I hope he will impress it upon his colleagues in other Departments of the State—that no action will be taken by any Government Department, in order to please any section of opinion in this country, however powerful, which seems to cast a doubt upon the policy and upon the maxims which I think are as fine as any that have ever been known in any form of government in any country. I mean the policy laid down by Disraeli at the time that Queen Victoria became Empress of India, that we would in our treatment of the native subjects of our Sovereign in allparts of the Indian Empire—and the same applies to Egypt, Africa, and everywhere else—give them the fullest possible measure of religious toleration, and that we would never do anything which could be interpreted as an act of hostility towards their religion or as appearing to show that we either disliked or despised their religion. [An Hon. Member: "Have we ever done otherwise?"] I understood the hon. Member to ask me if we had ever done otherwise? We have certainly not done otherwise, but we must be extremely careful at this time, when these questions as to the future of Constantinople and of Moslems are being discussed, to do nothing to alter our own magnificent record in carrying out the policy enunciated by Disraeli. The Government has certainly never done otherwise, but as the question is put to me by the hon. Gentleman, I would say that I read the other day and was surprised to see in all the leading newspapers of this country, a manifesto issued by a missionary society in this country which, in appealing for funds for missionary organisations, referred to the Moslem religion in the Near East in a way which was not only extremely dubious, but extremely doubtful in taste. If this manifesto finds its way into native newspapers in Egypt, India, and elsewhere, it will do very great harm to our interests there, and will cause the suspicion to which I have referred.
    Major HURST: I should like to pay a tribute to those great Englishmen who have governed Egypt so well, and I would
    2372
    also emphasise the fact that the question of justice really is one of the underlying causes of the present trouble and unrest there. The system of law at the present time practised in Egypt is extraordinarily bad, and there is a very real danger that that system will be perpetuated. This is not a mere question of law or jurisprudence, but it is really a practical question, and I would like to draw attention to the views that are held on this question of law by a great commercial community which is interested in tradebetween Egypt and England, and to the very well-reasoned opinion of the trading community in Manchester and the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, to whom this subject has been a very important subject for a year or two past. The great test of a legal systemis the confidence which the business men have in the administration, of justice. Only a few days ago we were told by leaders of Egyptian trade in Manchester that if they were owed £10,000 by traders in Egypt they would rather write that sum off asa bad debt than sue those traders before the Mixed Tribunals in Egypt. Since 1876 these Mixed Tribunals have dealt with the questions which have arisen between foreigners of different nationalities and between foreigners and Egyptians.
    These tribunals are undoubtedly very mixed because no less than twelve nations have a right to be represented by judges on those tribunals. But the system of justice practiced by the tribunals is extraordinarily bad and behind the times. Having regard to the fact that Egypt is a British possession, it seems extraordinary that English is never spoken in the Courts, that on only one occasion since 1905, when English was allowed to be used as one of the judicial languages, has any judgment been delivered in English, and I am informed on the best authority that not a single court official in Cairo or Alexandria knows the English language. The mixed tribunal also has the unenviable reputation of being the most dilatory tribunal in the world. One leading firm of lawyers at the present time has thirty-two cases pending which have been going on for over four years, and sixteen cases are still awaiting trial which have been pending for over eight years. That is an extraordinary record, such as puts the annals of the old Chancery Courts of England into the shade.
    The whole system is bad. There is no proper Bankruptcy Law in Egypt, no oral

    2373
    examination of witnesses in ordinary civil cases, no opportunity for cross-examination. There has been no law relating to the infringement of trademarks or the adulteration of liquor. Early in 1916—I happened at the time to belong to the Army of Occupation—I was put on a military Court in Alexandria, dealing with cases of infringement of military law in that city. These cases referredmainly to the adulteration of liquor which, causes very great harm indeed to British soldiers and sailors in that place, and it was found that there was an enormous number of liquors, of which every wineshop was full, which had the best and most famous labels in the world. The labels were excellent but the contents were poisonous. That was attributed by people who know the country well to the fact that under the present system of law there are no remedies against adulteration and no remedies against fraudulent trade marks and designs. This country has a great opportunity of altering all that for the better. In 1904, by the Convention with France, that country was given a free hand in Morocco and this country was given a free hand in Egypt. Since November, 1914, Egypt has been a British Protectorate. One of the first things aimed at by the people interested in good government in Egypt was a reform of legal methods, and a Commission with that aim in view came into existence in 1916. It is a remarkable fact that of the four members of that Commission only one was an Englishman, and he was a man out of touch with the legal profession in Egypt.
    That Commission has sat ever since 1916. It is still sitting, and probably will sit for many years. All that we know aboutit is that it has expressed a very firm opinion that the system of mixed tribunals should continue in Egypt, and the only outward and visible signs of effecting any change in the administration of Egypt are a decision of May, 1918, that every document produced in evidence in an Egyptian Court shall be accompanied by a translation into French, and a resolution that no appeal should be allowed from Egypt to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England. In other words, the bad system which hon. Members have already alluded to is to be maintained in spite of the tremendous change in the constitutional position of Egypt and the great wants of the trading population. Representations have
    2374
    been made again and again to the Foreign Office and again and again replies have come back from the Foreign Office that they are in general sympathy with the protests that have been made against these abuses and the extraordinary thing is that the more urgent the grievance has become the more general the Governmentsympathy has proved to be. It is an amazing thing that in Egypt, where the French population does not exceed 7,000 out of a total population of 13,000,000, the French language should be obligatory in all cases in the Courts and that a small minority should inflict an old archaic relic of the Napoleonic code upon a community which requires a system of laws and procedure in keeping with the necessities of modern commerce. We have to remember that nobody ever suggested having an English code or English procedure in Morocco and the great trading community whose interests are bound up in a wise and adequate enforcement of good laws and procedure in Egypt are entitled to have a word as to what the laws of that country should be.
    What we ask at the present time isthat in place of these bad laws and bad tribunals you should have a good criminal code after the model of the Indian criminal code, that you should have in civil cases that partial codification which is represented in English law by such Acts as the Bankruptcy Act, the Partnership Act and Acts of that type, which are followed practically with excellent results in the Soudan, and we want to see the English language encouraged in the Courts of Law. Those are real wants in relation to reform in Egypt. They are wants which have been brought to the attention of the Foreign Office repeatedly by the great mercantile community, not only in Lancashire, but also in Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo. I would ask the hon. Gentleman who represents the Foreign Office whether he will not remedy these matters with which he is well acquainted. We must recognise that the true test of the legal system of any country is the trust and confidence which the mercantile community repose in them, and I submit with great confidence that the system of reform which I have indicated is the best way of levelling up the faulty administration of Egypt to the high level of government which in other parts of the world has made the British Empire a model to all the nations.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think that the House may congratulate itself on the able contributions to the Debate this evening. Personally I have great sympathy with the reforms suggested by the hon. Member who has just sat down in his admirable maiden speech, but I may point outto him that Lord Cromer, one of the best Governors who have ever been in that country, said that the secret of the success of his rule was that he governed Egypt for the Egyptians and not for anybody else, and that legislation proposed must be administeredprimarily in the interests of the Egyptians. And I would submit that such legislation should be passed by the Egyptians and not by other people acting over their heads. I thought that the Debate on Egypt to-day must necessarily be a fiasco in the absenceof Sir Mark Sykes, but I am ready to admit that his two lieutenants who initiated the Debate have stepped very well into his shoes. The hon. and gallant Member for Stafford (Major Ormsby-Gore), and the Noble Lord who sits for Horsham (Earl Winterton) haveboth personal knowledge of the country of which they were talking, and in addition during the War acted an admirable part as the eyes of the Government in those countries. I can claim no such advantage. My only acquaintance with Egypt was what I saw from the flat of my back through a porthole, but in spite of that I venture to intervene on this Debate because I think the old-fashioned Liberal view ought to be put in this House, even though there is no personal knowledge either of Egypt or the Egyptians.
    The present situation in Egypt is this: They have a Legislative Assembly in that country which has the vices of the most reactionary and elementary form of representative government. It is elected indirectly, so that popular control is only indirect, and whenit is elected it has practically no powers at all. It can initiate legislation, but the Governor can veto it, and the High Commissioner can pass what legislation he likes against the unanimous wishes of that Assembly. The Ministers are not responsible tothat Assembly; they are nominated by the Khedive under the guidance, of the High Commissioners. There you have the most elementary form of autocratic government. These people can be consulted, but the consultation makes no difference whatever in the government of the country. They are
    2376
    overruled, and any legislation can be passed in the teeth of their opposition. That is not a system of government which we can tolerate being perpetuated in any parts of the Empire at the present time. The Nationalist movement has sprung up there recently. I would not suggest that the capacity for self-government of that country is anything as great as the capacity of India for self-government, but what we ought to see is that we have laid down in Egypt, just as in Indiawe have laid down, a definite scheme of constitutional reform which shall lead up to responsible self-government for India within the four corners of the British Empire. That should apply equally to the case of Egypt. It is true that that country is not yet sufficiently politically educated—or sufficiently educated in the mass to have any large degree of responsible government. But I do submit that a Government which is considered sufficient for the Imperial Government of India might be applied alsoto Egypt and, at any rate, that the Foreign Office or any other office which has charge of the government of Egypt, should seriously consider what reforms are practicable and how we can bring the democratic Government of the country up to the standard required in connection with the end of this great War and the establishment of the League of Nations, i.e., place it on Nationalist lines. That would seem to me to have been the obvious course for the Foreign Office to pursue. They have seen this agitation arising in Egypt, but apparently they have not considered in the slightest degree what can be done to satisfy the moderate element or to lay any foundation for constitutional reforms in that country. They have disregarded apparently even the wishes of the High Commissioner. It was suggested from Egypt that the Prime Minister—Rushdi Pasha, and his able lieutenant, the Minister of Education—should be given an opportunity to consult with the Government as to what should be done. But that suggestionwas turned down. They were told it was not a suitable time for such action. Then the fat was in the fire. The Nationalist agitators also were anxious to come to England—not to go to Paris or to any place where they could create trouble in the finalsettlement of the Egyptian question from the British point of view, but merely to come to London and put their case before the responsible governors of Egypt. They were refused permission;

    2377
    they were told there could be no consultation whatever, and that the only one who might be permitted to come at some later date was the Prime Minister. Rushdi Pasha, however, refused to come without the Nationalist deputation. The members of that deputation were arrested and deported to Malta. Then the Government ofEgypt resigned, and, as far as I can make out from the answers to questions I put the other day, it has been found impracticable to set up a fresh Government in that country. The position at the present time is wholly irregular in Egypt. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham, who gave such an excellent designation on the existing situation, said, and I believe with some accuracy, that the Suel Canal is the main artery of the British Empire. I would only point out this, that, in reality, the main artery ofthe British Empire is not any territory in the world. It is not any piece on the map that is painted red. The main artery in reality is the confidence that underlies a great deal of frothy agitation—confidence in the fair play and justice of this country.
    Earl WINTERTON: When I used that term I used it in a moral as well as in a physical sense. I based it not only on our strategical position in Egypt, but on the support we receive in Egypt in consequence of the way in which we have treated native populations.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think that what we are most proud of in the British Empire is the tradition of fair play towards all races we govern, and the consciousness that they have, even when they are blackguarding us, that they get more fair play fromus than they would get under any other white race. Let me recall to the House the Denshawi affair. Would it have occurred in any other European country or in America that there would have been anybody to get up in the National Assembly to defend the people shot at Denshawi? Would there have been anyone to stand up against the Executive Government which was responsible for that affair? Can one imagine anyone in the American Congress getting up to protest against a similar affair where their own nationals were concerned? But here there is always someone to stand up for justice to these people, and that is one of the most useful assets we have. Herein is my principal complaint against the action of the Foreign Office in this simple
    2378
    case. There is nothingmore contrary to the principle of fair play and justice, as understood by countless generations of English people, than that men should be arrested and incarcerated without trial and not be given an opportunity of defending themselves. That is what I deplore here. It is not merely the stupidity which has caused this trouble, simply through a lack of comprehension of the desirability of consultation over this matter. What I do object to far more is that just at this time, when our representatives in Paris are really acting in an altruistic spirit and trying to do their best for the permanent settlement of the world, we should have flung in our face an action obviously unjust and which we cannot possibly justify, either to our own conscience or to the conscience of Europe or of the world. Arrest and imprisonment without trial, and deportation without trial is unjust and against all the traditions of this country. The serious thing is that the Foreign Office allowed it to take place while they themselves differed as to policy from our representatives in Egypt, who knew the question, and who desired to consult the Egyptian Government on a scheme for developing the interests of that country. I think that is perhaps the most serious part of this difficulty in Egypt, which, as the Noble Lord has shown, is only one of a series of pinpricks which are seriously agitating the Islam world.
    We here are the only people to whom the countless millions of Moslems under the British sceptre can look for protection. This War has been a war which has broken Turkey to pieces. It has broken Turkey, and the Turks being Mahomedans it has naturally made all Mahomemedans extremely nervous as to what is to happen to themselves, and extremely anxious not to do anything which would still further depress their religion in the world. It has been a serious blow to Mahomedanism. It has made them seriously anxious for the future, and we, as the guardians of the Mahomedans, because we are out of all comparison the greatest Moslem Power in the world, should be particularly careful that nothing is done to outrage their feelings or to give them any ground for agitating against the perfect fairness and justice of British rule. We have at the present time 66,000,000 of Mahomedans in India who have loyally co-operated with us in this War, perhaps more loyally than any other part of the British Empire, under great trial very

    2379
    often, because in many cases they were fighting against their co-religionists. We have something like 13,000,000 of Mahomedans in Egypt, 3,500,000 in the Soudan, and some 17,000,000 in Nigeria. There are several millions in Afghanistan and Mesopotamia who are more or less under our protection. All these people look to us to protect their interests, and it is most important that we should not, either in connection with these riots in Egypt or by our action in connection with Constantinople, give the slightest symptom that we do not intend to stand up definitely for the rights of our fellow subjects throughout the Empire.
    I ventured to-day to put a question about the church of St. Sophia, and I am sorry to say that I got from the hon. Gentleman opposite an answer which was intended to be impertinent. The question was put yesterday, and the answer then was even more impertinent. I hadit circulated in the way that answers sometimes are circulated. I do not object myself—after all, I am accustomed to that sort of thing in this House—but what I do object to is that these answers should give the Moslems throughout the world the impression that the Foreign Office is not properly looking after their interests. I think the hon. Gentleman opposite would be well advised to follow the example of most Under-Secretaries and to draft his own answers or to redraft them when they are couched in those terms by the permanent officials. Those are two examples—the arrest and deportation of these men in Egypt and the questionable latitude taken up by the Foreign Office, I believe without any regard to the aim of the Executive of this country, because I am quite convinced that the Prime Minister and the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord K. Cecil) are as keen as I am to look after the interests of Moslems. It is merely that there are permanent officials who still think themselves back in the time of the Crusade and who regard the struggle between the Cresent and the Cross as one of the permanent features in history. We ought to dissociate ourselves in this House from any idea that we are bolstering up the Cross against the Crescent. What we are looking out for is that every religion in this Empire should be tolerated and should have fair play, and that none of them should be outraged unnecessarily either by the stupidity or wrong policy of any Government Department.
    10.0 P.M.
    2380
    What we want and are trying to do tonight is to show the Moslem populations of the world that the British House of Parliament stands by them. We are doing it partly because we have an inborn sense of justice and largely because we want propaganda amongst the Moslem populations of the world and to show that they can rely on the British House of Commons and that we realise the great services which they rendered to us during the War. Propaganda is never very satisfactory unless it is followed by policy directed towards thesame end. We have got to consider the effect of our attitude in Egypt and on every other subordinate race of this Empire and the effect upon another nation, and this is even more vital to the future of our country, and that is upon public opinion in America. The whole future of our world lies in the permanent cementing of the friendship between the two branches of the Anglo-Saxon race. Do not let us have an opening for the saying that we are an effete Government, who do not follow the principles of President Wilson, and who do not wish to see peoples free and freely governing themselves. That is one thing that we can do in order to show America that we are in the van of democracy and civilisation. I know that many hon. Members think that at present it wouldbe well to spend a great deal of money on propaganda work in America. I should be the last to undervalue the admirable work done during the War, though a great deal of it was very bad, but I do not think you will improve the relations with America by people going there and saying, "I am here on propaganda work, and to show what fine fellows the English are."It can be done in other ways. It can be done by sharing their views and their feelings, and, far more important than propaganda, is that our policy towards America should be a policy which the Americans themselves see to be just and fair. I would draw attention to three points where I think it is of vital importance that we should get all square with America, and so improve our relations with her. The first thing is to show Americans that our trade policy is not a trade policy directed against America. Anybody who has been in touch with American feeling recently knows that our system of permits for imports has caused endless heartburning in America justas the French policy, dealing with imports from this country, has caused many manufacturers in this country to

    2381
    say they will never deal with Frenchmen again. In the same way people are saying in America that the way we have dealt with contracts made with people in America will prevent them ever dealing with Englishmen again. [An Hon. Member: "No, no!"] Yes, it is so; the same policy has been followed. We have ordered goods in America, and they are lying there to be transported to this country, and they cannot be imported here, and therefore they are not paid for. That sort of thing has caused endless ill-feeling between the two countries. Surely our Foreign Office might give some injunction to our Board of Trade to see that this cause of unrest and friction between ourselves and America is put an end to at the earliest possible moment, and that contracts that have been made should be carried out and permission for those imports should be given. That is one thing that would really make incalculably better our relations with the United States at the present time. They fancy that we are trying to prevent American imports coming into this country, when really it is merely the action of a Government Department, which is strenuously trying, to the best of its ability, to keep down imports and keep up exports. There is another thing I would suggest that might really improve our relations with America. Last Session there was a Resolution on the Papers of the House that American citizens should be giventhe full rights of British citizens in all British Colonies and in Great Britain. I do not think we should be sacrificing anything at all. I believe America would reciprocate in time, and give Britishers the rights of American citizens in America. I cannotimagine anything which would give greater pleasure to our Colonies overseas. Take a place like British East Africa, where there are many Americans, and where their English fellowmen would be delighted that they should have the same rights as themselves. It would do more to show the real good feeling between this country and America to give Americans the rights of British subjects in British territory than many pieces of after-dinner orations or special articles in the "New York Times."Really at bottom our relations with America, which are so vital to our whole future, depend upon whether we, too, will consent to give self-determination to Ireland. Hon. Members laugh.
    Colonel YATE: What has it got to do with Egypt?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think my hon. and gallant Friend does not appreciate that this is a Debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I am not going into the Irish policy. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] I know a great many hon. Members here, whose conscience rather pricks them, but a policy which is good enough for Bohemia seems to be good enough for Ireland. I do not want in this Empire to hold down against their will any nation, and I say a policy of self-determination in Ireland would lead, in the long run, to the obliteration of all this bitterness and distrust between the two sister nations, and would lead to incalculably better relations with the great Republic across the Atlantic. We never need be really afraid of giving people freedom. It is true that they will make many mistakes. They will always be stupid, always tumbling down, just as children do until they learn to find their feet. In the long run, freedom is always the winning card to play. Our greatest success in this War has been due to the fact that we gave freedom to South Africa. It has been an enormous source of strength to us actually in the War itself, but a far greater moral strength to us in dealing with all the rest of the nations in the world. It is often said that French Imperialist people are aiming at territorial advantage, and that the Italians are actuated by a desire for territorial gain. We have better traditions, and I want to see those traditions lived up to, and to see us, absolutely with a clean shield, come before the League of Nations. I do not think we can have thatclean shield unless you give to Ireland the right you give to every white race to determine how they shall be governed in future.
    Mr. F. C. THOMSON: In rising to address the House for the first time in a very few words, I feel somewhat diffident in speaking on the subject of Egypt after the speech of the hon. Gentleman who opened the discussion and the hon. Lord the Member for Horsham. I can claim to no special experience, save that I speak as one of that very large number of our fellow countrymen who haveserved in Egypt of recent years. The hon. Lord dwelt, I think very rightly, on the bad effects of apathy in this Assembly in regard to Egyptian affairs. I think we must remember that now, for the first time,

    2383
    there are many thousands of our fellow countrymen who have an intimate, firsthand knowledge of Egypt and the Near East. That, it seems to me, will alter matters a great deal. We will have a public instructed in a way that never was before. These men, many thousands of whom have served in Egypt, have seen what has happened. They have seen the wonderful work done by our Government and of the British subjects in Egypt—the wonderful work of irrigation, justice, and good government that we have introduced into that land. It has struck those British soldiers as a remarkable fact. Most of these same men who have served in Egypt have then passed over to other theatres of war, and other countries, which have until quite recently been under a system of government not so enlightened and by no means so free. They have seen themselves the effects of misery and oppression, and the good results in the adjacent country of British rule. I am sure one and all must have learned the lesson.
    I should like in one word to back up what has been said by the right hon.Gentleman (Sir H. Craik) when he dwelt on the necessity for an improvement of administration of public health in Egypt. Here again I claim no right to speak as a specialist, but only as one who lived for a good many months there. It struck one in the face, the miserable hovels in which the people lived in the villages. They were appalling. "Appalling"is the only word to describe the condition of these villages. One was terribly struck by the ophthalmia which seemed so prevalent everywhere. I understand a great improvement has been made in that. That is to the good, but there is ample room for further improvement. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that glorious as were our material achievements in Egypt—and glorious they are!—we could not rest on these alone. We must do all we can for the health of the people. I am sure in these matters the conditions under which the village population still lives, the horrible villages, and the state of them, there is much work to be done. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, improvement in administration will do a great deal to effect it, and it is "up" to us, and to the honour of the British and their record in Egypt, really to do good work in this domain of public health in that country.
    2384
    I do think it was really calamitous in our country before the War that there was no interest at all in Egypt and the Near East. The sort of notion the Briton had was that you could wipe out, so far as we were concerned, the Near East. That was a calamitous blunder. We might have fared very ill indeed. It has been otherwise. Let us hope and pray, and sets to it—and it is the duty of this House to see to it—that we do not fall again into that ignorance and apathy with regard to Egypt and the Near East.Hundreds of thousands of men are now in this country with first-hand knowledge, and the public will have been instructed, and we have got to live up to that knowledge. It is the duty of Parliament, of the Government and of educationists, to see that interest and knowledge is spread in regard to our Empire, and especially with regard to those countries with which I am dealing. No duty could be more important; no task more patriotic. Again I do not speak as a specialist, but I agree very much with what has been said in regard to the question of Mahomedanism. It seems to me that in the study of the War we owe a tremendous lot to the intervention to the King of the Hedjez. I remember at the time how Lord Cromer described it. It was not much noticed at the timeexcept by those who were Eastern specialists, but its great influence on the future of the War was pointed out, and I think that certainly has been borne out. We owe a great debt of gratitude to these people, and there were a large number of them on the other side—who rallied to our side, with the glorious results we now see. The Convention of France in 1904 and the subsequent protectorate gave a great chance of improvement in the Government of Egypt, for the abolition of Capitulations, and for reforms which were urgently needed. These drew attention to the legal scandals which were not creditable to any administration. It is in that way by large reforms which will lead on from one to another associating the Egyptian people more and more in the Government of their country that success lies. Any person who has lived amongst the Egyptians must have been impressed with the fact that they have very little capacity for self-government. That we hope will be improved and our goal should be by successive stages to associate the Egyptians more and more with the government of their country, a

    2385
    glorious goal well in harmony with British traditions. We have done a wonderful work in Egypt, and we have restored to her a prosperity which she has not enjoyed sinceher earliest times. We have yet a greater work to do and the genius of our race, I am fully convinced, will be equal to the task.
    Lieutenant-Colonel HERBERT: I shall not claim the attention of the House for very long, because the ground has been well covered by the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have already spoken, and I, like many other hon. Members, am only just recovering from influenza. Hon. Members opposite have made various complimentary remarks about the speeches which have been made to-night.I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Wedgwood) upon the very fine contribution which he made to the Debate this evening. I should like to put a few questions to the representatve of the Foreign Office. My hon. andgallant Friend opposite began by telling us what power the Egyptian people had not got. I should like to ask for a statement as to the amount of autonomy that the Egyptians have got, because if we were given that statement I believe the people of this country would be very much surprised by the amount of freedom that exists in Egypt. I am prepared to admit that freedom in Egypt, as elsewhere, has been curtailed during the War, but how much autonomy have we ourselves had here? My hon. and gallant Friend opposite said that the future of this country, and I think he said of the world, depended upon our good relations with America. I will ask him to believe that there is nobody who believes in and hopes for that more fervently than myself. Here is a case in point. Where I believe you get agreement and support from Americans is because you have Americans in Egypt, and you have Americans of many kinds. You have merchants, missionaries, and scientists and diplomatists, and you should ask the opinon of those people as to whether they want us to clear out of Egypt or not? There is another question I wish to put to the representative of the Foreign Office. We all know very well what are the opinions of extremists in most lands, and certainly we know what the opinions of the extremists are in Egypt.
    Do we know what the opinions of the Ministers are? Have they put them
    2386
    on paper. Have these Ministers in Egypt as yet stated their opinions? While I am speaking on this point, may I say that I have known the ex-Prime Minister, Rushdi Pasha, and have had the honour of knowing a man who, in my humble opinion, is a man who merits all respect—that is, Sir Adly Pasha-Teghen. Nobody could speak to him without knowing that he was a very patriotic and a very honest man too. I should be very glad if these gentlemen were invited to come to England, not to Paris.
    Ireland is a very different question. When Mr. Taft was approached upon the question of Ireland in connection with America, he said, "Let us take one thing at a time."He was right. Very many things are wrong in every Empire in the world. We all know that, and we want to see them put right, but the present moment is not the time for bringing up the Philippines question at Paris, or the question of Morocco, or the question of Algiers, or the question of Egypt. We have this particular great big question of the War to settle. Let us settle that, and then, with the help of the League of Nations, let us all put our own houses in order. May I give the House one personal experience during the War? I was in Egypt on various occasions and for a certain time before the Dardanelles and again afterwards. I saw how our services in Egypt were stripped for war purposes. When you took away our British officials there were many collapsesin government. For instance, one great Department, the Ministry of the Interor, was stripped. After that, there followed—I am speaking from memory but I do not think I am going beyond my book—disorganisation, and even worse, corruption. A friend of mine in the past, who had been at my own college, who has been very highly respected—he was a native of very great eminence—was accused of things I hardly like to mention in the House. He is one of the people who at the present momenthave been deported. This is the only example I quote to show that without help the Egyptians cannot govern themselves.
    My Noble and gallant Friend (Earl Winterton) in his concluding sentences said that the modern Egyptians were of the same race as those who built the Pyramids. He was right. They have the same virtues, and perhaps the same faults

    2387
    in their character. They have sobriety, honesty and industry, but they have too great a docility, and they have not yet had any opportunity for the education that is necessary for government. That should be our main task. How are we carrying out that task? I hold that during this War England has done very fine work not only in her fighting but actually in her preaching, and not only in her fighting and preaching but in her practice. I hold that the Bill which has been brought in by the Secretary of State for India is one of the finest and most liberal Bills ever placed before this country. But you cannot undertake work like that without creating ferment throughout our Dominions, and especially in Egypt. Is it wonderful then when you have a measure of Home Rule for India, when you have the speeches that you have heard in Washington and Paris, that they result in a certain ferment in Egypt? What I think we have todo is to make our position more clear than, we have been able to do in the past. Our position, is a difficult position, because the ideals that we have advocated are very great and difficult ideals to put into practice. And what people like the Egyptians,and some people in this country see, is this. They see this great canvas upon which we are painting our ideals of the future, and they see that we are painting the dove of peace and the Sermon on the Mount. But in the corner they see a little sketch, perhaps, of Conscription; and in another corner they see a little sketch, perhaps, of Armageddon, and they are still not absolutely clear about our honesty. I am absolutely convinced that there is no doubt whatsoever about our honesty, that the only difficultyhas been that we have been too much pressed by time and by the mountainous work that has been put on our shoulders; and I look forward to the reply which my hon. Friend is going to make for the Foreign Office, quite sure that if he is not able completely to satisfy us to-night he very shortly will be able to do so.
    Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: I want to say only a word, partly because it is so very rare that I have the honour of agreeing with anything that the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) states in this House. I cannot help endorsing a good deal of the
    2388
    criticism which has been made this evening of the action of the Egyptian Government. I think everyone in the House will hope that such action will not be extended more widely in view of the fact that among the deportees is the Speaker of their House of Commons. I think it would be an extremely ungrateful action of the Egyptian agitators to raise this question at the present moment in view of the fact that if it had not been for British arms they would have had no liberties at all. Unquestionably they enjoy far more freedom than they did before Great Britain administered the country, and I hope when the hon. Gentleman replies this evening that he will give some detailsof the British administration in Egypt which, I think, will vindicate the action of the Government in deciding that at the present time no such agitation can, with any justice, be admitted. But my object really in getting up for a moment was to say a wordon a question which came up this afternoon. The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs gave us to understand, and I think it war a shock to many Members of this House, that it was seriously contemplated to take away the Mosque of St. Sophia from the Moslemsand to give it to one or other of the Christian communities in Constantinople. It is very difficult to understand how such a proposal can seriously be brought forward, in view of the fact that, according to the only book I could find in the Library on thesubject, there are nearly 400,000 Moslems in Constantinople, while the strongest Christian community there the Armenians, only numbers 220,000.
    I gather it is not proposed that the Armenians should have St. Sophia. On historical grounds it is argued that it should go back to the orthodox Church. That means that it will go back to the Greeks, and the Greeks have a religious community of a little over 150,000 as against nearly 400,000 Moslems. I do not think this is the moment with Egypt seething with discontent, with Moslem fanaticism on the point of breaking out in other parts of the world, to stir up hornet's nest. We have no quarrel with the individual Turk. We may reel with justice that every German is responsible for the outbreak of the European war, butno one who has studied Turkey can pretend that the Turkish population had anything to do with being brought into hostilities.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: The Young Turks were largely responsible.
    Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: I was talking of the Turkish population. The Young Turks are largely Jews from Salonika. I quite agree you cannot exaggerate the criminality of these Young Turks, who dragged a reluctant population into the War, but I do not think it is reasonable or just to single out a particular religion for vindictive action which we are not applying in any other part of the world. There are many other instances of the same kind that occur to our minds. If we are not going to admit the prescriptive right which is set up by 500 years Moslem worship inSt. Sophia I do not know how long any Christian sect in the conquered territories can hope to enjoy the facilities which they now enjoy. Surely, this War was not fought for religious bigotry, and if there is one thing that we want to avoid it is intolerance or any unnecessary stirring up of bitterness. We have to remember that nearly half the Moslem population of the world have lived and prospered and been content under the British flag. There are 220,000,000 Moslems in the world of whom 100,000,000 are fellow subjects of ours. They outnumber the Christian subjects of the British Empire, and in view of our action in setting up the new Empire of the Hedjez it would have been a most extraordinary instance of lack of logic if we took this vindictive action which is proposed in Constantinople. If we do not stand up for the Moslems in Paris it is quite likely that this injustice will take place, and I hope the Under-Secretary will give us some assurance that it is not forgotten how much we owe to the loyal support of the Moslems in India and other parts of the British Empire, and that we shall avoid taking any action of this kind to stir up controversy and cause lasting bitterness in that community.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The House will agree that, whatever may be our shortcomings in the past, we have this evening displayed a very great interest in Eastern affairs. This Debate has been one of the most interesting I have heard on Eastern questions. I might almost say it is really worth the while of those who, like myself, have gone without their dinners to make that sacrifice in order that they might listen to it. It has shown that we possess among hon. Members many who have a large knowledge of Egypt and the Near
    2390
    East. I had almost said we have discovered Members who are worthy successors of the late Sir Mark Sykes, who will be remembered by all who knew him with affectionate regard.
    We have also had a few maiden speeches of exceptional interest and value. We have also had this feature, that there have been many complaints of Foreign Office influence in the government of Egypt accompanied, as I observed with gratification, with glowing testimonies to the ever-increasing prosperity of Egypt under that influence. It would ill become me to engage in any discussion tending to suggest any other ultimate influence in the government of Egypt than the Department to which I have the honour to belong. From my own brief experience of it, I have not observed among eminent public servants who work in that Department that hardhearted and unfeeling bureaucracy of which we have heard so much this evening.
    I do not think hon. Members will expect me to reply to each and every one of the many difficult points that have been raised. Itake it that they desired in general to give expression to views about the government of Egypt, but I am confident they do not desire at this difficult moment to cause any embarrassment to those who are responsible for that policy. There is one very awkward question that I personally should be very much obliged if hon. Members would not discuss in the House, and that is the question of the Church of St. Sophia. I think it must be recognised by hon. Members that that is a matter about which the representative of the Foreign Office in this House is not in a position at this moment to say anything. This matter of St. Sophia has almost led to an incident between myself and my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood). I am not aware that I have ever drafted an impertinent answer to my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not accuse you of drafting it. It was written while you were in Paris, but you read the answer.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: If I have caused my hon. and gallant Friend the slightest annoyance, Ican only express my regret; but I would ask him and other hon. Members to look at this point from the opposite point of view, and to avoid, as far as they can, such an exceedingly awkward question. My hon. and gallant Friend who opened this discussion in a

    2391
    speech of singular charm, asked me for further information about the recent events in the East. We have had the advantage—if I may refer to what has taken place in the other House—of a full statement by my Noble Friend, the acting Secretary of State. I know that we in this House are not supposed to derive our information from speeches in the other House, but it is quite possible that many hon. Members have read the observations of my Noble Friend. Yesterday a very long answer was given to a question put by my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood) which says all that ought properly to be said at this stage about the present situation in Egypt.
    Earl WINTERTON: Has not the situation become much worse within the last twenty-four hours? Is it not a fact, as announced to-night, that the telegraph wires have been cut between Cairo and Alexandria, and that communication is solely by wireless? Is that correct as reported in the Press?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot off-hand answer that question, because I have not seen any official confirmation of it, but it is quite obvious that the situation in Egypt is such as to give rise to very considerable anxiety. The House will remember that in November last a deputation of Egyptian Nationalists, under the leadership of Saad Pasha Zaguli, called at the Residency and made the following proposition to the High Commissioner. They advocated a programme of complete autonomy of Egypt which would leave to Great Britain only a right of supervisor in regard to the public debt and facilities for shipping in the Suez Canal. Having regard to our responsibilities in Egypt, to our home policy, our foreign poilcy, and the enormous importance of this portion of what I might call the network of our Empire, that proposition was one to which the High Commissioner could not be expected to lend a sympathetic ear. After that they asked, furthermore, that they should be allowed to proceed to London at once in order to put forward their demands. About the same time the Nationalists elected a committee of fourteen leaders and began collecting signatures to petitions and also subscriptions in support of their programme, and they embarked on a general programme of agitation. Shortly afterwards the Prime Minister, Rushdi
    2392
    Pasha, suggested that he and Adly Pasha, Minister of Education, should visit London in the immediate future in order to discuss Egyptian affairs. He further urged that the Nationalist leaders should also be allowed to appear in London, and that is very largely the origin of all the difficulty and trouble that has since occurred. The Government, as I am informed, were most willing to discuss Egyptian affairs with the highly respected Prime Minister and the Minister for Education. They could not see their way to do it, and having regard to the demands of the Nationalist party in Egypt—as explained by their leaders they could not be expected to welcome with enthusiasm a deputation to this country of those leaders. At that moment, too, it was inconvenient to receive the Egyptian Ministers having regard to the fact that the Secretary of State was going to Paris to be immersed in the affairs of the Peace Conference. Their visit to London at that time would have been inconvenient, and it was so explained to them, but it was also stated that the Government felt it to be quite impossible that they should receive the Nationalist leaders whose claims were such that they would not even admit of discussion.
    That is as much of this story as I think Members of the House would care to listen to to-day. The House is aware that it is and always has been the desire of successive British Governments, that the native Egyptian people should have a larger share in the control of their own country. I cannot do better in this connection than quote the words of my Noble Friend in another place—words already conveyed to the Nationalist party in Egypt:
    "His Majesty's Government, while sympathising with the idea of giving the Egyptians an ever-increasing share in the government of the country, cannot abandon their responsibility for order and good government in Egypt over which a British Protectorate had been formally declared in 1915, for safeguarding the rights and interests of the native and foreign population."
    That I say is as much of the history of the matter as the House is willing to listen to on this occasion. A point has been raised by two or three of my hon. Friends as to the Capitulations. I am informed that the discussions on this question between His Majesty's representatives and representatives of the French Government in Paris are now entering upon their concluding stage, and it is hoped that during the current year the abolition of the

    2393
    Capitulations may become an accomplished fact, although it is apprehended that some little further time may be required before the judicial machinery can be adjusted to the new condition of affairs. I am not sure that there is any other particular in regard to which this House desires information. My right hon. Friend the Member for theScottish Universities raised the question of a Ministry of Health for Egypt. I am informed that recently considerable additional powers have been vested in the existing Department of Health in Egypt, which it is trusted will meet the desires expressed bymy hon. Friend. But in any case the question of a Ministry of Health for Egypt is still open to the sympathetic consideration of the Government; it is not a closed question. At this late hour I will not seek further to engage the attention of the House—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether there is any Government in Egypt at the present time?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: A Prime Minister?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think there is no Prime Minister. My hon. and gallant Friend is probably aware that one of the reasons for which the Nationalists were deported was the exercise of their efforts to prevent the formation of a new Government and their intimidation of His Highness the Sultan.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Who is actually carrying out the functions of the Government, then?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Powers are vested in the High Commissioner and in the military authorities. I may say that the present situation requires that law and order must be restored in Egypt before we embark with any hope of success on the projects which have so largely engaged bur attention this evening. It is a situation which requires firmness and decision, and that we cannot doubt. His Majesty's Government here and His Majesty's representatives in Egypt will force with all the power at their command.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS.

      MONEY RESOLUTION.
      Considered in Committee.
      [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed.
      "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a Ministry of Ways and Communications, it is expedient—

      (1) To authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament—

      (a) of an annual salary not exceeding five thousand pounds to the Minister of ways and Communications, of annual salaries not exceeding one thousand five hundred pounds to the Parliamentary Secretaries of the Ministry, and of such other salaries, remuneration, and expenses as may become payable under such Act;

      (b) of such sums as may be required to fulfil any guarantee to make contributions to pension or superannuation funds, and to make advances and other payments authorised under such Act;

      (2) To authorise the creation and issue of securities, with interest to be charged so far as not met out of other sources of revenue on the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Shortt.]

      Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: May I ask how many secretaries it is proposed to appoint to this new department? I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech when he introduced the Bill, but I do not think that he made any statement on that point.
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): Two in this House.
      Captain BENN: Will that be the total number of secretaries to be paid under this Bill so far as the Houses of Parliament are concerned?
      Mr. SHORTT: I understand so.
      Colonel GRETTON: This Motion is one of considerable importance, and it should not be passed without some little examination. In the first paragraph of the Motion itis proposed to authorise the expenses of the Ministry itself. I think that we might have some little information as to what those expenses are to be. The only information that we have is as to the salaries of the Minister himself and the two Parliamentary Secretaries. We have just elicited the fact that there are to be two Parliamentary Secretaries only. Would it not be better to put it into the Motion

      2395
      itself and so register the decision of the Government and limit the expenses under this head? We ought to go a little further and the Government might inform the House what expenses this Ministry will entail upon the Consolidated Fund.
      I think the total amount should be stated in the Resolution, the salaries during the first year, and what sums it is proposed to allocate to the Ministry, and to draw upon for expenses connected with it. These questions have not been raised in the House, and on previous occasions Motions of this kind have been amen led by inserting a total amount. These are times of vast expenditure and straitened national means, and I should like to see a sum inserted which will limit the power of the Ministry to call upon the Treasury for expenses. In order to raise the question, and to obtain a statement from the Minister in charge.
      I beg to move to leave out the word "the" ["the Parliamentary Secretaries"], and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
      Mr. SHORTT: I am quite sure no one appreciates better than my hon. and gallant Friend that it is quite impossible to accept at this stagean Amendment of this kind. I am sure the Committee will remember that the extent and functions of the proposed Ministry will depend very largely on what happens to the Bill in Committee. It might be that two will be sufficient or that Amendments will be carried which will necessitate three. It is quite evident it would be impossible to tell until the Bill has gone through Committee what the size of the Ministry will be or what its expenses will be approximately. For example, it might be if some of my hon.Friends have their way, that in Committee railways will be eliminated, and that the Bill will be left to deal with docks only and roads. If that were so the Ministry would be considerably smaller. If in the Committee stage the functions of the Ministry are cut down, the expenditure will be accordingly reduced. If we inserted "two" instead of "the Parliamentary Secretaries,"the Bill might come from Committee in a state in which it would be impossible to go on with two Under-Secretaries. An Amendment might be moved in Committee that there should be a certain number of departments Hinder this Minister, each with a separate
      2396
      Minister at their head, and subject to the Minister of Ways and Communications. That would mean if you had three such departments that you would only have two Under-Secretaries, which, under those circumstances would be insufficient.
      If it comes down to the necessity only of having two, then two will be the number that will be required, but it is impossible for us to bind ourselves when, quite possibly, when the Bill comes down from the Committee, the Money Resolution will be entirely insufficient. Really, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said, these are matters which are raised on every Money Resolution, and I may remind him that theyare generally met with the same answer, that at this stage we cannot tell what will be required. Therefore, I think it is quite impossible to accept the Amendment.
      Captain W. BENN: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us how the functions of the Under-Secretariesare to be divided? This is the only occasion when the House has effective control over the money part, and we are entitled to ask for a little more information. Can he tell us how the division of function is going to be made? What duties will each of theUnder-Secretaries perform? If only two are required, it would be much better to accept the Amendment.
      Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid that is quite impossible, and I am sure no one better appreciates that than my hon. and gallant Friend. If there are only two, their function will be to divide £3,000 equally between them. That is the most I can say at this moment.
      Colonel GRETTON: I am sorry to speak again, but the position is not a satisfactory one. The Government has brought in this amount without any Estimate. My right hon. Friend referred to the proceedings in Committee upstairs. He tells us that the Committee upstairs practically determines what the expense is to be according to the functions which will be performed by the Ministry.
      Mr. SHORTT: Subject to the Treasury.
      Colonel GRETTON: Subject, of course, to the Treasury as regards expenditure. That position is a very unsatisfactory one. All the indications are that some or other of the proposed duties of this Ministry may be cut down, with a correspondingdecrease of the staff and the expenditure

      2397
      which will be required. The Government have put into this Bill everything they want, and they have drawn the Motion on the widest terms which will cover all the expenditure they require. However, I do not desire to press this Amendment any further.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1) to add the words:
      "Provided that no new transport undertaking shall be established by the Ministry until an estimate of the capital expenditure required to complete the undertaking has been submitted to and approved by the Treasury; provided that the total expenditure authorised by the Treasury under this heading shall not exceed in any one year the sum of £260,000."
      I am one of those, like my hon. and gallant Friend, who think that the House ought not to sign, without further explana-
      2398
      tion, the blank cheque asked for in this Resolution. This Resolution will authorise an immense expenditure—
      It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
      The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
      Whereupon Mr. Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.

  INDEMNITIES.
  INDEMNITIES.
  INDUSTRIAL SITUATION (GOVERNMENT ARRANGEMENTS).
  INDUSTRIAL SITUATION (GOVERNMENT ARRANGEMENTS).
  WAR MEMORIALS.
  WAR MEMORIALS.
INCOME TAX.
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  POLICE PENSIONS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  PREGNANT ANIMALS.
  PREGNANT ANIMALS.
  SACCHARINE.
  SACCHARINE.
  FROZEN MUTTON (STOCKS).
  FROZEN MUTTON (STOCKS).
  LAND (BOARD OF AGRICULTURE'S OCCUPATION).
  LAND (BOARD OF AGRICULTURE'S OCCUPATION).
  IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS (PRINCIPALS' RESIDENCES).
  IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS (PRINCIPALS' RESIDENCES).
  IRISH ROADS.
  IRISH ROADS.
  NAVAL EQUIPMENT (SUGGESTIONS AND INVENTIONS).
  NAVAL EQUIPMENT (SUGGESTIONS AND INVENTIONS).
  TRAWLERS AND DRIFTERS, KINGSTOWN.
  TRAWLERS AND DRIFTERS, KINGSTOWN.
  WAR DECORATIONS.
  WAR DECORATIONS.
DEMOBILISATION.
  ORDER OF RELEASE.
  ORDER OF RELEASE.
  FURLOUGH PAY.
  FURLOUGH PAY.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  MEN ATTESTED UNDER THE DERBY SCHEME.
  MEN ATTESTED UNDER THE DERBY SCHEME.
  TERMS (DEFINITIONS).
  TERMS (DEFINITIONS).
  CANADIAN OFFICERS (REPATRIATION).
  CANADIAN OFFICERS (REPATRIATION).
  RE-ENLISTED TERRITORIALS.
  RE-ENLISTED TERRITORIALS.
  CALAIS DOCKS (CHINESE LABOUR).
  CALAIS DOCKS (CHINESE LABOUR).
  ARMY PROFICIENCY PAY (NAVAL. SERVICE).
  ARMY PROFICIENCY PAY (NAVAL. SERVICE).
  LONG SERVICE SOLDIERS (PROFICIENCY PAY).
  LONG SERVICE SOLDIERS (PROFICIENCY PAY).
  REQUISITIONED HOUSES, EAST COAST.
  REQUISITIONED HOUSES, EAST COAST.
  BASE DEPOTS, FRANCE (HUTMENTS).
  BASE DEPOTS, FRANCE (HUTMENTS).
  COURTS-MARTIAL (COMMITTEE).
  COURTS-MARTIAL (COMMITTEE).
  SOLDIERS' CORRESPONDENCE.
  SOLDIERS' CORRESPONDENCE.
  REGULAR ARMY (RE-ENLISTMENT).
  REGULAR ARMY (RE-ENLISTMENT).
  ARMOURED CAR BRIGADE, BELTON PARK CAMP.
  ARMOURED CAR BRIGADE, BELTON PARK CAMP.
  SOLDIERS (OFFICIAL AGE).
  SOLDIERS (OFFICIAL AGE).
  ARMY PENSIONS (COMMUTATION).
  ARMY PENSIONS (COMMUTATION).
  ARMY OF THE RHINE (ROYAL IRISH RIFLES).
  ARMY OF THE RHINE (ROYAL IRISH RIFLES).
  ARMY COUNCIL (APPEAL FOR INTERVIEW).
  ARMY COUNCIL (APPEAL FOR INTERVIEW).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  WAR GRATUITY.
  WAR GRATUITY.
  SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  DISABLED MEN.
  DISABLED MEN.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  CARPENTER RATINGS.
  CARPENTER RATINGS.
  INVENTIONS (REWARDS).
  INVENTIONS (REWARDS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (MEDICAL TREATMENT).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (MEDICAL TREATMENT).
  HOWELLS SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, LLANDAFF.
  HOWELLS SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, LLANDAFF.
  COURT-MARTIAL SENTENCES.
  COURT-MARTIAL SENTENCES.
  TAXI-CAB DRIVER (LICENCE).
  TAXI-CAB DRIVER (LICENCE).
HOUSING.
  ACCOMMODATION FOR WORKPEOPLE.
  ACCOMMODATION FOR WORKPEOPLE.
  ASSISTANCE OF BLIND.
  ASSISTANCE OF BLIND.
  BREWING RESTRICTIONS.
  BREWING RESTRICTIONS.
  PAPER CONTROL.
  PAPER CONTROL.
  MIDDLESBROUGH AND STOCKTON TRAMWAYS.
  MIDDLESBROUGH AND STOCKTON TRAMWAYS.
  FRENCH GOVERNESS (REFUSED PERMIT).
  FRENCH GOVERNESS (REFUSED PERMIT).
  LIMERICK POST OFFICE (APPOINTMENTS).
  LIMERICK POST OFFICE (APPOINTMENTS).
  POST OFFICE EMPLOYMENT (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  POST OFFICE EMPLOYMENT (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  AGRICULTURE (GOVERNMENT POLICY).
  AGRICULTURE (GOVERNMENT POLICY).
  HOPS.
  HOPS.
SCOTLAND.
  FAIR RENT.
  FAIR RENT.
  LEEDS (EXPORT LICENCES).
  LEEDS (EXPORT LICENCES).
  LAND BANK.
  LAND BANK.
  CROFTS (ENLARGEMENT).
  CROFTS (ENLARGEMENT).
  THIRD FIARS INQUIRY.
  THIRD FIARS INQUIRY.
  OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT (BRAZIL APPOINTMENT).
  OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT (BRAZIL APPOINTMENT).
  CONSULAR SERVICE.
  CONSULAR SERVICE.
  BRITISH CELLULOSE COMPANY (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  BRITISH CELLULOSE COMPANY (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
CAVENDISH CLARKE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SUMMONS AND PROCKSS SERVERS' FEES (IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Prolongation of duration of principal Act.
1. The Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as the "principal Act"), and the enactments amending that Act, shall continue in force until Lady Day nineteen hundred and twenty-one, but during the period (hereinafter referred to as "the extended period") between the time when but for this Act the principal Act would have expired and the said Lady Day the principal Act shall have effect subject to the modifications contained in the two next succeeding sections.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to omit from Clause 1 the words "the time when but for this Act the principal Act would have expired," and to insert "Michaelmas Day, 1919." The noble Marquess said: I desire to consult the convenience of your Lordships' House in respect of the moving of this first Amendment. As a matter of fact, I put it down principally with a view to the Amendment which follows, and which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Balfour as well as in my own name. But this Amendment also stands upon its own footing. The principal Act provides that it shall come to an end six months after the war, and as that is to be interpreted in the light
824
of the Act which your Lordships and another place passed at the end of last session, that would be six months after the ratification, or as near as may be after the ratification, of peace. When the principal Act in 1915 was passed—I do not pretend to remember it myself, for I do not think I was present in your Lordships' House at the time—no doubt there was a sort of general feeling that after hostilities were concluded there ought to be an interval before the normal state of things was resumed, and the interval was, as the words are to be interpreted, fixed at six months.
It is very inconvenient in the first place that there should be a doubt as to when the date is. Property owners and occupiers—both parties to the bargain—are put in great difficulty owing to the ambiguity. It is not known up to what date the principal Act really would have lasted, nor is it known up to what date the succeeding legislation will last because it depends upon the same ambiguity. Therefore it is important, instead of having a vague date of six months after the peace, or whatever the words of the principal Act exactly are, that there should be a definite date when the first period shall come to an end. I propose, therefore, that your Lordships should consent to substitute for the time when the principal Act would expire—that is to say, six months after the peace whenever that may be—Michaelmas Day of this year.
The reason why Michaelmas Day in this year is selected is that we understand that peace is about to be signed. I understand through the usual channels that it is expected in a week or a fortnight's time. No doubt if we were rigidly to follow the Act which was passed at the end of last session it would be six months after the ratification, but, as I have said, I do not think that was in the mind of your Lordships' House or of the other House of Parliament when the principal Act was passed. What they thought was that there ought to be an interval of six months after hostilities were concluded. Therefore it is a very little allowance to say Michaelmas of this year, for hostilities have already been concluded four months, and it will give an additional two months from the con elusion of hostilities.
I desire to consult your Lordships, and perhaps it would be really more convenient for the House, if I also put the case for the

825
second Amendment which really is largely dependent upon this. At the same time I an entirely in the hands of your Lordships. I do not know which the Government would prefer.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): I have no view on the matter. I do not think it would be practically inconvenient. Your Lordships would probably not desire to have the discussion twice.
THR MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: One of my reasons for having a fixed date for the period when the principal Act would have expired is that the other dates of the succeeding periods depend upon it, and these are dealt with in the second Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Balfour and also in my own name. If I may, therefore, argue that Amendment upon this occasion I would, with your Lordships' permission, proceed to state the case for that second Amendment* which I think is the more important Amendment.
What is the object of the Bill? Its object is to prevent the effect of the shortage of houses giving the opportunity to owners who are not public-spirited of raising the rent unduly or of recovering possession of the premises. That being the object of the Bill, and it being found that; the period fixed by the principal Act is not long enough, it is proposed in the present Bill that it should be prolonged. To that we all agree; indeed, I think no one defended the main principle of the Bill more warmly than I ventured to do upon the Second Reading. But although we are determined so far as we can to prevent a misuse of this power which the shortage of houses would give to landlords who are ill-disposed, yet it is agreed on all hands that there must be some equitable treatment of the landlords.
Why should there be something given to the landlord on the other side? In the
* The second Amendment standing in the name of the MARQUESS OF SALISBURY was as follows:
Page 1, lines 18 and 19, leave out ("ten per centum of the standard rent") and insert ("for the period from Michaelmas Day nineteen hundred and nineteen until Lady Day nineteen hundred and twenty, ten per centum of the standard rent, and for the period from Lady Day nineteen hundred and twenty until the date of the expiration of this Act twenty-five per centum of the standard rent").
826
first place, because of the enormous rise of prices. Prices are double what they were. The second reason is that it is proposed in this very Bill, without any kind of objection from any quarter, to allow mortgagees to raise the rate of interest. That is a very important matter in connection with this subject, because I am informed that 80 per cent. of the small houses are mortgaged. A mortgage rate is to be allowed to be raised to the extent of ½ per cent. up to 5 per cent. Lastly, there is the cost of repairs. Repairs, like everything else, will cost double what they used to cost. And the fact that during the war they have been postponed does not make it better for the landlord but worse, because a postponed repair is a much more expensive one at all times. Therefore the fact that the well-disposed landlord, through no fault of his own, could not get any workmen to carry out his repairs upon reasonable terms, and had to postpone them, has placed him in a still worse position.
Thus, the landlord has these three difficulties in front of him—the fact of a possible raising of the mortgage interest, the postponement of repairs, and the rise in prices which has doubled the cost of everything. What is proposed in the Bill in order to meet these; difficulties of the landlord? First, an increase of 10 per cent in the rent. That can be demonstrably shown to be wholly insufficient. Of course, the mortgage interest and the increase of the rent are not entirely comparable, because the mortgage interest is usually upon two-thirds of the capital value, whereas the increase of the rent applies to the. whole amount of the rental. But it is not an over-statement to say that the mortgage interest will absorb at least 6 per cent out of the 10 per cent of the increase in rent which is provided for the owner. That leaves him only 4 per cent for repairs. But, so far from 4 per cent. being sufficient for the repairs, the whole 10 per cent would not be sufficient; as prices stand now much more like 20 per cent is needed. Therefore, all he has to meet these demands for repairs, which may be 10 per cent, or 20 per cent., is this 4 per cent. So that instead of being, as he ought equitably to be, in receipt of a higher rent, having regard to the change in the value of money, he is positively left in a worse position. That appears to be absolutely in acceptable. If we are to act

827
equitably at all we must improve upon that.
I believe it is really common ground with everybody that in respect of repairs the owner ought to receive some increment of rent. I have no doubt your Lordships have all read the Report of Lord Hunter's Committee. The Minority Report, signed by two gentlemen who may be said to have represented the tenants' interests, cordially admitted that the 10 per cent. would be mostly absorbed by the mortgage interest, and it admitted also that the owner ought to receive some increased rent corresponding to the increase of the repairs. Therefore, I think the case is absolutely proved that, as the Bill stands, the owner does not receive anything like a sufficient increment of rent if he is barely to perform the duties of keeping his house in order.
This being the case, I have proposed to your Lordships a change in the Bill. I need not say that that change is founded upon a recommendation of the Majority Report of Lord Hunter's Committee. They dealt with the problem in this way. They said that, in consequence of the increase of the mortgage interest, the owner ought to be entitled to a 10 per cent. increment six months after the war is concluded; then, after a second period, he ought to be entitled to a further increment of 15 per cent. in order to meet the cost of repairs—or 25 per cent in all. The case, of course, is made worse for the landlord, as the Bill stands, because the repairs are exacted from him during the first period when he is only to get 10 per cent.—even under the Amendment which I propose. That, no doubt, does make my proposal not so good for the owner as the recommendation of Lord Hunter's Committee. But I do not propose to disturb the provision which has been put into the Bill in the House of Commons that effective repairs should be an essential condition of any increase of rent. I do not think we ought to disturb that; it seems a perfectly sound principle that an owner should not be entitled to an increase of rent until the house has been put into a proper state of repair. But it makes it all the more necessary that the owner should be allowed an extra 15 per cent. after a suitable interval. It might be difficult perhaps after the first six months to propose so large an increase as 25 per cent. all at once. Lord Hunter's Committee thought that it was wiser that
828
whatever increase was proposed it should be in two instalments, and therefore I have adhered to that expedient. But that there should be at least an increment of 25 per cent. on the whole, till the end of the operation of the Bill, appears to be prescribed by any principle of equity.
I am going to make an appeal to the Government. Even if this Amendment—which follows (though not entirely) the recommendations of Lord Hunter's Committee—passes, the owners will not be placed in the same position, or in anything like the same position, as that in which they were before the war. They must suffer like other people have suffered from the adverse circumstances in which we find ourselves; but it is most important that they should not feel that they have been treated with undue injustice in a matter of this kind. After all, they did their best before Lord Hunter's Committee to meet the necessities of the case. They were not extreme in insisting upon their own point of view; and it is most important that they should not have a rankling sense of injustice hereafter. Let us remember that they are the people upon whom we are going to rely in the future to keep up the housing provision of this country. You may put it right—as I hope you will—by passing the Bill which is now before Parliament for the emergency housing of the moment; but that is not going to solve the housing question afterwards.
The housing question is a much bigger one even than that for which the emergency Bill provides; and the men upon whom you have to rely are those who build and own these houses, and who are, to some extent, necessarily hardly treated by the existing state of things even if the Bill passes as I would ask your Lordships to pass it. But if you add to that a rankling sense of injustice that they are worse treated than was proposed by Lord Hunter's Committee, and that no account whatever is taken of the very difficult position in which they are placed, then I say that instead of having them on your side hereafter you will have them against you; and you will find that you will not be able to rely upon them to make good the permanent provision of housing which will be necessary even after the present Housing Bill is passed. Therefore it is of great importance, from the point of view of the statesman, that we should treat these gentlemen with something like equity.

829
For these reasons I have shown that the provision in the Government's Bill will leave them not better off but worse off than they were before the war; and it is because, as I have pointed out, my Amendment does not go so far as the recommendation of Lord Hunter's Committee that I venture to ask you to insert it in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("the time when bit for this Act the principal Act would have expired") and insert ("Michaelmas Day nineteen hundred and nineteen").—(The Marquess of Salisbury).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know whether it will be convenient to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, that I should have the advantage of hearing what he has to say upon the second Amendment, as your Lordships have taken the view that the two Amendments might be discussed together. If convenient to the noble Lord, I would rather hear what he has to say before I deal with it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have no objection to putting my case as shortly as I can, but I think it more convenient to hear what the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill has to say.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I quite agree. I do not think that the course recommended by the noble Marquess of considering his first Amendment and his second Amendment—which latter, as he truly told your Lordships, is in substance and in principle the same Amendment as Lord Balfour's—an inconvenient one. The noble Marquess said truly that his first Amendment could be considered on its own merits, though it also required explanation by reference to the second Amendment. If one takes the first Amendment upon its own merits, the effect of it is to enable the rent of a house, to which the Act of 1915 already applies, to be raised by 10 per cent, from next Michaelmas Day instead of from the date contemplated by the original Act—namely, six months after the termination of the war. I do not quarrel with the observation made by the noble Marquess that from almost every point of view it would have been more convenient if one could have had a definite day in the Bill instead of a period of which it cannot be predicated exactly on what day, or indeed what month, it will come. The difficulty arises from the circumstances of the case; and really on reflection I
830
think your Lordships will come to the conclusion that the draftsman had very little choice as to the form in which he should express this. When the original Bill was passed nobody knew, of course, when the war was going to end; therefore the only possible term which could be adopted was one which stated a certain period after the end of the war. That has happened; and it has produced actual results.
One of the results is that the tenants under the Act of 1915 have undoubtedly and reasonably taken the view that they have a right not to have their lent raised until the date of the expiry of the Act. Any tenant who asked himself now, "What are my rights under the Act which Parliament has passed?" is bound at once to say, "At any rate I have this right, that my rent shall not be raised for six months after the war is over." The adoption of the Amendment of the noble Marquess would take away from a tenant a right which was defined by Parliament, and defined in such a manner as to entitle him to rely upon that definition as being the measure of his rights. As the noble Marquess has referred to that extremely useful and competent Committee which was presided over by Lord Hunter, I may say that this matter was carefully considered by that Committee (as the noble Marquess will remember), and the considerations put to this House to-day by the noble Marquess were before that Committee, and before them at much greater length than probably it would be possible for your Lordships to discuss them; and this matter was definitely and deliberately rejected by the Committee.
The noble Marquess explained the effect of his second Amendment. Putting it shortly, it is as follows. It would allow a minimum increase of 10 per cent, on the rent during the period between the passing of the Bill and Lady Day, 1920, and a further increase up to 25 percent, between Lady Day, 1920, and Lady Day, 1921. It is, by anticipation, the proposal of Lord Balfour of Burleigh in his Amendment, which is in principle the same as that of the noble Marquess—though not exactly the same in its details. For the same reason that led the noble Marquess to discuss his second Amendment together with his first Amendment, I may, perhaps, make a few observations upon the Amendment of Lord Balfour of Burleigh and that of the noble Marquess which course will probably in the end prove to be economical

831
of your Lordships' time. It is perfectly true, as Lord Balfour of Burleigh will no doubt remind your Lordships, that Lord Huater's Committee recommended an initial increase of 10 per cent., and a subsequent further increase of 15 per cent; but it is very material to notice that the initial increase was not to take place until six months after the termination of the war, and the further increase not until a year after that date.
Your Lordships will remember that the Hunter proposal was that the Act should be continued until the expiration of three years from the termination of the war. Now, of course, if the Government had adopted the proposal that the Bill should at this moment be defined as continuing its operations for a period of three years after the war, it would be necessary to make some provision for the whole of that period of three years, and it might be very reasonable to make some such proposal as that which the noble Lord makes. But now that the Government have refused to accept the three years contemplated by Lord Hunter's Committee, and have substituted for that the proposal contained in the Bill, the proposal of the noble Lord is really, if I may say so, neither logical nor applicable. This also, I think, may be reasonably added, that if it is found necessary further to extend the duration of the Act—every one must hope that it will not be necessary, but every one must realise that it may become necessary—then the question of allowing a further increase will, of course, arise and must then be dealt with, and it can then be quite conveniently dealt with.
I should be sorry, I confess, if this Amendment were carried in the circumstances I have indicated. It was very carefully considered in the House of Commons. The House of Commons, as your Lordships know, is very fresh from contact with all kinds of persons in the constituencies who have been considering these problems from all points of view. Considerable discussion took place in the House of Commons, and the views expressed and insisted upon were by no means all on one side of this question. In fact your Lordships may remember that a substituted proposal, to allow an increase of 5 per cent, and not an increase of 10 per cent., received very considerable support from the House of Commons. I am far from seeking to attenuate the force of what was said by the noble Marquess as to the inadequacy
832
of the allowance, as it is contained in the Bill, to meet the real loss which is sustained by the property owner. It is, I agree, not adequate. The property owner belongs to one of many classes that have suffered specially in consequence of the war. It is impossible to remove all these anomalies and injustices, just as it has proved impossible to prevent many persons from unduly profiting by the war; but I think, for the reasons that I have given, that it would not be convenient at least that this Amendment should be insisted upon. I hope that your Lordships will be inclined to wait, in order that, if it becomes necessary to extend this period in the light of the further experience we shall then have gained from the working of this Bill, we shall be in a position to make better arrangements.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: We are, of course, discussing the two Amendments at the same time. I do not know whether it would be more convenient to take a Division upon the first of them, in which I am not concerned, before we go to the second one, or whether it would be better to continue the discussion and take a Division afterwards.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it would be quite convenient, if your Lordships have heard, as I imagine you may have done, enough discussion upon the first Amendment, to take a Division upon it. I have no doubt that the discussion on the second Amendment will thereby be abbreviated.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I think it fair to the noble Marquess who moved the first Amendment to call attention to the fact that, although it is true that his Amendment would bring into operation at an earlier date than the indeterminate date mentioned in the clause the limited power of increasing rents, at the same time it would bring into operation at an earlier date than the indeterminate date mentioned in the Bill those provisions of the Bill which bring larger houses within the benefits of the original Act. Therefore it is a very liberal Amendment, and one which is in favour of tenants.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I may, perhaps, be permitted to press upon the Lord Chancellor that he has not allowed sufficiently for the abnormal circumstances

833
which have arisen. The original Act was pressed upon us as a very temporary measure, and was carried rapidly at a time when I suppose the impression of most people was that the war was a matter of only a few months. It has now continued in operation for over four years, and during that time there has been a complete change in all the circumstances of the payment of everything except rent. During that time, also; there has come practically a paralysis of the power of owners of houses to repair them without an enormous increase of expenditure, and the effect of the Lord Chancellor's view would be that all the advantages which we most desire to see, and which the Government most desire to see, with regard to the improvement of houses must be deferred for an indefinite period, because a rent which must be unremunerative at the present time is to be continued. I think it is too considerable a sacrifice to ask that we should continue to keep rents in a position which it was never imagined they would hold for an indefinite period, when an opportunity has come for really putting the matter in a more practical position. As Lord Stuart of Wortley said, if this is done we shall earlier bring within the scope of the Act houses which from every standpoint should be included.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think I ought to say a word upon this matter. I confess that I recognise to a great extent the force of what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord opposite. It is not an easy matter for us here to amend a Bill of this kind in this particular sense. It obviously gives rise to the criticism that we are, many of us being property owners, prepared to act in the interests of the owners of property, even though it be true, as I think it is, that the owners of property specially affected by this provision are, generally speaking, a very different sort of people from those who occupy seats in this House. That, I think, cannot be disputed.
To my mind the main strength of the argument of the noble Marquess, and also of the noble Lord above the gangway, lies in this—that it cannot be disputed that if the provisions of the Bill are such as to I make the possession of this sort of property quite unremunerative during the period that the Bill is in operation, having regard to the fact that the execution of repairs is forced upon the landlord, the result will inevitably be that those repairs will be.
834
executed in the cheapest, and it is not perhaps too much to add the nastiest, possible way compatible with their being executed at all; that the disposition that the landlord may reasonably be expected to hold, to execute repairs upon a tolerably generous scale so far as his means allow, cannot be indulged if the terms of the Bill are kept. At the same time I am bound to say that I, for one, am not prepared to enter into a conflict with the House of Commons upon a matter of this kind; and if the Government take the responsibility of saying that this clause must pass in its present form, I should not feel justified in opposing it.
EARL GREY: The noble and learned Lord's objection to the Amendment which we are discussing took two main points. One was that the Amendment of the noble Marquess was not logical because the Hunter Committee has not been followed in its recommendation to extend it for three years, and therefore we should not seek to alter the time at the other end. I do not see what logic has got to do with it. The case for the rise in rent being due to landowners was admitted by the Hunter Committee and it has nothing to do with time at all. It is due to them now. The whole question of when it is going to be given is purely a question of expediency.
How soon do you think you can impose it without creating disturbance, and how quickly do you think you can go? Surely the questions of time and the right to have the rise which if fully admitted are quite different questions. The other objection to it was that tenants had been led to expect by the principal Act that they would have till six months after the conclusion of the war. Surely you could extend an argument on those lines to any length. Are you going to suggest when it comes to the clause dealing with retrospective legislation, Clause 4, that we shall be equally entitled to suggest that tenants of more expensive houses have got no right to expect that their houses were going to be brought into the Bill? I hope that the arguments which have been used by the noble and learned Lord will not prevent the noble Marquess from going to a Division.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord in charge of this measure one question. It is this.

835
Are the proposals of the Government with regard to their housing scheme proposals for building houses of the class to which this Bill relates? If not, it is difficult to see what is the reason for the period of time they have already assigned. Conditions are not the least likely to become easier as time goes by. Indeed, they will become far more difficult, because the building activities of the country will undoubtedly be absorbed to carry into effect the scheme (extensive and beneficial as I trust it will be) which the Government have in hand. Therefore, houses will not be able to be built to accommodate tenants of the class of houses covered by this present Bill. It seems to me that this is very material, because, if it is intended that this Bill should have a far longer period of operation than that at present designed, so, as it seems to me, there are no conditions existing to-day that will not exist with equal cogency and force when the Bill comes to an end.
I must say that, though I feel very strongly what has been said by the noble Marquess by whose side I have the honour to sit, I do think we need some further explanation than we have hitherto received of why it is that this period of time has been assigned. I trust, too, that your Lordships will not overlook this fact that, for whatever period of time this Bill operates, during that period the Government are going to be deprived of a very considerable portion of revenue. If, in the normal course of things, the rent of these houses was increased, on all that increased rent, to the extent of 6s. in the £, the Government would receive Income Tax, and they would receive the Income Tax which is most certainly and surely exacted, because it is exacted at the source. Therefore, for whatever period this measure extends, you must remember that the Government are sacrificing the revenue of the country, as well as imposing conditions of considerable difficulty upon the landlords who own these houses. Unless there be some special reason assigned for the period that is fixed it is certainly not in the public interests that that period should be too long.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The observations which the noble and learned Lord has just made as to the loss of Income Tax are, of course, obvious. It is one of the disadvantages of legislation of this kind. When the noble and learned Lord
836
asks me specifically in relation to the Housing Bill whether it is intended to apply to tenants of the class dealt with in this Bill, I can only reply to him that this Bill deals with a very different class of tenants. The new Bill, I anticipate—though I have not seen all its provisions as finally settled—will deal with some tenants of the kind dealt with in this Bill, but not, I imagine, with others that are dealt with in the present proposals. The noble and learned Lord asked me whether or not I was able to give him some explanation of the time that had been selected for the operation of this Bill, and he added this observation. He said that no one can possibly tell how long this state of things is going to last. "It is not going to get better," said the noble and learned Lord; "it is going to get worse." I do not know whether it is going to get better or worse. I hope very much that it is going to get better. Numbers of instructed people certainly take that view, and it is refreshing that at least some people should in these gloomy days be able to take an optimistic view.
I do not really see any reason why at any rate it should get worse. It is just I because of the uncertainty of saying with any confidence at all whether it is going to get better and when it is going to get better, that led the Government to adopt the cautious course not of making any arrangement that should extend for so long a period as three years but a reasonably short period, and I hope your Lordships will think that on the whole it is the most convenient course that could be adopted. I confess I was much struck by what was said by the noble Marquess as to the inadvisability, unless your Lordships take a very strong view, of provoking a difference of opinion which would certainly be a real one on a point of this kind, and also upon the impolicy of doing so unless your Lordships really thought it would be a means, in fact, of attaining the object which the mover and supporters of this Amendment have placed before themselves. Nothing would be more agreeable to me than if it were possible for me to accept the Amendment. I do not, in fact, believe that it will form part of the Bill in its ultimate shape.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not intend to weary your Lordships with further observations at any length. I just make two. As regards the actual

837
Amendment, the small one before your Lordships at the moment, I have to say this—that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has admitted that there its a great advantage in having a fixed date over a movable date. I think everybody must see that. People make provision for what they intend to do according to dates which are fixed. The fact that they do not know what their position will be because of a vagueness about the date in the interpretation of the Act is a great inconvenience. If it is admitted that the date should be fixed then you ought to fix it at a quarter day, and Michaelmas is a quarter day, and, therefore, appears to be a very suitable day to fix. Six months after the signature of what probably will be the signature of Peace, although not six months after the ratification of Peace, is quite sufficiently within the intention of Parliament when the principal Act was passed. For these reasons I hope your Lordships will support that Amendment. May I say generally, in regard to the last
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
On Question, That Clause 1, as amended, stand part—
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I do not know whether this would be a convenient
observation of the noble and learned Lord, that your Lordships' House is a House of revision. It has to revise that which is unfair or hard in the details of Bills sent us from another place. I think your Lordships' privileges go much further than that, but at any rate they go as far as that, by everybody's admission. The most violent reformer of the procedure of your Lordships' House admits that; and if it can be shown that there is hardship or injustice in this Bill and you refuse to remedy it, I do not see that there is any use for the House of Lords at all. I cannot say whether I have convinced your Lordships (that would be very conceited of me), but if I have convinced your Lordships as to the general justice of the proposal I ask you to support us in the Lobby.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Clause?—
Their Lordships divided—Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 37.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Haldane, V

Finlay, L

Peel, V.

Forteviot, L.

Bradford, E.

Gisborough, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Hylton, L.

Eldon, E

Annesley, L.

Newton, L.

Jersey, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Parmoor, L.

Lytton, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Queenborough, L.

Russell, E.

Blyth, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Strafford, K.

Carnock, L.

Shandon, L.

Colebrooke, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

D'Abernon, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Dinevor, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Cave, V.

Emmott, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Churchill, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Northumberland, D.

Iveagh, V.

Lambourne, L.

Somerset, D.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Avebury, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway)

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Balfour, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Barrymore, L.

Monson, L.

Salisbury, M.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo)

Burnham, L.

Phillimore, L.

Brassey, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Sandys, L.

Chichester, E.

Desborough, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Grey, E.

Ebury, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller.]

Hardwicke, E.

Erskine, L.

Lindsay, E.

Greville, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

Harris, L.

moment for me to ask the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill whether he could offer any elucidation of the small point which I ventured to put to him on Second Reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think there were two points. The first was the

839
case of an agricultural cottage which was let at a nominal rent to an employee either of the owner or one of his tenant farmers. The noble Viscount asked me whether, if such an employee occupying the cottage were to leave his employment while remaining in that cottage, it would be permissible for the owner or the farmer to raise the rent to the normal rate of 3s. per week. The answer to that is that the landlord could not raise the rent as against the occupier who was not in his employ or in the employ of one of his tenant farmers, but he could eviet such an occupier if he wanted the cottage for occupation of his own or for one of his tenant farmers. The second case was that of a man who was occupying a cottage either at the nominal rent of 1s. per week or the normal rent of 3s. a week who has gone to the war, and whilst he has been away the landlord (in the case supposed by the noble Viscount) has allowed the wife to occupy the cottage rent free. On these facts Lord Harcourt asked me, Can the landlord, when the man returns to work and occupies the cottage, charge the normal rent for the cottage? The answer to this question is that on the man returning to the occupation of his cottage the landlord could charge him the rent he was charging him at the beginning of the war—1s. or 3s. a week, as the case might be—notwithstanding the fact that during his absence he had allowed his wife to stay at the cottage without paying anything.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Limited power of increasing rents during the extended period.
2.—(1) An increase in the rent of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies payable in respect of the extended period or any part thereof which would but for the principal Act be recoverable, shall be recoverable if or so far as the amount of the increase does not exceed ten per centum of the standard rent:
Provided that no such increase shall be due and recoverable if the sanitary authority of the district in which the house is situate on the application of the tenant certifies that the house is not reasonably fit for human habitation or is not kept in a reasonable state of repair, nor in any case until the expiry of four clear weeks after the landlord has served upon the tenant a notice in writing of his intention to increase the rent, and informing the tenant of his right to apply to the sanitary authority for such a certificate as aforesaid.
(2) On any such application to a sanitary authority a fee of one shilling shall be payable, but if the authority, as a result of the application,
840
issues such a certificate as aforesaid the tenant shall be entitled to deduct the amount of the fee from any subsequent payment of rent.
(3) The increase of rent permitted by this section shall be in addition to any increase permitted by section one of the principal Act.
LORD BALFOUE OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUE OF BURLEIGH moved to omit from Clause 2 (1) the words "ten per centum of the standard rent, "and to insert "for the period from the passing of this Act until Lady Day nineteen hundred and twenty, ten per centum of the standard rent, and for the period from Lady Day nineteen hundred and twenty until the date of the expiration of this Act twenty-five per centum of the standard rent."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name is partly upon the subject spoken to by the noble Marquess, and I concur respectfully in all the arguments that he used in regard to it. I should not like to do the noble and learned Lord an injustice, because I do not suppose that he developed the whole of his argument in reply to this question, but in so far as he did touch upon it what he said wholly failed to convince me that 10 per cent was an adequate allowance under the circumstances in which we are placed. This Amendment has nothing to do with time or date; it turns entirely upon the question of the amount of allowance which the owner ought to have in respect of the circumstances in which we are placed.
There is no doubt, as has already been stated, that the majority of Lord Hunter's Committee—Lord Hunter himself—was strongly in favour of an increase in this direction. I need not quote the exact words. The striking thing is that the Bill comes to this House in an even more unfair, as I think, condition for the owners than the Government seemed to think right-when they introduced it in another place. As the Bill now stands the owner is to get only 10 per cent., and he is placed very largely at the mercy of the local government authorities. In so far as they can be trusted to deal fairly with the matter, I have nothing to say. I hold no brief for the landlord who does not do his duty or keep his house in repair. I have not the smallest sympathy with him. But I think that I can show your Lordships that the 10 per cent. allowed is not sufficient to enable the owner to do the necessary repairs owing to the increased cost.
I venture respectfully to give an example. I will take a house let at a standard

841
rent of £60 before the war. Probably it would be fair to say that one-sixth of that rent would go in repairs; that is what is known as the statutory allowance and is what is allowed for Inland Revenue purposes. The insurance on £1,000, which would be the value probably of putting the house in repair if it were burned, would be, at 1s. 6d. per cent. 15 s. The mortgage interest at 4½ per cent. would be £36. If these outgoings are added together they come to £46 17 s. That shows that out of a rental of £60 the owner would in pre-war days have been able to put in his pocket a net sum of £13 3s. Contrast that with the circumstances as they will be on the present day conditions even if 10 per cent. is given. The rent would become £66 instead of £60. There would always be the 10 per cent. for repairs, but 10 per cent. will not now cover repairs owing to the depreciation in the value of money and the increased cost of wages and other things. It is not in the least unfair to say that the cost of repairs would be doubled, and be £20 instead of £10. The necessity of increasing the insurance is obvious. The insurance will be 30 s. in the future instead of 15 s. to cover the possible loss from damage. You are going to increase the mortgage interest. I do not object to that; I think it is reasonable; but it must be taken into account in making this alteration. The mortgage interest at 5 per cent. instead of 4½ per cent. will be £40 instead of £36. If you add together these items—the increased cost of repairs, which would be £20, the insurance 30 s. and the mortgage interest—you will find that they come to £61 10 s. as against a rent of £66, so that the net sum which the unfortunate owner will put into his pocket will be only, even under the conditions of the Government Bill, £4 10 s. instead of £13 3s. I do not think it is unfair to calculate mortgage interest, because it is the fact that at least 80 per cent. of properties of this kind are mortgaged. Therefore, even if the Government allowed the 10 per cent. on each house, the net result would be that the owner will get only £4 10 s. instead of the £13 3s. that he got in pre-war time. It seems to me obvious that the 10 per cent. is totally inadequate. I say that it ought to be increased to 25 per cent. after a reasonable interval. But if the Government will accept even less than 25 per cent. I will be glad, though as a result of my own experience and of the information that I
842
have obtained I believe 25 per cent. to be a perfectly fair allowance.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 18 and 19, leave out ("ten per centum of the standard rent") and insert ("for the period from the passing of this Act until Lady Day nineteen hundred and twenty, ten per centum of the standard nut, and for the period from Lady day nineteen hundred and twenty until the date of the expiration of this Act twenty-five per centum of the standard rent").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I think it is fitting to add to what the noble Lord has stated, that the Hunter Committee said that which ought to remind your Lordships that this is not a question of the owners of long lists of ground rents. It has nothing to do with ground rents. It is with what are called rack rents that we are dealing to-day, mostly receivable by and payable to intermediate landowners and lessees. The Hunter Committee said about them, in respect of this kind of property, weighty words which I cannot better—
"Most mortgages on property affected by the Act of 1915 belong to people who are not wealthy. Wealthy people find more remunerative investments."
The property affected by the Act of 1915 in the main is simply small house property. There is no property which wealthy investors more sedulously avoid placing their money in. The like may be said with regard to insurance companies. Even the largest do not—probably you will not find even the Prudential Company do so—invest much money in property of this kind. What we find when we go amongst the people—and something has been said about the House of Commons being fresh from contact with its Mother Earth—is that investments in rack rents on small house property are the kind specially favoured by many leading supporters among the working classes. Why is that so? It is because it gives them a kind of influence amongst those with whom they dwell, and it gives them in respect of the management of their own savings at the time of their declining years a kind of occupation which they conceive to be not of an undignified kind; in fact, it gives them an interest in life and something to do. So that really the Amendment moved by my noble friend is one which tends to secure and preserve and conserve the investments and the incomes by no means

843
of members of your Lordships' House but of a much humbler, though by no means less worthy, class of people who are really the backbone of the country.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I rise in order not to appear discourteous to noble Lords. I can say plainly that I have little to add to the observations that I have already made upon this subject. Lord Grey, I am sorry to say, found me illogical in the observations that I made in reference to the Hunter Committee. It did not appear to me that those observations were very illogical. What I said was this. Your Lordships are applying yourselves to a subject-matter which has already been very carefully investigated by a very capable Committee. It was necessary for me to notice the fact that this Committee had itself recommended an increase—first of all the 10 per cent. increase which we adopt in this Bill, and, secondly, a further increase of 15 per cent. Under the Hunter proposals the initial increase was not to take place, until six months after the termination of the war. Say that the war terminated formally in May, for the sake of illustration, then, six months after that date the initial increase was to take place, and the further increase was not to take place until a year after that date. This Bill will, in all human probability, have exhausted its whole life before the second increase of 15 per cent. recommended by the Hunter Committee ever comes into force. The inference which I was attempting to draw from that—and it seems to me with all respect to the noble Earl to be quite reasonable and logical—was that the right time to deal with the corresponding period (the 15 per cent. period) recommended by the Hunter Committee was when that time actually arose.
I hope no one will suppose that I am attempting to contend that this Bill gives the landlord all that he is entitled to to
put him in the position in which he would have been if he had received anything approaching an indemnity. I make no such claim. I know perfectly well that the Bill does not do so. I am not in a position to dispute the figures given by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, which i had not seen before. They refer to a class, of whom there are many conspicuous illustrations, who have suffered specially through the war, and this proposal, which has been most carefully considered and is the result of compromise and discussion between persons who understand these things very well, represents all that the Government can encourage your Lordships to think will be forthcoming as the result.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Nothing in the Amendment will interfere with the main object of the Bill, which is to prevent the undue raising of rent or the eviction of people owing to the shortage of houses. That is all secured. All that the noble Earl, Lord Grey, contends is that the 10 per cent. provided by the Bill, so far from putting the owner in a position which everybody else occupies, of having a slight nominal improvement in his income in consequence of the loss in the value of money—which is the position of all the wage-earning class—it leaves him worse off than he was before the war. The 10 per cent. will not meet the mortgage interest and the cost of repairs put together, or anything like it. Therefore the noble Earl has submitted to your Lordships that the principle of the Report of the Hunter Committee ought to be adopted, and that after a reasonable period an additional 15 per cent. ought to be added.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 36.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhcad, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Peel, V.

Forteviot, L.

Gisborough, L.

Bradford, E.

Annesley, L.

Hylton, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Inverforth, L.

Chiehester, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Newton, L.

Eldon, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Queenborough, L.

Jersey, E.

Carnock, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Lytton, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Shandon, L.

Denman, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Dinevor, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Cave, V.

Finlay, L.

Wittenham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

Greville, L.

Northumberland, D.

Harris, L.

Somerset, D.

Churchill, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Iveagh, V.

Lambourne, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn)

Monckton, L. (V, Galway.)

Lansdowne, M.

Avebury, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Salisbury, M.

Balfour, L.

Phillimore, L.

Barrymore, L.

Plunket, L.

Brassey, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midlelon.)

Sandys, L.

Grey, E.

Burnham, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Willoughby de Broke. L. [Teller]

Lindsay, E.

Dosborough, L.

Malmesbury, B.

Ebury, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Russell, E.

Erskine, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next two Amendments are purely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
Page 1, line 24, after ("until") insert ("or in respect of any period prior to").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Extension of principal Act to higher-rented houses.
4. As from the passing of this Act the principal Act and the enactments unloading that Act shall extend to houses or parts of houses let as separate dwellings where such letting does not include any land other than the site of the dwelling-house and a garden or other premises, within the curtilage of the dwelling-house, and where—

(a) in the case of a house situated in the Metropolitan Police district, including the City of London, both the annual amount of the standard rent and the rateable value of the house or part of the house exceed thirty-five pounds, and neither exceeds seventy pounds;

(b) in the case of a house situated in Scotland both the annual amount of the standard rent and the rateable value of the house or part of the house exceed thirty pounds, and neither exceeds sixty pounds;

(c) in the case of a house situated elsewhere, both the annual amount of the standard rent and the rateable value of the house or part of the house exceed twenty-six pounds, and neither exceeds fifty-two pounds;

and shall also extend to mortgages (not being mortgages to which the principal Act as originally enacted applies), where the mortgaged property consists of or comprises one or more of such dwelling-houses as aforesaid or any interest therein, subject, however, to the exceptions men-
846
tioned in subsection (4) of section two of the principal Act, but in the application to those houses and mortgages the principal Act, and the enactments amending that Act shall have effect, subject to the following modifications:—
(i) for subsection (1) of section one of the principal Act. exclusive of the provisoes to that subsection, the following provisions shall be substituted:—
Where the rent of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies or the rate of interest on a mortgage to which this Act applies has been since the twenty-fifth day of December nineteen hundred and eighteen, or is hereafter increased and such increase would apart from this Act have been recoverable, then, if the increased rent exceeds by more than ten per centum the standard rent, or the increased rate of interest exceeds by more than one half per centum per annum the standard rate, the amount of such excess above the said ten per centum or one half per centum, as the case may be, shall, not with-standing any agreement to the contrary, be irrecoverable from the tenant or the mortgagor, as the case may be, and if paid may be recovered by the tenant or mortgagor in the manner and subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of section five of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1917;
(ii) in proviso (i) to subsection (1) and subsections (2) and (4) of section one of the principal Act the fourth day of March nineteen hundred and nineteen shall be substituted for the twenty-fifth day of November nineteen hundred and fifteen;
(iii) in subsection (3) of section one of the principal Act references to the date of the passing of the principal Act shall be construed as references to the date of passing of this Act;
(iv) in subsection (4) of section one of the principal Act for the reference to the standard rate there shall be substituted a reference to the rate permitted by this section.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved, in the first paragraph of Clause 4, to omit the words "let as separate dwellings" and to substitute "or rooms subject to separate lettings." The noble Viscount said: I ask leave to move an Amendment with regard to sub-letting, which is not on the Paper. Your Lordships will, perhaps, accept my apology that the time given has been so short that we have not been able since the Second Reading to consider fully and to put down all the Amendments we desire to move. I have taken legal advice on this particular clause, and I gather that there is nothing whatever in the Bill which makes a sufficiently separate letting of a sub-let room to enable the principal Act or this Bill to apply. By far the greatest, evil which has arisen under the principal Act has been the profiteering—which I tried to explain to the House the other night—in regard to rooms which have been sub-let but which are not let as separate dwellings. Any number of these cases can be cited, it is a common thing to let an empty room in a house—the rent of which is 4s. or 5s. a week—for double and sometimes treble the rent of the whole house; and obviously, especially in these days when large populations have been brought to places where they did not live before, that has simply transferred the high rent which it is desired to keep from the landlord to the happy person who happened to be a tenant at the time at the outbreak of war.
I have had a number of these cases sent to me. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to give you one as an instance; it is the case of a man at Plymouth. A seven-roomed house was let to a tenant at a very low rental on the ground that he had no children, and that only he and his wife would occupy the premises. Directly after the passing of the principal Act the tenant died, but in the meantime he had brought his daughter and her husband, together with six children, to live in the house; therefore by the terms on which the house was let he ought to have given it up; but under the Act he not merely kept the house but the tenancy was held to be good for his son-in-law and the six children, and the house is in their possession at the old rent to this very day. That is a really bad case of sub-letting, and one in which the landlord has been absolutely defrauded. I am advised that my Amendment will not disturb the Act in any respect, but will have the effect
848
of extending to rooms which are sub-let exactly the provisions which Parliament desired to enforce on any tenant and for the protection of anybody who took or held a letting under the Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 23, after ("houses") omit ("let as separate dwellings") and insert ("or rooms subject to separate lettings").—(Viscount Midleton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that my noble friend's object can be conveniently attained at this stage of the Bill; and I was about to make a suggestion to him that, with the object of a discussion on the very important point he has raised, the more convenient place would be where he has down a later Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not the same point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have only glanced at my noble friend's later Amendment, but I was under the impression it was the same point. However, if I understand my noble friend correctly, he wants to amend the clause at this point. The difficulty of that is that if this Bill is amended here it would also become necessary to amend the Act of 1915 which deals with the same subject-matter. Section 2 (2) of the Act of 1915 is as follows—
"This Act shall apply to a house or a part of a house let as a separate dwelling where such letting does not include any land other than the site of the dwelling-house and a garden or other premises within the curtilage of the dwelling-house, and where either the annual amount of the standard rent or the rateable value of the house or part of the house does not exceed…"
and so forth. If the Amendment of my noble friend were inserted here it would become necessary by an amending Act to deal with this section of the earlier Act, which I think your Lordships would not find a very convenient course.
LORD BUCKMASTER: It seems important for us to consider what it is that we really desire to effect with regard to this question of sub-letting. I do not think I shall be misinterpreting the views of the House if I say that it is their intention that tenants of houses, who receive the benefits of these Statutes, shall not be able to reap for their own advantage the profit that would properly belong to the landlord by sub-letting the house cither in whole or in part to a number of sub-

849
tenants. If I am right in that view, then all that is left is to see whether the words in the present Bill give full effect to that desire. I think it is extremely doubtful. First of all they make no reference to letting in rooms at all, and secondly they impose the condition that the letting must be as a separate dwelling, and it may be extremely difficult to know what that phrase implies. The altered words as proposed by the noble Viscount make the purpose, as it seems to me, plain. They extend the phrase to rooms and provide that instead of being let as separate dwellings they shall be "subject to separate let tings," which is a much more, easily understood phrase. If it follows from that that the former Act has got to be amended, well and good, it should be, but whether amended or not there can, as I conceive, be no reason why we should allow any further cover for the abuse of the existing Statute which has most undoubtedly existed, and will continue to exist unless we make the language plain.
LORD WRENBURY: I have not the principal Act before me, but the observations of the Lord Chancellor seem to me to be covered by the provisions of this section. I understand him to say that Section 2 (2) of the principal Act would require amendment. Now Clause 4, if amended as proposed, will run thus—
"As from the passing of this Act the principal Act… shall extend to houses or parts of houses or rooms subject to separate lettings."
The amendment of the principal Act will be effected by the very words of the proposed clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I entertain some little doubt as to that. But the point I am making upon this is, as has been said, that it is a drafting matter. I am not out of sympathy with my noble friend's real object, as I hope to show when we come to discuss a later Amendment, but I shall not put your Lordships to the trouble of dividing against this Amendment, because between now and the Report stage I would ascertain quite clearly what is the position.
LORD FINLAY: I am very doubtful whether the Amendment will achieve the desired object, but I suggest that it should be considered before the Report stage, with a view of getting words which will do what I think every one agrees is very desirable.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in Clause 4 (c) (i), to leave out "twenty-fifth day of December, nineteen hundred and eighteen," and to insert "fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen." The noble Lord said: The point of the Amendment which stands in my name is to ask the Government whether they will not go back to their own original intention. The Bill as drafted and presented in another place took as its date of commencement March 4. I understand that the reason for this was that it was on the 4th of March that the Leader of the House of Commons intimated that such a Bill would be produced, and that this may be taken as an intimation to people that if they do anything contrary to what is going to be legislated for, they take the responsibility and must incur the difficulties which they have to some extent brought upon themselves. Personally I dislike retrospective legislation altogether, and I think the Lord Chancellor would agree that as a general rule an Act should come into force upon the day it is passed and not earlier. That is a good sound rule.
But since the Bill was introduced it has been made retrospective to the previous Quarter Day—namely, December 25, and therefore innocent people who had in perfect good faith made bargains for a change of residence in the months of January and February are prejudiced by the course now taken, and unless the original date is restored I suggest that all sorts of hardships and anomalies will arise. I will give one instance. It is hypothetical, but not at all improbable. Suppose a man in occupation last December of a house rented at £80 per annum wanted to become the tenant of a cheaper house at Lady Day. He has given notice to give up his larger house, which is not affected by the Bill, and had expected all through the months of January and February that there would be no difficulty in getting into the house which he had taken, we will suppose, at £65 per annum. This poor man, who has given up his £80 house and taken a £65 house, will find himself homeless, because in all probability his £80 house has been let. Then there is a subsidiary point. Who is to pay the legal expenses which may have been incurred in this? The Bill as at present drafted, with a retrospective clause, places great hardship upon a man by nullifying contracts entered into in perfect good faith. I submit that in cases of houses which have been sold, and the

851
contract for which was to be completed by March 25, the chaos and difficulties will be very great. I think it is fair that if emergency legislation is to be undertaken in haste it should not be retrospective beyond a certain point, when public notice was given that legislation was in contemplation.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, Line 16 and 17, leave out ("twenty-fifth day of December, nineteen hundred and eighteen") and insert ("fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Your Lordships will have inferred, from the fact that the proposal contained in the Amendment was the original proposal of the Government, that they held no view against it at the time that the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons. The history of the matter was this. It became clear, as the discussions proceeded, that a great volume of opinion in the House of Commons took the view that December 25, 1918, was for a variety of reasons it more convenient day than March 1, and the course of the debates led the Government to form the same conclusion. I think I ought to inform your Lordships that it was not representation confined to one part of the House, but the representatives of property owners in Glasgow—influential representatives—all formally asked the Government to make this change, which was also demanded by the representatives of very different sections of the population.
I do not know how far the noble Lord has made careful inquiries into the views that are held by people in Scotland upon this point, but I rather suspect he will find that the change made in the House of Commons, as the result of pressure there, was one for which a great deal more is to be, said than he appears to imagine. Nearly all the changes in rent in Scotland, so the Glasgow owners pointed out, are effected at Quarter Days. A quarter day in Scotland is January 1, and it was stated that such a day as March 4 would only benefit a few landlords who made the changes between two quarter days.
I am not sure, either, whether this point was clearly in Lord Balfour of Burleigh's mind. The Bill does not, of course, affect the recoverability of any rent which accrues due before March 4, 1919. That is the effect of proviso (i) of Section 1,
852
subsection (1), of the Act of 1915 applied, as this Bill applies it, to the higher-rented houses. It is not a point on which the Government hold a strong view, but I suspect that there is more public feeling in support of the change than the noble Lord imagines.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I may say so with respect, it seems rather a pity that the noble and learned Lord does not meet the arguments addressed to him. The point of the argument which my noble friend addressed to him is this, that in many casts a man has given up his old house and taken another house in the full belief that he would be entitled to occupy it. This Bill says that he is not to have this other house and that the bargain entered into is to be broken; and, by the operation of this measure, the old tenant is allowed to remain. What is to happen to the man who has given up his house in the hops that he is going to have a new house? This has nothing to do with the landowner. There is no point about him. But what is the position of a man who has given up his house in the hope of occupying a new house, when Parliament pays that he is not to have it? We had hoped that the noble and learned Lord, with his great legal acumen, would have met this argument. But he has nothing to say to it. So far as he is concerned, the gentleman who has given up his house may live in the street. The noble and learned Lord does not address himself to the paint of what appears to be a substantial grievance.
The man cannot go back to his old house, you observe, because a new man will certainly have got it. The landlord would not leave it vacant. The man has nothing to do but live in the street, and that appears to satisfy the noble and learned Lord and the Government. That is all the argument they can find to address to the House. I really think that is not quite the way to treat us. I believe there is no assembly in the world which is more amenable to argument than your Lordships' House. It differs from many other assemblies in that respect. Your Lordships do not come down to the House determined which way they shall vote, but you come to listen to the arguments and to vote accordingly. I am very much afraid that the reason the noble and learned Lord does not address himself to the point is that he has not got an answer, He knows all these arguments, of course,

853
with his extremely acute intellect, and he knows there is no answer. Let him say so and we shall know where we are.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I add one word in answer to the noble and learned Lord? This is not a Scottish Amendment at all. I do not believe, it affects in Scotland one-tenth the number of people that it will affect in England and especially London. The arguments came to me from London. In Scotland they let for a year mid half a year, and in England at the quarter day.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess speaks a little contemptuously of my poor attempts—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I apologise.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not at all. I assure the noble Marquess that I am extremely hard to affront in these matters. It is, of course, clear that December 25 has nothing to do with notice at all. If notice, for instance, had been given three years ago to quit at Lady Day this year, the tenant would be able to refuse to quit and could not, in any case, be turned out. I am not, however, prepared to dispute—your Lordships will find that I shall deal quite candidly with your Lordships—that there may be, in one or two cases (not, I am informed, a considerable number), inconvenience of the kind which the noble Marquess indicated. I do not believe that these cases will be numerous. This and other objections of the kind were considered before the changes were made, and it is a question of the balance of convenience in the matter. If your Lordships take a different view from that which was taken in the House of Commons, while I still retain my view that the feeling in favour of the change was so strong there that the Bill as it stands at present will probably be restored, at the same time I should not ask your Lordships to divide upon the point.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The next Amendment in my name is the addition of the following proviso at the end of Clause 4—
"Provided always that, if the rateable value as on the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, exceeds the standard rent as defined
854
by this Act, the said rateable value shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the standard rent."
It is not an Amendment, I admit, of very great importance. It is of a rather highly technical nature, and I frankly say that if the Government do not see their way to accept it I will not trouble your Lordships, to divide upon it. Its object is to provide for a case such as this. Under the principal Act and under the present Bill the standard, rent is the rent at which the dwelling-house was let on August 3, 1914. The rent taken is actually below the sum at which, the dwelling-house is assessed for the purposes, of rates, and the object of the Amendment is to provide that in such a case the standard rate shall be taken to be the rateable value. I think it is unfair to maintain by Act of Parliament that a landlord, called upon to pay rates on one figure, should only be allowed to accept rent at a lower figure. If I may venture to give an example—supposing a house is let for £20 or £25 per annum, it may be rated at £35. It is probably being much underlet, and it may have been underlet because—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Lord allow me? I may be able to save him and your Lordships some time by saying that, on principle, I should be prepared to accept the Amendment, but it is, I think, in the wrong form. It ought not to be brought in as a proviso to paragraph (iv), which deals solely with the calling in of mortgages. The proper form of the Amendment would be to Clause 4, page 4, line 2 at the end, and if the noble Lord will be so good between now and the Report stage as to consult with me, I will attempt to provide him with a form of words to carry out his purpose.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I accept that suggestion gratefully.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved the insertion of the following new clause after Clause 4—
"5. Where in the case of a dwelling-house let at a rent which includes payments for the use of furniture it is proved to the satisfaction of a judge of the county court that the lessor is making a larger profit than he would have been able to make in July, nineteen hundred and fourteen, in circumstances otherwise similar, such increased sum shall not be recoverable."
The noble Viscount said: When the principal Act was under discussion the Minister

855
in charge told the House that it was not desired to bring the furnished house into the scope of the Bill. I think it has been proved in operation not merely that furnished houses formed a particularly important section of the houses to which the Act applied, but also that the Act has been eluded in the most open manner by the very fact that anything which could be called a furnished house was exempt from it. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord is aware that it has been laid down as a legal axiom that any furniture in the house will be sufficient to take at out of the Act of 1915. In The Conveyancer, Volume 1, December, 1915, to May, 1916, the following form (No. 31) is supplied to take the case out of the 1915 Act—
"The rent hereinbefore agreed to be paid by the said (tenant) shall include the use by him during the tenancy of (the kitchen furniture) now in or upon the premises."
And in a note the Editors of this legal periodical state—
"By Section 2 (2) (c) the Act does not apply to a dwelling-house let at a rent which includes payment in respect of board, attendance, or use of furniture. Hence, rent which includes the use of a kitchen chair would appear to be outside the Act."
That has been done in any number of cases, and the Act has been made a sport by those who desire to sub-let by merely leaving some small article of furniture and including it in the letting.
I will not trouble your Lordships with any of the numerous cases which have come to me except just to mention the sort of cases which we hear of. There is one from Thames Ditton. The rateable value is £10. The tenant has a few sticks of furniture in it, and he has managed to screw £50 a year out of his sub-tenants. There is another case at Maidenhead of a furnished cottage, rented at 7s. per week. The tenant occupied it until his wife died last summer, when he went into lodgings and sub-let the house for two guineas a week. He has been given notice to quit, but the magistrates have decided that they have no power in the matter. I have similar cases from Croydon and other parts of the country.
The fact is that without some sub-letting clause the Act has become a dead letter in a number of cases which Parliament most desired to meet. Having regard to the
856
difficulty of the subject I would have preferred to submit an Amendment which dealt actually with the amount which might be allowed for a furnished house, but seeing that the case of furnished houses differs so greatly (some are free of rates, while others are not) it would be almost impossible to adopt any definite standard. The Amendment therefore that I venture to submit contemplates, as I think was contemplated in the original draft of the Bill before it left another place, that the County Court Judge might be called in any case so excessive as to constitute a real departure from the intention of the Act. I do not imagine that a very great number of cases will come before the County Court Judges, because the mere fact of the possession of this authority will make the tenant who desires to profiteer more reasonable in his demands on those to whom he desires to sub-let. I hope the noble and learned Lord will be able to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
"5. Where in the case of a dwelling-house let at a rent which includes payments for the use of furniture it is proved to the satisfaction of a judge of the county court that the lessor is making a larger profit than he would have been able to make in July, nineteen hundred and fourteen, in circumstances otherwise similar, such increased sum shall not be recoverable."—(Viscount Midleton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am inclined to think that the noble Viscount has devised a much more promising method of dealing with what everybody admits is a most troublesome problem than any I have up to the present seen. But there are objections, I think, to the wording of his particular Amendment. In two points of detail it seems open to criticism. In the first place, the period, July, 1914, would in many cases not afford a fair standard of comparison, because if you are letting a winter resort great deductions would have to be made. The words "in circumstances otherwise similar" are, I think, open to objection as a matter of drafting. They may have the effect of nullifying the whole clause, because they would pre-suppose the same competition as at present. I have asked the Government draftsman to draft a new clause which would give effect to the noble Viscount's purpose, and if he will be good enough to put himself into communication with me I will place it at his disposal in order that he may move it, if he so desires, upon the Report stage. I do

857
not definitely bind myself to accept his particular Amendment, but I wish to give the noble Viscount all the help I can to put it in proper shape.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I venture to suggest that the Amendment is open to grave objections—I do not know what the future Government Amendment may be like. The object of the Amendment is very desirable, but, to begin with, the noble Viscount will deprive the tenant who lets furnished of the very moderate profit which a landlord is going to be given. Why should not the tenant who sub-lets be, for instance, entitled to 10 per cent. profit, or 25 per cent. as the case may be, particularly as ho has ventured something which is very easily destroyed—namely, furniture, which is not like a house, which will not run away.
Then, again, does the Amendment relate to letting for the year or for the season? Suppose it is a summer or a season let, a let in December may be very much in the nature of profiteering. On the other hand a let in May for the whole season ought to be a much bigger rent than a let in July or August. I venture to join issue with the recommendations of The Conveyancer. A colourable let of a furnished house ought to be construed, and would be construed by any Court, as the let of an unfurnished house. To put in a single stick of furniture or kitchen chair in a let would be construed by any Court as the let of an unfurnished and not a furnished house.
The truth of the matter is that the real grievances are grievances which we cannot touch. They are caused where there is a sudden shifting of population, and where people must have houses for the season. Officers' wives during the war would, of course, pay any sum for a room in order to be near their husbands, and having contracted to pay they would never think of using an Act of Parliament to say that they were not open to fulfil their contract. What I think the noble Viscount has not considered is that it is the letting of rooms and short lettings for portions of the year in which the real profiteering is shown; and while I have great sympathy with the object of the Amendment it would, in its present form, by no means meet the difficulty and I think would give rise to many others.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am quite sure it would ill become me, or
858
any laymen, to enter into a controversy with noble and learned Lords upon these very intricate matters of interpretation. This Amendment expresses exactly what we think. It may not express what the Courts may interpret it to mean. That, very often happens. The point is not that people are willing to give very high rents because, of particular circumstances which might accrue, but that the landlord is not allowed to take a high rent, and by reason of the lowness of his rent the sub-tenant by letting makes an enormous profit. The profit really comes out of the fact that Parliament has prevented the landlord from charging a reasonable rent. That is manifestly and obviously unfair. It is also obviously against the intention of the Bill, which intended these provisions to benefit the ultimate occupier and not the intermediate man, who is not entitled to any particular credit as he is merely a dealer in houses and is not in the least the object of our compassion. This point, therefore, requires to be met; indeed, the noble Lord, who is a great authority, says the words are open to every kind of objection, and I am sure he is right. We are grateful to the Lord Chancellor for having: expressed his sympathy with the object of the Amendment, though of course he has not pledged himself to accept it in the revised form. Nevertheless he has said that he will put the Government draftsman at the disposal of the noble Lord so that our object may be achieved without being open to the criticisms which have been made. I am sure my noble friend will accept that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It was because I realised how great were the difficulties of the kind indicated by my noble and learned friend that I entered a caveat against its being supposed that I had undertaken to accept the Amendment when redrafted. I want to make it quite plain that there is a case which in the very nature of things it is difficult to deal with, that it is very important that a remedy should be found, and that we will attempt to find that remedy by the time the next stage is reached.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL GREY EARL GREY had the following Amendment on the Paper—
Insert the following new clause:
"5. Where at the date of the passing of this Act a tenant in occupation of premises to which

859
this Act applies assigns or otherwise sublets such premises, the provisions of this Act shall not apply except in so far as fixing a standard rent for the premises in question."
The noble Earl said: I think the case which is covered in this clause would really be more a subject for consideration in any discussion which takes place before the next stage under the promise so kindly given by the noble and learned Lord. I do not know whether it would be possible to include this case in those that are to be considered under the promise that has just been given.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The suggestion of the noble Earl might very conveniently be considered by the draftsman when he goes into the wording of the previous Amendment.
EARL GREY: I thank the noble and learned Lord.
Clause 5:
Minor amendments of the principal Act.
5.—(1) A landlord of a house to which the principal Act, either as originally enacted or as extended by this Act, applies shall, on being so requested by the tenant of the house, furnish to him a statement as to what is the standard rent of the house, and if he fails within fourteen days to do so, or furnishes a statement which is fake in any material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
(2) Where a person who has, since the thirtieth day of September nineteen hundred and seventeen, purchased a house to which the principal Act, either as originally enacted or as extended by this Act, applies, requires the house for his own occupation or that of some person in his employ, or in the employ of some tenant from him, nothing in the Increase of Rent, &c. (Amendment) Act, 1918, shall be construed as preventing the court from making an order for the recovery of possession of the house, if, after considering all the circumstances of the case, including especially the alternative accommodation available for the tenant, the court considers it reasonable to make such an order.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, at the end of subsection (1), to Insert: "Provided always that this clause shall not apply to any landlord who has acquired the house subsequently to the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen."
The noble Lord said: I move this proviso to meet possible unfairness. Clause 5 as it stands lays a duty upon the landlord, and provides for his being prosecuted
860
if he does not discharge it. It has been suggested to me that circumstances might arise in which it might be impossible for the landlord to comply with the request, and I suggest a proviso for the protection of the landlord if he does not know and cannot find out the information that he is required to give. There are cases where landlords have acquired property and are unable to inform the tenant of the standard rent of the particular house. It may be that the property has been taken over by the failure of a mortgagee to pay his mortgage, and unless the existing landlord who has taken over the mortgage of the property can find the original owner he cannot say at what figure the standard rent was fixed. I submit that in these circumstances it is not fair to expose him to prosecution. I need not go into the matter at length. If the noble and learned Lord says it is useless to make this proviso I shall not press it, but it seems to me a reasonable one.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 10, after ("pounds") insert ("Provided always that this clause shall not apply to any landlord who has acquired the house subsequently to the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. He bases his argument for exemption upon the fact, as I understand him, that any person who purchased the house since August 3, 1914, would not or might not know at what rent the house was let before he purchased it. Is it very unreasonable to say that it is his duty to find out? It really ought not to be very difficult I to find out. I cannot conceive any great difficulty about the matter. If he does not find out, your Lordships know that he is liable to pay any rent in excess of the; standard rent which he may receive. I cannot think, in the experience of our daily lives in taking houses, that we should ever any one of us find the least difficulty in discovering what the rent was.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (2), after the words "Act, 1918, shall," to insert "after the commencement of the extended period." The noble Earl said: My attention was called to this matter, which it was thought inflicted a hardship upon people who had the protection of the

861
existing legislation before the present legislation was proposed. Your Lordships will notice that sub-clause (2) of Clause 5 provides that a person who, having purchased a house, requires it for his own occupation, shall be able to do certain things which apparently he might not have been able to do by the Increase of Kent Amendment Act, 1913. It has been suggested to me that this is rather hard upon those who were under the Act, and who thought that they were protected under that Act for a definite period, and that it would be only fair that that increase in the power of the landlord should be limited to a period beginning after the period which is covered by the existing legislation. For that period I would suggest inserting between the words "shall" and "be construed" words "after the commencement of the extended period." I admit that it is a little awkward to insert those words there, as it will be a matter of altering the construction in relation to the period, but I should be very glad to accept any suggestion for better words so as to prevent a person who has or thinks he has certain rights from having those rights interfered with until the period covered by the existing legislation expires. When that period expires then let him be brought under the new legislation, but for the period that he has those rights let him retain them. That is the object of the Amendment, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to accept it.
Amendment Moved—
Page 4, line 17, after ("shall") insert ("after he commencement of the extended period").—(Earl Russell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are two objections to this Amendment. One, as the noble Earl surmised, is an objection of drafting. The other is an objection of substance. He is right in thinking that it would be impossible as a matter of drafting to substitute the words—
EARL RUSSELL: It would at least be inelegant.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It would be very inelegant and unusual, but that, of course, could be dealt with. There is also a point of substance. The effect of the Amendment, would be to postpone the operation of Clause 5 (2) to six months after the conclusion of peace. This new pro-
862
vision is, as I am informed, required particularly in the interests of demobilised soldiers, and if it is to be used in their interests it is quite clear that it must come into operation immediately. Lord Hunter's Committee reported that a number of cases had been brought before their notice in which the stringencies of the: Act of 1918 operated with great hardship upon the purchaser, and after carefully considering the matter Lord Hunter's Committee recommended that the relaxation contained in this section should be introduced. This, therefore, is a subject which has received considerable thought and examination both by Lord Hunter's Committee and in another place.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5 agreed to.
EARL GREY EARL GREY moved the insertion of a new Clause after Clause 5. The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to insert, as a new clause, one of the specific recommendations of Lord Hunter's Committee. That Committee, in almost these identical words, recommended that there should be no increase in rates on houses brought within the Bill during the period covered by the Bill. It is obvious that if there were an increase of rates allowed you might take a house which had been within the compounding limit outside that limit. The 10 per cent, rise in rent might take a house outside the compounding limit and a rise of rates would follow; and that, again, would allow the landlord further to raise his rent to cover the increase of rates, as allowed by the principal Act. And so it is really like climbing up a ladder with alternate feet. One follows the other. Nothing was said at all by the Government in another place, while the Bill was going through, to suggest why this really very important provision had been omitted from the Bill; and as in itself it seems so essentially fair it would be very interesting to hear why it does not form part of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
"No increase of rates shall be levied on any house falling within the provisions of this Act unless it can be shown that apart from the provisions of this Act such increase could be demanded."—(Earl Grey.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is quite true, as the noble Earl has pointed

863
out, that Lord Hunter's Committee made a recommendation in the sense of this Amendment. The object of the Amendment is, no doubt, clearly to prevent the rateable value of a house being raised in consequence of any increase in the rent permitted by the Bill. I did not know before, but I understand on inquiry that the view which was taken by official persons was this. As it was very inconvenient in a Bill of this kind which did not deal with rating that the matter should be treated, it was pointed out (which is a point of greater substance) that if the Act of 1915 had not been passed, and rents had been raised, corresponding increases in rateable value would have followed. This Bill only removes to a certain extent the restriction on raising rents imposed by the Act of 1915, and it is not perhaps very clear why this should be allowed to affect the law of rating. At any rate, I think it follows that an unfair burden would be thrown on the occupiers of premises not affected by the Bill. The noble Earl, I am sure, will have observed that this is a privileged Amendment, as it affects the incidence of rates.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry I do not quite follow the argument of the noble and learned Lord. As my noble friend has pointed out, the effect of allowing a 10 per cent, increase of rent might be to bring the dwelling outside the compounding limit. Is that intended? That would, of course, rest the obligation to pay rates on the occupier. The moment the rates are raised then under another clause in the Bill it is permissible to raise the rent again—namely, to the extent of the rates. That once more brings in question the position of the assessment. The rates go up again to meet the new increase of the rent, and so on alternately. It appears to be unworkable as it stands. We have no desire to inter into a controversy with another place on the privilege question, but this does seem to be a difficulty of drafting which the noble and learned Lord ought to consider with a view of altering it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Earl did undoubtedly do a service in calling attention to a possible effect of the Bill in its present condition. I confess that the point had not occurred to me—the point, that is, about the possible consequences where the rates have been compounded; and I think it would be
864
convenient if I asked those who are responsible for the drafting of the Bill to look into the matter with me before the Report stage, and then I will communicate, if I may, with my noble friend.
EARL GREY: Certainly; I quite agree.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER rose to move the insertion of the following new clause—
"At the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the principal Act, the following words shall be inserted:
Provided that in the case of any dwelling-house let at a rising rent payable under a tenancy agreement or lease the maximum rent payable under such tenancy agreement or lease shall be the standard rent."
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is designed to meet a small but a very real grievance. At present it is not uncommon in the development of an estate to have forms of agreement which provide that the first year's rent shall be on a lower scale than the succeeding years. I have myself seen several forms of such agreements, which provide for rents beginning, for example, at £60, going up the next year to £65, and the third year to £70—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If it would save my noble friend a little time and trouble I might tell him that, in the view of the Government, he has disclosed a case that ought to be dealt with, and I should have said that I was prepared to accept his Amendment except that I have a little doubt as to the phrase "a rising rent." Perhaps what he means could be expressed in some more usual method, but, subject to that, I should be prepared to accept the Amendment.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The phrase was one which, I admit, gave some offence to my own ears, but I find it difficult to know what phrase to substitute. I think if one substituted "progressive" for "rising" that might meet the difficulty, and if the noble Lord will accept the Amendment with the word "progressive" instead of "rising" I will move it in that form.
THE LORD CHANCELLORindicated assent.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following now clause:
"At the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the principal Act, the following words shall be inserted:
"Provided that in the case of any dwelling house let at a. progressive rent payable under a tenancy agreement or lease the maximum rent payable under such tenancy agreement or lease shall be the standard rent."—(Lord Buckmaster.)
Clause 6:
Exception of new houses.
6. Neither the principal Act nor thin Act shall apply to houses erected after or in course of erection at the passing of this Act.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I indicated to the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill some time ago an addition to Clause 6 in these words: "Nor shall it apply to a house in Scotland assessed at over £30 per annum which has been prior to March 4, 1919, sold or purchased for occupancy at Whitsun, 1919." I was only able to give notice to-day, because the noble and learned Lord will understand that the difficulty of communicating with Scotland and the delays in the post and telegraph service, are great, and the Bill was only in our hands on Saturday; therefore it was only in subsequent stages by telegram that I could get this Amendment. I gave the noble and learned Lord intimation of it earlier in the day, and if he would rather take it on the Report stage I will give notice for that stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The only feeling I have on the matter is that I could obviously give more attention and more time to my noble friend's point if I could consider it with the draftsman, because I only took it in the Lobby a few minutes ago.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Then I will move it on the Report stage.
Clause 6 agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHhad the following Amendment on the Paper—
Insert the following new clause:
"7. It shall not be lawful during the period of the operation of this Act for any local authority to raise the assessment for rating purposes of any house to which this Act applies, above that existing as on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen."
866
The noble Lord said: The noble and learned Lord will understand this question better than I do, although I have some familiarity with the rating system, of England in consequence of a Commission over which I presided. The object of this clause is to prevent a local authority from raising the annual assessment of houses to which this Act applies. I do not mean raising the annual rates, because the rates depend upon expenditure, and the rates per £ must be raised, whatever the result, if necessity arises. The object of this clause is to prevent the assessment being raised, with a consequent increase of rent against the tenants as allowed by Section 1 (4) of the principal Act. The danger that is suggested to me is that if these assessments are raised and houses come outside the compounding limit, then the rates and consequently the rents will be raised.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In substance that point was put, I think, by the noble Earl, and I have already promised him that between now and the Report stage it shall be examined. I believe it is the same point.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am afraid I was out of the House at the moment, and did not, hear that. In the circumstances I shall ask permission not to move just now, and will leave it to the subsequent stage.
Clause 7 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert a new clause after Clause 7. The noble and learned Lord said: The first part of this Amendment is necessitated by the fact that there are a very large, number of Settings in Ireland from the first of May, which is the rent day. The second part of the Amendment is intended to meet the especial conditions of Ireland which have led those who are familiar with them to think it desirable that the local officer of health should be entrusted with the duty of giving certificates instead of the sanitary authority. I cannot tell your Lordships what volume of substance there is behind the representations, but it has been represented that it would not be desirable to give to local bodies the power to prevent a landlord from obtaining the relief afforded by the Act by the simple method of certifying that a house is not fit for human habitation. If the duty is entrusted to the

867
medical officer of health it can be performed by him, and I feel sure that your Lordships will think, in the special circumstances of this case, that this is a more convenient way.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
"Application of Act to Ireland.
"In the application of this Act to Ireland:

"(a) The first day of May shall be substituted for Lady Day in the case of tenancies where the former day is the gale day;

"(b) The medical officer of health of a dispensary district shall be substituted for the sanitary authority in section two of this Act, and the issue of certificates and the payment of fees in connection with applications by tenants under the said section shall be subject to regulations to be made by the Local Government Board for Ireland."—(THE LORD CHANCELLOR.)

On Question, Amendment agreed, to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill on what day he proposes to take the Report stage, so that we may know what to expect.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Having regard to the fact that there are two or three cases in which I have given undertakings to noble Lords, it would not, I think, be reasonable to ask your Lordships to take the Report stage until Monday. It was originally hoped that it might be possible to take it to-morrow, but I have abandoned that. I trust, however, that your Lordships will think it not unreasonable if I ask for all the remaining stages to be taken on Monday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As far as I am concerned—if my opinion is of any value to your Lordships—I think that will be better. The Bill would then go back to the Commons. But when does the noble and learned Lord think we shall have it again?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is, of course, obviously impossible for me to attempt to forecast it; I can only conjecture. I cannot know what view the other House will take of some of the Amendments winch your Lordships have placed in the Bill, but I do not think it will be a long interval before the Bill returns to this House.

THE TRAGEDY AT SOLOHEADBEG.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE rose to ask His Majesty's Government, in connection with the tragedy at Soloheadbeg last January—

1. What compensation the relations of the late Constables McDonnell and O'Connell are entitled to under the regulations applicable to the case.

2. Whether it is intended that any additional compensation should be given.

3. What compensation would be received by the bereaved relations of a sailor and a soldier in the case of families similarly circumstanced.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall detain you for only two minutes in asking these Questions. I do not desire to repeat the arguments that were used in some debates which your Lordships will remember took place upon this whole subject two years ago. I am merely anxious to ascertain the facts beyond those that are public knowledge. The Questions are concerned with two victims of a very brutal assassination, the perpetrators of which we are all very sorry to see no sign of finding. But the family circumstances are very hard. I understand that one of the murdered constables has left an old couple who were dependent upon him. The other leaves a family, I believe of seven, of whom one is able to support himself, the second is described as "a delicate girl earning a small wage hardly sufficient for herself," and the remaining five are left practically unprovided for. I say "practically unprovided for," though I know there is a scale, but that is quite insufficient. A rumour reaches me that the scale amounts, for children under fifteen, to a sum of about 11d a week, which is not a large sum on which to bring up a child—in fact, it is totally inadequate. I hope, therefore, that His Majesty's Government may see their way to deal generously with this case. The scales are, we know, being continually revised; they have been revised often in the last few years especially in the case of the Army and the Navy, and that is why I have put down my third Question. Whatever anxiety we may feel about other Police Forces, there is no question whatever that the spirit and loyalty to the public weal of the Royal Irish Constabulary is absolutely in contestible; and it is in that spirit that I ask the Questions which stand in my name.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, my answer consists of a number of statements with figures in them, which will be correctly printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning for reference. Two children of the late Constable McDonnell who are under fifteen years of age are entitled by Statute, to an allowance of £2 10 s. per annum each until they reach the age of fifteen. No other compensation from Constabulary funds is provided for by the Regulations with respect to the family. Constable Patrick O'Connell was unmarried, and there is no provision under the Regulations for the payment of any compensation to his relations. Owing to the exceptional and unhappy circumstances of the case, the Treasury sanctioned the payment of a gratuity of £100 for the children who were actually dependent on the late Constable McDonnell, and the payment of a compassionate grant of £25 to the parents of the late Constable O'Connell. A further sum of £102 6s. 9d. has been paid from the Constabulary Force Fund (to which the late Constable McDonnell was a subscriber) in respect of five children who were within the conditions of benefit laid down in the rules of the Fund, but this amount would have been payable in any circumstances on the constable's death at the time. I may add that the question of making legislative provision for cases of this nature is under contemplation by the Government.
With regard to the third Question, comparing the Compensation received by these constables, with that of a sailor or a soldier, I am informed that if Constable McDonnell had been killed in the performance of military or naval duty in the present war no grant would have been made in respect of the three children who were over eighteen years of age and were not dependent on him. His two children under the age of sixteen would have been granted pensions of 10 s. and 9s. 2d. a week respectively. His other two children, who are over sixteen years of age but are stated to have been dependent on him at the time of his death, might also have been granted pensions of 9s. 2d. a week each, provided that they are still being educated at some secondary school or are not earning more than nominal wages. Thus, the total maximum amount which might have been awarded to the family by way of pension would have been 37 s. 6d. a week, a sum
870
which would diminish as each child grew up.
In the case of Constable O'Connell, who was unmarried, it is more difficult to say what pension would have been paid to his parents if he had been killed as a soldier or sailor in the present war. The difficulty arises from the fact, that pensions to parents are largely discretionary and depend on the circumstances of the applicant. I understand that Constable O'Connell contributed to the support of his parents, and if this is the fact, and the support consisted of regular provision for a reasonable period, the parents could have been granted a pension based on the amount of that support, with a minimum of 3s. 6d. a week and a maximum of 15 s. And even without any evidence of contribution the parents could have been granted a pension, up to a maximum of 15 s. a week, if in need and incapable of self-support by reason of infirmity or age.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his full reply.

THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE.
LORD WITTENHAM LORD WITTENHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it has been decided to appoint a Commission or Committee of Inquiry into the present condition of the Department of the Public Trustee, arising out of the great additional volume of business thrown upon it during the war, and from other causes; and, if so, whether the terms of the reference and the powers of the Commissioners or Committee can be made public.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking the Question which stands in my name I will not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. This Act dealing with the Public Trustee was passed into law in the first session of the Radical Government of 1906, and came into operation, I think, on January 1, 1908. Therefore it has been in active work for a period of rather more than eleven years. I very much doubt whether any of those interested in the promotion of that measure could ever have forecast the immense dimensions which it would attain in a comparatively short period of time. The superintendence of the Department which was created by the Act of 1906, has come under the benevolent eye of no fewer than,

871
I think, five Lord Chancellors, Of course, their supervision is merely nominal, but they have the appointment not only of the Trustee, but, in conjunction with the Treasury and with the sanction of the Treasury, of all the officers connected with the Department.
Sir Charles Stewart, as he subsequently became, and Mr. Stewart, as he was when he was appointed Public Trustee, deeply as he had this matter at heart must, I think, have been astounded at the development of his Department. The reason probably for this development, up to the time of the war, was that the Department filled a want which was deeply and widely felt. As men get old and friends drop away they find it very difficult to find a trustee or executor to act. The Public Trustee never dies—his Department goes on—and therefore the difficulty of finding somebody to act in the winding up of an intricate estate was solved by the appointment of the Public Trustee. A man who confided his estate after death to that Department felt it was a public Department, and he had absolute confidence in its integrity. I was astonished to learn that, during the years this Act has been in force, from small beginnings the Department now has the control, as I was told on good authority, of something like £100,000,000, and of no fewer than 10,000 trusts.
That is an immense business, when you think what 10,000 trusts means, each one with its own history. An intricate trust need not be a trust involving large sums of money, but requiring precise knowledge on the part of the Department. I am inclined to think that the figure I have mentioned, of nearly £100,000,000, had been reached in 1914 at the beginning of the war. But now see what the war has done. The Government of the day has piled on the top of all the ordinary work of the Department, swollen as that was, as I have tried to show, the custody of enemy property, and, I think, the winding-up to a certain extent of enemy businesses. For that purpose I understand hundreds of clerks have had to be engaged, and owing to the exigencies of the war clerks probably who have no real business knowledge and certainly no knowledge of the history of the trusts which form the ordinary work of this Department. To put it in one sentence, chaos has resulted, because the Department has been asked to do the impossible.
If any man could have done it Sir Charles Stewart, an old friend of my own in days gone by, would have been able to manage it, but I am sorry to think that his health gave way, probably under the strain of work, and he resigned his office. I am blaming nobody, but I am blaming circumstances, though I am not sure that any one can blame circumstances, because in common with so many other Departments this Department has had to perform more than it possibly could do. I said hundreds of new clerks had been engaged, and I said they were not competent to do the specialised work of this Department. Even they, as soon as they have got into harness, have moved on, so I am told, to banks and solicitor's offices, having acquired a certain amount of technical knowledge and received offers of higher salaries, the Treasury, I am told, having only sanctioned a low rate of salaries to this new class of post-war clerks.
You cannot expect good service in these circumstances. Clerks come and clerks go and the Department muddles on. It has come to a point now where something has got to be done. Evidently the noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack shares my opinion to that extent, because, unless I am wrongly informed, the noble and learned Lord has decided to appoint either a Committee or a Commission to inquire into the whole state of the Department. Therefore, the Questions that I have put on the Paper ask, first of all, whether this Committee or Commission is going to be appointed, and, secondly, whether the noble and learned Lord can make public the terms of the scope within which the Committee or Commission will act. I should like to ask, further, whether it is wise any longer that what was intended to be a small Department should attain these tremendous dimensions.
The investment alone of these vast sums of money requires very expert attention indeed. As for the management of the property it is as large as the management of a large joint stock bank. I will not say it is as intricate, but in many ways it is quite as difficult. The result of the deadlock at which things have arrived is that beneficiaries of estates are, in very many cases, in arrear in the receipt of their annuities, allowances, and the annual sums to which they are entitled; letters are being left unanswered, and all sorts of

873
difficulties and hardships are arising. I do not feel that I am entitled any longer, particularly at this hour, to amplify the condition of chaos into which the whole Department has fallen, but I would ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when he comes to answer me—which I understand he will do—if he can not only answer the Questions upon the Paper but also tell me whether he himself does not see some danger and difficulty in allowing the ordinary normal work of this Department to keep on being increased in the way that it has during the last eight or nine years—whether the time has not come in fact to cry "Halt!"
I know that the Act allows the Public Trustee to decline to take business, but the temptations are very great for any Department. It magnifies its own importance. The more business it has to transact the more important it is. Therefore it is very difficult to say "No." As I understand, there is no profit made out of the Department. The whole of the emoluments which accrue to the Department in the shape of fees go, so I understand, in the payment of the clerks and the general upkeep of the office and staff. But, as to the question of principle, is it not wise, at any rate, to let that be one of the terms of the inquiry by the Committee or the Commission—whether the time has not come to cry "Halt"? If it has not, then at once realise that this is a very great, a very important Department of the State which, ought to be dealt with on these lines.
LORD ASHTON OF HYDE: My Lords, before the Lord Chancellor replies may I say one word? I quite agree with my noble friend who has brought this matter forward—and I am very glad that he has brought it forward—that the liabilities in the hands of the Public Trustee now are enormous. I do not think he is in the least exaggerating when he says that they are over £100,000,000 at least. It is quite true that the investment of these enormous funds, which in itself is a vast undertaking, is in the hands of the Public Trustee, and for some time the Public Trustee alone was really responsible for the way in which these funds were invested. Of late years he has himself appointed a Committee of eminent city men who understand investment to advise him in this matter. Therefore, to that extent his position is much stronger than it was.
874
But in one respect, if there is to be a Committee, I hope there will be consideration, and it is this. The vast funds in the hands of the Public Trustee are, in my opinion, far too large to place in the practically uncontrolled hands of one man. It is too much. You may get the best man you like, but it is too much for the nation to have these vast fund; entirely in the hands of one man. It is perfectly true that the Consolidated Fund can be called upon if there is any dereliction of duty by the Public Trustee. The Consolidated Fund is at the back of everything and can be called upon to pay in such a case. While we have had in Sir Charles Stewart a most admirable Public Trustee—and I hope we shall find the new Public Trustee an admirable man, too it is quite conceivable that we may at some time have a Public Trustee who is not quite, so reliable as these men, and there would be temptation with such vast sums left entirely to his control. I suggest that if the matter is going to be looked into and a Committee is going to be appointed, the question should be considered whether, instead of having one Public, Trustee, there should be a body of say three, as in the case of the Charity Commissioners and other bodies, so that these large sums would not be in the hands of one man only.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords I am not aware who the informant was of the noble Lord who called my attention to this matter, but whoever he may be, he certainly gave my noble friend a picture of the situation which is both alarmist and extremely exaggerated. I little regret that my noble friend should inadvertently have given publicity to the picture which had obviously been painted for him, because these are grave matters that one is dealing with, and it introduces a very unfortunate effect if those who, in reliance on the State, have availed themselves of the services of the Public Trustee, should read in the Press to-morrow that the whole Department is in a state of chaos, that letters are never answered, and that people had better not become beneficiaries there because they would always find themselves in arrear with the amounts they were entitled to receive. Anything less likely to recommend the institution to me, if I were in the position to make use of it, I cannot conceive.
I must not be understood, of course, as saying that there are not matters which,

875
ten years after a new office which has greatly developed was established, would afford very proper material for inquiry, not in the least that there should be wholesale condemnation or in the expectation that condemnation would be necessary at all; but, of course, when this Office was started ten years ago no one knew what the development would be. It must, I think, on the whole, be pronounced—with qualifications which in the circumstances I should serve no useful purpose by setting out—to have been of very great public utility. The noble Lord who spoke last called attention to one of the points which certainly is the subject-matter of inquiry, but he will be reassured to know that the Public Trustee is advised by a number of most distinguished financiers, whose names perhaps there is no particular reason tonight to give. But he receives constant advice from men who are most competent to give it.
I have, with the concurrence of the Treasury, appointed a Committee to inquire into the Office, and I have done so for the reasons I have indicated. It has been in existence ten years; its staff and its work has grown, and there is the question whether it is working upon lines which are on the whole wisest and most fruitful in good results. The appointment of this Committee must not be taken to reflect upon the useful work the Department is doing, upon the efficiency with which it is doing it, and certainly not to reflect in any way upon the late Public Trustee, whose state of health we are all sorry to hear is causing his friends some anxiety. The terms of reference are—
"To inquire into and report upon the organisation of the office of the Public Trustee, with special reference to the steps to be taken for dealing with the rapid increase in the volume of work, to the number, qualifications, duties, and salaries of the present and future staff, to the questions of policy and administration involved in the estab-
876
lishment of local offices in the provinces, and to any alteration in the scale of fees which may be rendered expedient by the result of the foregoing general and special inquiries or otherwise."
Sir George Murray has consented to act as Chairman of this Committee; and Mr. Henry Bell, of Lloyd's Pa k; Mr. Samuel Garrett, of the firm of Parker, Garrett, and Company, who was President of the Law Society last year; and Sir William Plender, whose experience we all know, have accepted invitations to serve upon the Committee. It is possible that I may add a further member to the Committee, but I have not yet quite made up my mind on that point. It is hoped that the Committee will commence its operations early next month. It would have commenced its work considerably earlier but unfortunately Sir George Murray has been in the South of France, I am sorry to say on some private domestic anxiety, but it is not expected that his absence from this country will be protracted. Every one who knows him will realise that it would be a great misfortune if the Committee were deprived of his services as chairman. Your Lordships will not think it right, when this exhaustive examination is proceeding, that I should prejudge either their discussions or their conclusions.

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

A MONDAY SITTING.
THE EARL OF CRAWFOED: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn until Monday next.
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.