Sitting of 27 March 1919

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the Counties of Aberdeen and Kincardine (Central Division), in the room of Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Theodore Gordon, deceased.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  FINLAND.
  Lieutenant-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOAREasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether German influence is still strong in Finland; and whether, on this account, a British Mission should immediately be sent to Finland?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): A few German agents are still understood to be in Finland, but His Majesty's Government have been informed that the Finnish Government are taking the necessary steps for their immediate removal.
  It is not at present thought necessary to dispatch a British Mission to Finland, where Mr. Bell is representing His Majesty's Government in the capacity of Acting British Consul-General.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that a British Mission to Finland would meet with strong opposition from people here who object owing to massacres?

  TRANSYLVANIA.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Roumanian Army has crossed to the north of the River Maros or
  566
  whether recent developments in Hungary have led to a revision of the plan to occupy the whole of Transylvania?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I have no information of any revision of the line of demarcation between the Hungarians and Roumanians, but the situation which has arisen is at present being discussed in Paris.

  RUSSIA.

    ADMIRAL KOLCHAK'S GOVERNMENT.
    Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government on the 3rd of May, 1918, recognised the Esthonian National Council as a de facto independent body; and whether the Government of Admiral Kolchak has been, or will now be, likewise recognised?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, although Admiral Kolchak's Government enjoys the support and sympathy of His Majesty's Government, I am unable to make any statement at present, seeing that the question of the policy to be pursued in regard to Russia is one which concerns the Allied Powers as a whole, and that they are considering the matter in Paris.
    Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not the fact that certain countries have recognised Finland and other countries have not, and it is entirely a matter for each country to decide for itself?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Admiral Kolchak's Government is a Royalist Government for the re-establishment of Czardom in Russia?
    Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I will raise this question on the Adjournment.

    SYRIAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE.
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what are the component elements

    567
    of the Syrian Central Committee, and what claim this committee possesses to represent Syrian opinion?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The committee in question is under the chairmanship of M. Chekri Ganem, and its council is composed of an Orthodox Greek, a Moslem, a Greek Melchite, a Maronite and a Hebrew. I understand that the committee claims to represent a number of other Syrian and Syrian Lebanese committees and associations in the United States, Europe, Australia and Africa.
    The committee's claim to represent Syrian opinion is contested by various Syrian bodies, both in Syria itself and in other parts of the world.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    ARTIFICIAL LIMBS (OFFICERS).
    Major COHENasked the Pensions Minister whether he is now able to announce any relaxation of the rule which compels retired officers to repair and renew their artificial limbs at their own expense?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I have considered the Question of the supply of artificial limbs to retired officers, and I have decided that it is not possible to maintain the present system which discriminates unfairly between officers and men. Accordingly the Regulations at present in force as to the supply, repair and renewal of artificial limbs for discharged sailors and soldiers will be extended to retired officers with the result that every retired officer will be supplied with the artificial limb which he requires, and also with an additional limb as soon as the stump is ready to receive it, and the supply is available, without charge. The Ministry will also undertake all repairs and renewals of limbs.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir NORTON GRIFFITHS: Is the repair depot at Brighton still being maintained?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The depot at Brighton is not dealing with repairs of artificial limbs.
    Sir M. BARLOW: Does the arrangements announced refer to all officers?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It applies to all retired officers.

    TUBERCULOSIS (CLERICAL WORKERS).
    Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENNasked the Pensions Minister if, when granting a disablement pension to a soldier accustomed to clerical work who contracted tuberculosis on active service, the pension is sufficiently high to ensure his not having to continue earning his livelihood by clerical work?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: A disablement pension is granted with reference only to the degree of physical disablement, and without regard to occupation. But if the nature of the disablement is such that it would be dangerous to the man's health if he were to resume his prewar occupation he may be trained for a new one During training he receives allowances equivalent to the highest rate of pension or, if more favourable to him, allowances based on his pre-war earnings. If, when trained, he finds his earning capacity lessened to such an extent that his disablement pension does not provide adequate compensation, he may be eligible for an alternative pension.
    Sir S. BENN: May I ask if men suffering from tuberculosis are allowed to sit side by side with men who are not suffering from it.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That does not arise out of the question.

    TRAINING GRANTS.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Minister of Labour (1) whether there is any way by which soldiers and sailors who have started learning a trade whilst in hospital under the direction, of the education officer and who have been demobilised before their training has been completed, and whose disablement is not sufficient to bring them under the Ministry of Pensions, can get a grant to enable them to finish their course of training; if so, to whom should application be made; (2) if he could arrange for education officers attached to military hospitals in such cases where they have arranged for the training of men in certain trades to have power to recommend to the local pensions committee, or some other authority, that on demobilisation a grant should be made to enable a man to finish his course of training?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): I am in close touch with the War Office and the Ministry of Pensions with regard to the continuance of the training of sailors and soldiers after they are released from hospital. The question of what provision is to be made for the training of men who are not covered by the terms of the Royal Warrant is under consideration, and the suggestion made by the hon. Member in this connection will not be overlooked. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.
    Mr GWYNNE: In view of the fact that men who have been undergoing training are now being discharged from hospital, will the right hon. Gentleman press forward the inquiries as soon as possible?
    Sir R. HORNE: The inquiries are being pressed forward as rapidly as we can. The hon. Member will realise that a certain amount of communication has to take place between the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Pensions, and the War Office in this connection.
    Lieutenant-Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is it not a fact that the "Comrades of the Great War" was established for this specific purpose, or for one of these purposes, and why is it that an institution which is backed by the Government, and which has such an excellent object in view, has been allowed to drop into obscurity?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid the Government cannot be regarded as responsible for the operations of the "Comrades of the Great War."

    INJURIES IN WAR COMPENSATION ACT.
    Sir MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now see his way to paying the 20 per cent. bonus on pensions and allowances payable under the Injuries in War Compensation Act in the same way as the bonuses payable under the Royal Warrant for pensions to petty officers and men of the Navy?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The suggestion of my hon. Friend has not been considered. I think, on the whole, he should put his question down again and address it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  IRELAND.

    FISHING INDUSTRY.
    Sir MAURICE DOCKRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that in a Return published by the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association in January, 1919, Ireland is said to have 13, Scotland 1,182, and England 2,605 steamers, Ireland none, Scotland 523, England 153 motor vessels, engaged in the fishing industry, the English and Scottish steam and motor vessels being valued, approximately, at £12,000,000 sterling; can he say upon whom responsibility rests for Ireland's shortage of quick-transit vessels so essential in handling a perish able article of food; and what steps he proposes to take to enable Ireland to help the nation's food supply by a more thorough harvesting of her own seas?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. A. W. Samuels): In 1913, the last complete normal year before the War, and the year to which it is understood that the figures quoted by my hon. Friend relate, the Irish vessels engaged in fishing numbered 5,093, made up of 21 steamers, 147 motor boats, and 4,925 others. The figures for 1918 are not yet complete, but in 1917 the number of motor boats had increased to 384, although owing to causes connected with the War the number of steamers actually engaged in fishing had been reduced to four. The return of steam fishing vessels at present on Charter by the Admiralty will increase this number in 1919. The number of other boats fitted out for fishing had decreased during the War to 4,154. The vessels enumerated in the question are engaged in fishing, and are not concerned in transit except in so far as they carry their own catches from the fishing grounds to the port of landing.

    DETENTION OF BOYS, TIPPERARY.
    Mr. SPOORasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that a boy named Connors, aged eleven, and a boy named Morgan, aged fourteen, of Greenane, Tipperary, are under arrest; will he state on what date they were arrested, and on what charge or for what reason; in what prison or place of detention they have been confined; whether any communication as to their whereabouts has been made to their parents or relations; if so, on what date it was first made; whether relations or friends have been

    571
    permitted to visit the boys; what are the conditions of confinement for this child of eleven and lad of fourteen; and under what statutory or other authority is their imprisonment continued?
    Mr. SAMUELS: The boys referred to are not tinder arrest. They are detained in the interests of justice, and are receiving all proper care and attention.

    ARMY HORSES.
    Captain DIXONasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Irish officers who sold their own horses to the Government at the beginning of the War and are now enabled to repurchase them, and Irish officers who have been permitted to purchase their favourite charger under War Office authority, are not permitted to bring those horses back to Ireland owing to the restrictions of the Department of Agriculture; and whether, owing to the hardship upon Irish officers through this Regulation, he will have exceptions made in the case of horses belonging to them?
    Mr. SAMUELS: The Department of Agriculture in Ireland, after full consideration of the general question, deemed it necessary as a precaution against the introduction into Ireland of disease to veto the importation for private use in Ireland of any horses coming from the theatres of war, and the War Office authorities have accepted this decision. The Regulation in question is, of course, a source of disappointment in such cases as those referred to by the hon. Member, but the Department would not feel justified, in view of their responsibility in relation to the health of the livestock of the country, in allowing any exceptions to the Regulation.
    Sir E. CARSON: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, having regard to the very small number of horses involved, it would not be possible in some way to put them into quarantine and have them brought to Ireland, having regard to the great interest and dissatisfaction there is amongst officers about this rule?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I shall take care to have that suggestion of my right hon. Friend conveyed to the Vice-President of the Department.

    PRIMARY EDUCATION.
    Major O'NEILLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is considering the
    572
    Report of the Viceregal Commission on Primary Education, with a view to introducing legislation on the subject; and, if so, whether he will also consider, and if necessary call for further Reports, upon matters relating to education in Ireland, including the managerial system, which were not within the scope, of the terms of reference to the Commission?
    Mr. SAMUELS: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is considering the Report and the reservations thereto.
    Major O'NEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question as to whether he is considering it with a view to legislation?
    Mr. SAMUELS: There is a further answer down to my right hon. Friend.

    OUT-OF-WORK DONATIONS.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Minister of Labour the number of men, women, and young persons, respectively, in receipt of out-of-work donations in Ireland for the week ending 6th March, and for each of the subsequent weeks, and the classes of persons now eligible for such donations, specifying, so far as possible, the nature of their employment?
    Sir R. HORNE: The number of persons drawing out-of-work donation in Ireland were as follows:—

    Week ending 7th March, 63,039 men, 25,445 women, 3,553 juveniles. Total, 92,037.

    Week ending 14th March, 41,003 men, 15,187 women, 1,792 juveniles. Total, 57,982.

    Figures for the week ending 21st March have not yet been collated.
    The scope of the Out-of-Work Donation Scheme for Civilians has been modified as regards Ireland, the new arrangements having come into force on 6th March. From that date the classes of persons eligible for the receipt of the out-of-work donation in Ireland are:—

    (1) Ex-members of His Majesty's Forces, irrespective of their pre-war trades.

    (2) Workpeople in the trades insured against unemployment under the National Insurance Act, 1911 to 1918.

    (3) Workpeople in trades certified by the Lord Lieutenant as trades in which there is a substantial amount of unemployment caused by the cessation of hostilities. So far the only trade so certified is the linen and cotton trade.

    573
    As regards the nature of the pre-war employment of ex-members of His Majesty's Forces in receipt of out-of-work donation, it is not practicable to give this information within the limits of a reply to a question in the House, but if the hon. and learned Member desires further particulars on the point I shall be happy to supply them.

    HOUSING BILL.
    Sir EDWARD CARSONasked the Prime Minister whether a Housing Bill for Ireland will be introduced; and, if so, at what date?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is proposed to introduce a separate Bill for Ireland, and it is hoped to introduce it at an early date.
    Sir E. CARSON: May I take it that the efforts of the Government will be directed to securing that the Irish Bill shall become law on or about the same time as the English Bill?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. SEXTON: Will the Bill include facilities for the various factions in Ireland who at present do not know where to lay their weary heads?

    PRIMARY EDUCATION.
    Sir E. CARSONasked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for time to be given to discuss the question of primary education in Ireland and the Report of the Vice-Regal Commission?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: An opportunity for the discussion of Irish affairs will arise on Thursday next week.

    HIDES (EXPORT).
    Mr. ARCHDALEasked the Food Controller if he will state why the Food Ministry consider it still necessary to prohibit export of hides from Ireland to Great Britain except through selected markets and firms; and whether this handicap on outside firms can now be removed?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): It is necessary for the present arrangement, by which hides exported from Ireland pass through a clearing house controlled by the Army Contracts Department of the War Office, to be retained until termination of the present
    574
    control of meat supplies under which farmers are guaranteed prices for live beasts. As, however, any Irish firm desiring to do so may export its hides through the clearing house at the controlled price, I cannot agree that the Regulations amount to a handicap on outside firms.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (PAY AND STATUS OF TEACHERS).
    Sir E. CARSONasked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether the recommendations of the Vice-Regal Commission on the Pay and Status of Teachers in Elementary Schools in Ireland can be carried out without legislation, and, if not, whether it is intended to introduce forthwith such legislation as is necessary?
    Mr. SAMUELS. I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland in relation to this matter, and I shall ask my right hon. and learned Friend to kindly repeat the question again next week.

    CHARGES ON IRISH CATTLE.
    Captain DIXONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board propose to increase the charges on Irish cattle landed at Birkenhead from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. per head and on sheep from 2d. to 3d. per head; whether these increased charges are viewed with strong apprehension by the Irish cattle traders and will impose a heavy tax on Irish stockowners, already severely hit by the post-war slump in prices; and whether he proposes to take action to prevent this further increase in the port charges?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): The Board are aware that certain increases in the charges on Irish cattle landed at Birkenhead have recently been made. These increases were made with the Board's authority, and they are necessitated by the increases of wages made to the employés at the Mersey Cattle Wharf.
    Captain DIXONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture on what date the control prices of cattle will cease; whether unrestricted trading in cattle with Great Britain will be permitted from the date control ceases; and whether, from the date on which con-

    575
    trol ceases, Irish traders will be allowed to ship live stock direct to the Continent to meet the shortage of food there?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is at present anticipated that the control of the price of cattle will cease on 30th September next, after which date such restrictions of movement will remain as may be necessary to comply with the provisions of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 and 1896. With regard to the last part of the question it should be addressed to the Vice-President of the Irish Department of Agriculture, etc.

    PRISON OFFICIALS (PENSIONS).
    Sir ROBERT NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes at an early date to introduce a Bill for the improvement of the scale of pensions for prison officials, thus giving effect to the promise given to the prison officers by the Prison Commissioners in the name of his immediate predecessor in office, Lord Cave?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): A Committee is now investigating the subject, and action must be deferred till they report.

  ALIENS.

    RESTRICTION.
    Lieutenant-Colonel RAYMOND GREENEasked the Home Secretary if he can state when he will introduce the Bill dealing with the restriction of aliens?
    Mr. SHORTT: I cannot yet give a date, but the Bill will be taken as soon as business may permit.

    NATURALISATION (ATKIN COMMITTEE).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether the Atkin Committee on the Naturalisation of Aliens has completed its work; if so, how many cases have been investigated and with what results?
    Mr. SHORTT: The Certificates of Naturalisation (Revocation) Committee is a Standing Committee, and I cannot say when its work will be completed. Up to the present time it has reached a decision
    576
    in 187 cases, and fifteen certificates have been revoked as a result of its investigations. A considerable number of cases are still under consideration by the Committee.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is any report to be made to this House of the cases investigated, and the cases in which revocation has taken place?
    Mr. SHORTT: I think they are published in the "Gazette," but I will look into the matter.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister if the Bankes Committee on Aliens in Government Offices has reported; if so, how many cases it has investigated and with what results?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The Report has been received, but the Government have not yet had time to consider it. I shall, therefore, be obliged if my hon. Friend will postpone his question for a fortnight.

    SEAMEN (LANDING).
    Commander Sir EDWARD NICHOLLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the importation of both Bolsheviks and their propaganda into this country, he will say what attention has been given by the authorities to the landing of alien seamen, enemy and otherwise, at the various British ports trading direct with the Continent, and of the fact that no restrictions are placed upon their going ashore and communicating with undesirables already in this country; and whether, especially in view of the present Continental unrest, he will take such steps as are necessary to stop this alien peril?
    Mr. SHORTT: I have been asked to reply. This question appears to be based on a misapprehension. It is not the fact that no restrictions are placed upon the landing of alien seamen in this country. On the contrary, the closest possible control is kept over this matter, with the view of guarding against various dangers, including those suggested in the question. All alien seamen are closely scrutinised by experienced officers, and if any seaman gives cause for suspicion he is refused leave to land and a military guard placed on the ship. If any alien of enemy nationality were discovered among the

    577
    members of a crew he would be at once arrested and handed over to the proper authorities for internment.
    Sir E. NICHOLL: Is it not a fact that these men are allowed to go to and from their ships as they please at the present time?
    Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir. According to my information they are only allowed to go to and from their ships subject to certain restrictions.
    Brigadier-General COCKERILL: In regard to the restrictions made during the War, has there been any relaxation of them sanctioned since the Armistice?
    Mr. SHORTT: I understand there has not.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it not a fact that a vessel has arrived from Russia with 200 Letts on board?
    Mr. SHORTT: I must ask for notice of that question.

    WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether the proposed Minister of Ways and Communications received a deputation of municipal engineers on the 11th instant, and promised to add a Clause to the Bill enabling him to pay half the salaries of the engineer or surveyor to a local authority, provided that the appointment and dismissal of such engineer or surveyor is subject to his approval?
    Mr. SHORTT: An Amendment to the Bill broadly on the lines suggested in the question will be put forward by the Government in Committee. The meeting with the surveyors on the 11th instant was so informed.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the county councils and other road authorities before giving this pledge about their servants' security of tenure?
    Mr. SHORTT: I must ask for notice of that question.

    SOUTH STAFFOED COALFIELD (PUMPING).
    Mr. HALLASasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in the
    578
    South Staffordshire coalfield, which extends over an area of 65 square miles, the mines are becoming waterlogged for want of adequate pumping services; that there is the gravest danger of 40,000,000 tons of coal and ironstone being utterly lost; and what steps it is proposed to take to deal with the difficulty?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Treasury have granted an amount, £2,000, for the purpose of keeping the pumping operations in the Old Hill district going for one year from the 1st April next, pending some agreement among the owners for the proper financing of the operations. A Grant of £3,000 for the installation of an additional pump in the Tipton area was authorised in December last, and it is expected that this pump will come into operation shortly.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Sir W. HOWELL DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that E. Rudman, who is serving his fifth sentence as a conscientious objector in Wormwood Scrubs Prison, and who was recently forcibly fed twenty-eight times in Ipswich Prison, is now in a very bad state of health, having had influenza, pneumonia and bronchitis; and whether he will authorise this man's release on health grounds?
    Mr. SHORTT: This prisoner has recovered from his attack of influenza and pneumonia, but his general health is poor and the medical officer who has charge of him is at present considering his case. If his report justifies that course, Rudman will be released.

  EDUCATION.

    SCHOOL INSPECTION (CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE).
    Captain LOSEBYasked the President of the Board of Education if he will give instructions to all school inspectors under his control to report fully on the moral and tone of schools inspected by them, and in no case to confine themselves to information alone?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The Board's inspectors fully understand that it is their duty to report upon standard of conduct and discipline and general tone of the schools, and I do not think it is necessary to issue any further instructions to them.

    PUBLIC SCHOOLS (MODERN TEACHING METHODS).
    Captain LOSEBYasked the President of the Board of Education if he proposes to take any steps in the near future to ensure that more modern methods of teaching are introduced into the great public schools of this country?
    Mr. FISHER: The improvement of methods of teaching throughout our educational system is a matter which has been engaging my earnest attention. Much improvement may be expected to follow from the wide public attention aroused by the Reports of the Prime Minister's Committees on science and modern languages, and I am taking steps to make similar investigations in respect of other subjects. Effective reform in the matter rests in the last resort with the teaching profession itself, and direct State interference has obviously its dangers and its limits of usefulness. I am convinced that the great public schools are fully alive to the responsibilities which will rest upon them if they are to play their part in a national system of education.

    SCHOOL INSPECTORS.
    Captain LOSEBYasked the President of the Board of Education if he will take steps to ensure that inspectors of national schools are in future appointed, as far as possible, from the ranks of trained teachers?
    Mr. FISHER: The Board of Education have always attached great importance to the experience gained from a recognised course of training for the teaching profession; but I cannot undertake to restrict the appointments in the Board's inspectorate to persons who have received such training.

    PHYSICAL TRAINING.
    Captain LOSEBYasked the President of the Board of Education if he will consider the advisability of appointing a director of physical training to supervise the whole system of physical training of
    580
    children, more particularly of children attending national schools, throughout the country?
    Mr. FISHER: The Board for many years past have had on their staff expert inspectors of physical training who work under the chief medical officer. Their inspections are made in all types of schools which receive grants from the Board. I do not think the establishment of such a post as is suggested is required.
    Colonel YATE: Is it not the case that there are only five inspectors, of whom five are women, and that there are no proper inspectors for boys in physical training?
    Mr. FISHER: I will not charge my memory with the actual number of inspectors, but we have a number of organisers of physical training whose duty it is to give instruction to the teachers in the methods of physical training.

    CIVIL SERVICE CLERKSHIPS (EX-ARMY OFFICERS).
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the fact that officers who have proved their administrative and educational powers during the War are debarred from qualifying examinations and competitions for clerks in the Civil Service under the Board of Education unless they have taken a full university course, have had two years at a university, or entered the forces direct from school; whether this prohibits many desirable candidates from competing; and whether he will take immediate steps to remove this embargo on officers and others who have served in His Majesty's Forces from obtaining such appointments as Civil servants?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I have been requested to reply to this question. I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the reconstruction scheme for recruiting Class 1 of the Home Civil Service after the War. That scheme provides exceptional facilities for entry into the Civil Service of candidates who have served in His Majesty's Forces, but I am not prepared to relax the educational conditions of the scheme in the case of ex-Service candidates for Class 1 appointments in the Board of Education or any other Department.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Will this embargo not debar an officer who was precluded from going to a university owing to the War?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I think my hon. Friend would be assuming too much to consider that. I do not think there would be the slightest difficulty in getting an ample number of candidates who are both ex-Service men and have the desired qualifications for the First Division. I am only referring to the First Division.

    "GOVERNMENT ALE."
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Food Controller if he will state when the low-gravity beer known as Government ale will be abolished?
    Mr. McCURDY: I am not quite clear to what the hon. Member refers. So far as I am aware, there is no beer properly defined as "Government ale."

    SPIRITS (INCREASED SUPPLIES).
    Brigadier-General COLVINasked the Food Controller if he is aware of the difficulty experienced by invalids and old people in obtaining brandy or whisky even on the production of a medical certificate; and whether he will take steps to enable such people to obtain spirits in small quantities at a reasonable price?
    Mr. McCURDY: I am given to understand that, as a result of the recent increase in the releases from bond, it should be possible for all reasonable requirements to be met in the near future. I would, however, remind the hon. and gallant Member that the responsibility in this matter is not that of the Ministry of Food.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at Victoria Station the other day an old gentleman was taken suddenly ill and was told he must get a medical certificate before he could get a glass of brandy?
    Lieutenant-Colonel C. LOWTHER: May I ask when the restriction on whisky and brandy will be entirely removed, and is not the longevity of the restriction causing great hardship?
    Sir R. WOODS: May I ask if there is any truth in the report that some of the spirits that have recently been released were not originally intended for potable purposes, but for the manufacture of munitions?
    Mr. McCURDY: I can only repeat what I have said, that the removal or the retention of the restriction complained of is not within the decision of the Ministry of Food.
    Mr. SEXTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Allied countries and on the Continent there is no difficulty in securing an unlimited supply of whisky exported from this country?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not come within the hon. Gentleman's Department.

    STREET FATALITIES, LONDON (HEAVY MOTOR LORRIES).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to recent inquests held in London on deaths caused by heavy motor lorries; whether he is aware that these lorries are not fitted with proper side guards, and that the coroners' juries recommended that these lorries should be so protected; and will he consider as to issuing an Order compellin all heavy Army or commercial motor lorries to be provided with similar side guards to motor omnibuses?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): My right hon. Friend is aware that there have been recommendations of coroners' juries to the effect stated by the hon. Member. The question of requiring heavy motor lorries to be provided with life guards was considered by the Departmental Committee on Road Locomotives and Heavy Motor Cars which reported last October, but the Committee were unable to come to any definite conclusion, and recommended that further investigations should be made with a view to overcoming the difficulties in the way of the provision of life guards for the great variety of heavy motor lorries. As the hon. Member is aware, it is proposed that the powers of the Local Government Board in relation to vehicles on roads should be transferred to the Ministry of Ways and Com-

    583
    munications. I think this matter must be left to be dealt with by the new Department.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: May I ask whether, on account of the number of inquests which have recently been held, the Department cannot take action without waiting for the further recommendations of the Committee?
    Major ASTOR: No action is recommended. The Committee said that further investigation was required before action could be recommended.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Is it not required that such action should be taken if the Committee cannot make up its mind on the question?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the Committee still investigating?

  HOUSING.

    PUBLIC UTILITY SOCIETIES.
    Lieutenant-Colonel HERBERTasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board if he will state what steps the Government proposes to take to help public utility societies to build houses?
    Major ASTOR: These terms have been explained in a memorandum issued on Monday last, of which I will send the hon. Member a copy.

    CIVIL SERVANTS.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Treasury has sanctioned the appointment of 30,000 extra Civil servants over and above the pre-war period mentioned by the First Commissioner of Works in his published statement of 25th March as requiring to be housed, and, if so, what are to be the duties and emoluments of these new officials?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The number of additional staff appointed to carry out the work undertaken by the new Departments and the expansion of work in the old Departments—particularly in connection with demobilisation—equals, and indeed exceeds, the figure referred to. The appointment of this staff has been sanctioned by the Treasury to meet public exigencies, but their engagement is in the main on a purely temporary basis, and
    584
    I trust that only a comparatively small proportion of these posts will be permanently required. I am not satisfied with the pace at which reduction of war staff is proceeding, and the Government are considering what further steps can be taken to expedite it.
    Mr. LAMBERT: May we take it that it is not the policy of the Government to have 30,000 additional Civil servants aver and above the pre-war period?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The policy of the Government is to reduce the number of Civil servants, or people serving the State, to the numbers required to do the State's business—and to reduce them as rapidly as possible.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will they number 30,000 extra after the War?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I most certainly hope not, but I cannot say what the number will be.

    SCOTTISH BILL.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir JOHN HOPEasked the Secretary for Scotland when he will be able to introduce the Scottish Housing Bill?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I hope to be in a position to introduce this Bill at an early date.
    Sir J. HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what date? Will it be before Easter?
    Mr. MUNRO: I certainly hope to introduce it before Easter.

    POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
    Major BLAIRasked the Postmaster-General if he will state whether in engaging ex-Service men for service in his Department they must be under thirty years, of age and in receipt of a pension?
    Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): Thirty is the nominal maximum age limit for appointment as postman, but various extensions are permitted in favour of reservists, pensioners, and others. A pension is not a condition of appointment, but preference is being given as far as possible to disabled men, who naturally are in receipt of a pension.
    Sir J. HOPEasked the Postmaster-General how many temporary and other

    585
    employés have been discharged from the postal, telegraph and telephone service since 11th November, 1918?
    Mr. PRATT: About 3,500 males and 30,000 females
    Sir J. HOPE: Are not these employés drawing out-of-work donation and giving no work in return, and would it not be better to retain them until all pre-war postal facilities are restored and all permanent postal servants are demobilised?
    Mr. PRATT: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put that question down.

    SUB-POST OFFICES (REOPENING).
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. HOPEasked the Postmaster-General when he will be able to open the small sub-post offices which were closed for the period of the War?
    Mr. PRATT: Each case where an office has been closed will be considered on its merits, having regard to the needs of the locality.

    TELEGRAPHIST'S PROMOTION, BIRMINGHAM.
    Mr. HALLASasked the Postmaster-General whether a telegraphist at Birmingham was recently promoted over sixty-seven of his seniors; whether he is aware that many of the men passed over are on active service, and that a number of them, by reason of their great general ability and technical knowledge, have obtained commissions and have been awarded high military honours; whether several of the men senior to the officer promoted are fully qualified, and have performed the duties of the higher class with every satisfaction to their Department, whilst the successful candidate for promotion has not performed the superior work; and whether, in view of the injustice to the men overseas, he will cause a searching inquiry to be made?
    Mr. PRATT: My right hon. Friend is aware of the circumstances of the case. Tie officer selected for promotion was himself serving with the forces. He was selected because, prior to enlistment, he had shown exceptional ability, and was considered to possess better qualifications for promotion than any other member of his class.

    TIN-MINING, CORNWALL.
    Mr. ACLANDasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the recent presentation of a Report on the future development of the tin-mining industry in Cornwall, and of the recent permanent closing of one tin mine and the threatened closing of a further mine in the course of a few days, he can have arrangements made whereby the threatened mine will be kept working until a decision upon the Report has been arrived at, so as to prevent the permanent flooding of the mine and to avoid throwing several hundreds of men out of employment?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Report to which the right hon. Member refers is now under consideration, and in view of the urgency of the matter, I hope that a decision as to any Government action will be reached in the course of a very few days.

    MINISTRY OF COMMERCE.
    Sir ROBERT NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of following the example of the United States, France, Italy, and Japan, by establishing a Ministry of Commerce, a policy which has been urged for several years by the leading chambers of commerce in this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This subject is now being considered by His Majesty's Government.

    HUNGARY.
    Lieutenant-Colonel HERBERTasked the Prime Minister if it has been decided to raise the blockade on Hungary the day after Hungary has accepted a Bolshevik government in order to encourage Bolshevism, or because it is believed now that the past policy of starving Hungary has produced Bolshevism and is a mistake?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It has not been decided to raise the blockade of Hungary.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prune Minister whether the Allied Mission has been withdrawn from Hungary; and, if so, whether anyone now represents

    587
    British or American interests in that country or whether we are at war with that country?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and, as regards the last part, I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the Armistice with Austria-Hungary still continues.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the Armistice has not been abrogated by the action of Austria-Hungary?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think it has been altered.

    TIMBER SUPPLY (GERMANY).
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether any and, if so, what estimate has been made of the value of German's timber supply; and whether such timber is to be requisitioned for the purpose of restoring the devastated towns and villages in the countries of the Allies?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The extent to which timber can be used in meeting the claims of the Allies is being carefully examined by the Commission in Paris.

  INCOME TAX.
    ROYAL COMMISSION.

      CONSTITUTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE.
      Lieutenant-Colonel ASSHETON POWNALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Royal Commission on the Income Tax has yet been appointed; and, if not, if he can state when it will be appointed?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The consent of His Majesty has been obtained to the appointment of a Royal Commission with the following terms of reference:—
      "To inquire into the Income Tax (including Super-tax) of the United Kingdom in all its aspects, including the scope, rates, and incidence of the tax, allowances and reliefs, administration, assessment, appeal and collection, and prevention of evasion, and to report what alterations of law and practice are in their opinion necessary or desirable and what effect they would have on rates of tax if it were necessary to maintain the total yield."
      588
      I think hon. Members will desire to know the constitution of the Commission.
      HON. MEMBERS: Hear hear.
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It will be as follows:—

      Lord Colwyn (Chairman).

      The Right Hon. Sir T. Whittaker, M.P.

      The Right Hon. Charles William Bowerman, M.P.

      The Right Hon. William Brace, M.P.

      The Right Hon. Ernest Pretyman, M.P.

      Sir Edmund Nott-Bower, K.C.B.

      Sir J. Harmood-Banner, M.P.

      Sir Walter Trower.

      Mr. Holland Martin, C.B.

      Mr. N. F. Warren Fisher, C.B.

      Mr. S. Armitage Smith, C.B.

      Mr. Philip Birley.

      Mr. William Graham, M.P.

      Mr. Arthur Hill.

      Mr. D. M. Kerley, K.C.

      Mrs. Lilian Knowles.

      Mr. H. J. Mackinder, M.P.

      Mr. W. McLintock.

      Mr. Edward Manville, M.P.

      Mr. Geoffrey Marks.

      Mr. Henry J. May.

      Professor A. C. Pigou.

      Mr. Nicholas J. Synnott.

      The Secretary of the Commission will be Mr. Ernest Clark, of the Inland Revenue Department.
      Hon. Members will no doubt remember that it was recently stated by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that I was in communication with the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the subject of the representation of the Dominions on the Commission. I have since had the opportunity of discussing the question with my right hon. Friend, and we have decided that, as the work of the Commission will for the most part necessarily relate to points of purely United Kingdom interest, and often of a very highly technical character, it would not be desirable to invite representatives of the Dominions to sit on the Commission. It has, however, been arranged that the Commission shall confer with financial representatives of the Dominion Governments in regard to the question of double Income Tax before any final conclusions are reached on that subject.
      Mr. MACMASTER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that it is very easy to separate the question of the way Income Tax

      589
      should be imposed upon marriage from any of the other questions included in the reference, in view of the decreasing birthrate and the destruction of the manhood of the nation in the recent War, is it not merely an unjust and atrocious anomaly, but a breach of duty to the nation to continue the tax upon marriage?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's question is more in the nature of a speech.
      Mr. MACMASTER: It is a question, though.
      Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House to-day whether this Commission is to be a bar to any alteration, in the meantime, to the Income Tax law?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I refuse to give any pledge in regard to the matter. The House cannot be debarred from taking any steps it likes by the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the subject, but I do very seriously submit to the House that there are grave inconveniences in dealing, or attempting to deal, with portions of the Income Tax law in advance of, and in anticipation of, any inquiry which will look into all these matters.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman do this: ask the Commission whether they could not consider making an interim report upon this question at an early date?
      Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHS: Has the House to understand, from the reply just given, that a Committee is to be set up to consider the double Income Tax and is to include representatives of the Dominions?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. Answering the second question first, I would say that a Sub-committee of the Commission will confer with financial representatives of the Dominions Governments before taking any final decision on the subject. As regards the other question, I cannot say any more. Once the Commission is set up it must rest with the Commissioners to determine the procedure. But I will represent to the Chairman of the Commission the interest taken in the matter, and ask him to consider the suggestion made by my hon. Friend.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House
      590
      whether evidence will be taken from the Dominions in regard to the double Income Tax?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That must be a matter for the Commission itself.

      MARRIED WOMEN.
      Mr. BLAIRasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an opportunity of discussing the Income Tax penalty on marriage before the Budget is introduced?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government could not adopt the proposal of my hon. Friend.
      Mr. BLAIR: I beg to say that I will raise this question on the Adjournment on Monday night.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a universal consensus of opinion in favour of altering the law?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: But that does not arise on the question to me. I know, from a very vivid experience, that the Finance Bill gives plenty of opportunity for discussing such subjects.
      Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the relief from Income Tax on a married woman's dividends is payable to the husband and not to the wife if the marriage takes place after the 7th May in any Income Tax year?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am advised that there is no such provision for the year of marriage, but I am looking further into the question, and will communicate with my hon. Friend when my inquiries are completed.
      Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Supposing my right hon. Friend finds that some improvement is necessary will he take steps without waiting for the Report of the Royal Commission?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If I correctly understand the point of my hon. Friend it is as to whether the arrangement whereby a married woman can claim before a certain date is open to her if she happens to get married after that date? I think I should like to make the inquiry I have undertaken to make before coming to a decision. It seems to me to be an oversight in the law which ought to be remedied. It is not a new relief, it is merely adjusting the machinery to give the relief intended.
      Mr. MACMASTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has taken note of the decline in the birth-rate in comparison with the death-rate in the United Kingdom, and of the enormous destruction of the manhood of the nation during the recent War; and whether, in these circumstances, he will take immediate steps to put an end to the tax upon marriage, and thus remove what is admittedly an intolerable anomaly and a premium on immorality?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington.
      Mr. MACMASTER: With regard to the answer to which I have been referred, I would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider the propriety of seeing that more than one woman is put on that Commission in view of the fact that they are deeply interested in it.
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have given very great care to the composition of the Commission. It was a matter of great difficulty and I cannot recommend any alteration.
      Major TRYONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can arrange for a deputation of women to be received by some permanent official of the Treasury on the question of the joint assessment of Income Tax on husbands and wives?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: For the reasons stated in previous replies on this subject, I am unable to accept my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal. I hope that those interested in this question will place their case before the Royal Commission.

      REFORM.
      Brigadier-General COCKERILLasked whether it is the intention of the Government to make no alteration or improvements in the present Income Tax laws until the Royal Commission on Income Tax has reported?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can add nothing to the reply that I gave on the 20th instant, in answer to a supplementary question by the hon. Member for Canterbury. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.
      Brigadier-General COCKERILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the House may expect to receive the Report of the Royal Commission?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not usual to fix a date for the Report of a Royal Commission. That is a subject for the Commission itself. It is the hope of the Chairman of the Commission, a hope which I share, that the Commission will finish their inquiry in the course of the next financial year, and in full time for consideration in respect of the Budget of 1920.

      ADMIRAL TROUBRIDGE (COURT-MARTIAL).
      Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce a decision as to the publication of the proceedings of the Troubridge court-martial, and the dispatches in regard to the escape of the "Goeben" and the bombardments of the forts in the Dardanelles?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I have been asked to reply to this question. It is hoped that it will be possible to announce the decision next week.

      WAR INDEMNITIES.
      Lieutenant-Colonel C. LOWTHERasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is prepared to allocate an early date for general discussion upon the question of war indemnities?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope that an opportunity will arise on Thursday next.
      Brigadier-General CROFT: Will that be a whole afternoon?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: No. If it is found that the Irish discussion takes the bulk of the day, I shall try to give another opportunity.
      Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the day allocated to this discussion will be prior to the decision of the Peace Conference?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot give such an assurance, but I am afraid it must be.
      Brigadier-General CROFT: Will it be next week?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no possibility of the discussion next week, except on Thursday. I hope there may be an opportunity then.
      Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am sending him a list to-night of another 100 Members desiring discussion at an early date, making more than 200 in all?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it would make any difference if there were 707.

      PENSIONS (JUDGES AND EX-MINISTERS).
      Mr. STANTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider, in the interests of national economy, the cutting down by 50 per cent. of the pensions of all retired judges, ex-Ministers of State, and others receiving at present more than £1,000 per annum in pensions; and will he lay upon the Table of the House of Commons a statement of the names and amounts paid to all persons receiving pensions of £2,000 to £5,000 per annum so that the House may consider and discuss the same?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am unable to accept the proposal contained in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the Finance Accounts, which contain full particulars of the pensions to which he refers.
      Mr. STANTON: Is there no hope that the House may have an opportunity of considering these pensions—the whole country considers it unfair?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That was not the question that my hon. Friend put to me. He asked whether I would cut down by 50 per cent. the pensions of all retired judges, ex-Ministers of State, and others receiving at present more than £1,000 per annum in pensions. All these are taxed in accordance with the general taxation rule, and I, at any rate, can give no countenance to the idea that what they have earned by past services to the State is now to be taken, away from them.
      Mr. STANTON: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that other persons also have rendered great service to the State, and their pay has not been proportionate?

      ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
      Mr. HARRY HOPEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will permit agricultural shows to be held without the Entertainments Tax being exacted?
      Major LANE-FOXasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that agricultural shows, and especially the smaller ones, are not run for private profit, but find it most difficult to pay their way; whether it is the intention of the Government, in view of the really valuable educational element in these shows, to make their financial position impossible by insisting either on the payment of the Entertainments Tax or on the elimination of all the side shows, which alone make the show financially possible; and will he consider the remission of the Entertainments Tax in all cases of agricultural shows that can be proved not to be run for private profit?
      Mr. BALDWIN: The conditions under which exemption from Entertainments Tax can be granted in the case of agricultural shows were explained in the reply given by me to the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash on the 27th ultimo. I see no reason for altering the law so as to admit of exemption being granted where those conditions are not satisfied.

      INCREMENT VALUE DUTY.
      Major NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, any Increment Value Duty is payable when a house is sold at an increased price on the ground of an increase in site value on occasion when the adjoining and exactly similar sites are in the market at less than the original site value of the plot on which the house stands; and whether Increment Value Duty is now being claimed with his approval on the increase in the value of buildings under cover of an alleged increase in the site value on occasion?
      Mr. RAMSDENasked the Prima Minister if he still proposes to introduce the one-Clause Bill to deal with the Lumsden judgment, as promised on 23rd July, 1914; and whether he can state how many cases have arisen since 7th May, 1913, in which claims for duty by the Inland Revenue Commissioners, which would have been relieved by the legislation referred to, are in abeyance?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The whole subject of the Land Value Duties, and the effect upon them of different decisions given in the Courts, requires and will receive the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government, but for this examination more time is needed than I have up to the present been able to devote to it. In the meantime, in accordance with the pledge given by the Prime Minister, duty is not being claimed in cases which would have been relieved by the proposed legislation. The particulars asked for hi the last part of Question 46 are not available.
      Brigadier-General CROFT: In view of the necessity of a housing policy, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Part I. of the Finance Act, 1910, is likely to be repealed?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot add to what I have said.
      Major NEWMAN: Does that answer mean that if duty has in fact been claimed it need not be paid—that is the point of the question?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The duty is not being paid—that is my information. If it is being paid, I shall be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me instances.

    ROYAL NAVY.

      1914–15 STAR (NAVAL RESERVE).
      Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have issued regulations to the effect that officers holding commissions in the Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve engaged on boom-defence duties are not entitled to the 1914–15 star; whether these officers, when volunteering their services, offered to go when and where required; whether service on the boom defence has entailed considerable hardship and danger; whether many of these officers have frequently applied for transfers to other branches of the naval service but were definitely informed that the work upon which they were engaged was of such an important nature that they could not be shifted and that applications for transfers of the kind would not be entertained; whether senior naval officers in charge of these boom defences have reported highly on the services of these officers; and whether he will
      596
      be prepared to reconsider this matter with a view to these officers being regarded as eligible for the 1914–15 star?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The 1914–15 star is granted only for service at sea or in theatres of military operations abroad and is not extended to any harbour services such as boom defence. It is quite true that a number of officers applied at various times for transfer to more active services, but in most cases it was obviously impossible to grant such requests without detriment to the efficiency of the work; and this equally applies to other branches of the service demanding special knowledge and practical experience. I should like to bear testimony to the efficient way in which the work has been carried out, but I am afraid the regulations affecting the star must stand.

      BOOM DEFENCE (OFFICERS' PAY).
      Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that an Order in Council, dated 18th July, 1898, gave officers employed on boom defence a special rate of pay of 3s. per day; whether this Order was not cancelled until 24th October, 1916, when a new Order came into force; and whether he will now give orders that the 3s. per day shall be paid up to the date the Order was cancelled, seeing that they are clearly entitled to it?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The complete answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's question is, I am afraid, rather lengthy. Perhaps he will allow me to circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.
      The following is the answer circulated:
      The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. I should, however, state that the first-named Order in Council was intended to provide for the conditions that existed prior to the War when boom defences were held in readiness, though not maintained in position, at the principal defended ports of the United Kingdom and abroad only. With the extension of defences to other ports in the early days of the War, the question naturally arose whether the allowance should be applied to all officers employed on boom-defence duties, irrespective of the conditions under which they were living. It was found that these conditions varied very considerably, some officers Living in hotels or receiving lodging money, while others were accom-

      597
      modated in trawlers, drifters, and other small vessels. It was clear therefore that the automatic application of the allowance could not he justified and payment was only authorised under circumstances which, in the opinion of the Admiralty, entitled an officer to additional pay.
      Under the new Regulations introduced under Order in Council on 24th October, 1916, the former allowance was cancelled and a revised scheme substituted under which officers in charge of boom defences below the rank of captain were paid an allowance of 2s. 6d. a day and all officers and men employed in connection with booms were paid hard lying money. It was, however, specifically laid down that payment of the former allowance was to hold good in cases where it had actually been made to officers.
      As regards the last part of the question, it is not proposed to alter the arrangement made.
      Commander BELLAIRS: Have they carried out the purport of the Order in Council? Have these men been paid what was granted by that Order?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I am anxious to give a detailed reply, because it is to the argument that the reply addresses itself.

      FIXED DEFENCES (OFFICERS' DISTINCTIONS).
      Major BARNETTasked whether any and what distinctions have been conferred upon the officers and men who have served during the War under the Director of Fixed Defences; and whether, seeing that hundreds of miles of net defences have been laid and maintained by these officers and men in every theatre of naval operations and under difficult and trying conditions, it is proposed to bestow any official recognition of these meritorious services?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Three officers employed on Fixed Defences have been awarded honours, namely: C.B. to Captin Stanley T. Dean-Pitt, R.N.; C.M.G. to Captain Donald J. Munro, R.N.; and O.B.E. to Engineer-Lieutenant John Sandieson, R.N. It is regretted that the records are not kept in a form which renders it possible to state the number of men who have received awards. An opportunity has recently been given to all senior naval officers and heads of Departments to put forward recommendations of officers and men who have distinguished themselves during the War
      598
      by performing exceptionally responsible or arduous duties in an exceptionally efficient and capable manner, and any recommendations received in respect of officers and men employed on Fixed Defences will be considered with other recommendations received.

      ORPHAN APPRENTICES (BOARD WAGES).
      Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the board wages allowance in the case of orphan apprentices in His Majesty's Dockyard is still fixed at 10s. per week; and if, in view of all the circumstances, he can have the same raised by 50 per cent. at least?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The rate of board wages is as stated. But my hon. Friend has apparently overlooked the fact that war increases are paid in addition. These war increases are 12s. 9d. a week for apprentices under eighteen years of age and 23s. 6d. a week for apprentices over that age, so that apprentices on board wages at present receive a total rate of at least 22s. 9d. a week and may receive as much as 33s. 6d. a week. I am advised that in these circumstances there is considered to be no necessity to increase the board wages as suggested.

      INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE COMMITTEE.
      Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, bearing in mind the large number of life assurance agents and friendly society collectors in the Kingdom, and the desirability of securing their general acceptance of any Report by the Committee of Inquiry into Industrial Assurance about to be appointed by His Majesty's Government, he will reconsider his decision not to give them direct representation upon the Committee?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The constitution of the Committee to be appointed to inquire into industrial assurance has not yet been settled. The suggestion of my right hon. Friend that insurance agents and friendly society collectors should be given a direct representation on the Committee has already been carefully considered, and my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, does not see his way to include them.

      INTERNATIONAL MOTOR EXHIBITION.
      Mr. ATKEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the only suitable building for the holding of an international motor exhibition is Olympia; that this building is still in partial use as Army clothing stores; that, unless vacant possession by October next can be guaranteed immediately, it will not be possible for the motor industry to organise an exhibition until 1920; that contracts are pending for work in connection with motor exhibitions for which a lease of Olympia has been granted for October and November next, involving a sum of about £100,000, which would largely be expended in labour, and consequently would provide a considerable amount of employment at an early date; that the cycle and motor cycle industry is equally dependent for its exhibition this year upon possession of Olympia being so immediately guaranteed; and will he take steps which will secure Olympia for these exhibitions during November of this year?
      Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): Olympia is at present used as a store by the Royal Army Clothing Department. The stores are, however, being rapidly removed, and the building will be surrendered to the owners at an early date and in ample time for the exhibitions mentioned to take place.

      MERCANTILE MARINE (DEATHS).
      Commander BELLAIRSasked what was the percentage of deaths in the Mercantile Marine in the years 1912 and 1913 as compared with 1.27 per cent. and 1.74 per cent., respectively, among persons employed underground in the United Kingdom?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The percentages of deaths by drowning, wreck, or other accident of persons employed in the Mercantile Marine are as follows:

      1912

      …

      …

      …

      .72 per cent.

      1913

      …

      …

      …

      .32 per cent.

      It should be added that the figures of 1912 include 673 lives lost from the steamship "Titanic" out of a total loss of life for the year of 1819

      PAPER IMPORTS (RESTRICTIONS).
      Brigadier-General SURTEESasked the President of the Board of Trade
      600
      whether he is aware that the removal on 30th April of all restrictions of imports on foreign paper will take effect before British manufacturers are in a position to compete; and that, as a consequence, many mills will be laid idle and the re-employment of demobilised men rendered impossibe?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend is aware that the withdrawal of restrictions on 30th April is liable to place some mills at disadvantage in regard to competition. I need scarcely say that he is alive to the importance of preventing as far as possible the closing down of mills with resulting inability to employ demobilised men. He has been informed of the views of the paper industry on present conditions, and is giving them his attention.

      EXPORT LICENCES (LINOLEUM).
      Mr. WALLACEasked why, in the list of Government notices affecting trade, published in the "Board of Trade Journal" of 20th March, 1919, linoleum is excluded from the list of goods which may be exported without licence or guarantee?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: A proposal to include linoleum among the articles on the "free list" has been submitted by His Majesty's Government to the Supreme Economic Council.

      AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (TRANSPORT).
      Lieutenant-Colonel ARTHUR MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the schemes that are being promoted by the President of the Board of Agriculture in certain districts of England for laying down light railways and establishing motor-lorry services for the purpose of rapidly marketing agricultural produce, and whether any such schemes are in contemplation for Scotland?
      Mr. MUNRO: I am aware that some schemes such as are referred to in the question are under consideration in England. A Report by a Committee which I appointed last year to inquire into the matter for Scotland is now, I am informed, in the hands of the printer, and will shortly be issued. The Committee's recommendations will receive my immediate consideration in consultation with the Scottish Board of Agriculture.

      ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (COTTAGE GARDEN SHOWS).
      Mr. MOUNTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the desirability of encouraging cottage-garden shows, he can see his way to exempt from the Entertainments Tax tickets for such shows, practically all of which are dependent for their finances on the tickets sold at low prices and are not run for private profit?
      Mr. BALDWIN: Under the existing provisions of the law, payments for admission to cottage-garden shows, as distinct from ordinary flower shows, can be exempted from Entertainments Tax provided that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are satisfied that the shows are promoted by a society not conducted or established for profit, and that they are confined to the exhibition of garden produce and do not include extraneous attractions. I do not think it is desirable to alter the law so as to exempt from tax shows which do not comply with these conditions.
      Mr. MOUNT: May I ask whether sports are included in "extraneous attractions," because all county shows have sports?
      Mr. BALDWIN: I could not answer a question regarding sports without notice. If the sports included a band or horses or roundabouts, they would come under what we call "entertainments."
      Major LANE-FOX: Can we have a schedule prepared showing the sports that are allowed and the sports that are not allowed?
      Mr. BALDWIN: I shall be very glad to consider the possibility of doing that.

      CIVIL SERVICE (NEW DEPARTMENT).
      Sir J. HOPEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury circular of 29th January prevents ex-officers and soldiers, who have not been Civil servants previous to enlistment, being eligible for appointments in the new Departments of the Civil Service?
      Mr. BALDWIN: The answer is in the negative. The Circular refers to posts which demand the immediate services of trained and experienced Civil servants.
      Sir J. HOPE: Are ex-soldiers and sailors eligible or not for these appointments?
      Mr. BALDWIN: The question, as the hon. Member asks it, relates to ex-officers, and soldiers who have not been Civil servants, and the point of the answer is that it does not matter whether they are ex-soldiers or sailors provided that they are experienced Civil servants, because these few posts for which candidates are required are posts in which experienced Civil servants are necessary. The posts that they have vacated may be open for competition among those who have not hitherto been Civil servants.
      Sir J. HOPE: Will the hon. Gentleman, say how many of these posts are reserved for Civil servants only? We have just been told that there are to be 30,000.
      Mr. BALDWIN: No. Perhaps it will clear my hon. Friend's mind if I explain to him that the cases covered by this Treasury Circular arose in this way. During the War a number of experienced Civil servants had to be drafted from the older offices to undertake important work in the new offices. These posts that are being filled are the places that they have vacated. That is all. It does not refer to any other question.

      WAR CHARITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
      Mr. A. SHAWasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he can give any estimates of the amount of the funds and property which are affected by the War Charities (Scotland) Bill?
      Mr. MUNRO: It is not possible to give an estimate of the funds which might be affected by the Bill, as its terms are permissive and not obligatory. The Local Government Board for Scotland have already knowledge of funds totalling £16,000, or thereabouts, which may be affected, but that amount may be largely-exceeded.

      STANDARDISED SHIPS DELIVERED.
      Mr. LEONARD LYLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller how many standardised ships have been delivered; how many are operating under Government charter; and how many have been sold to private traders; and whether any fixed period

      603
      has been assigned for the completion of the full number under construction at the time of the Armistice?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): Two hundred and five standard ships have been delivered, of which 146 are operating under Government charter; the others, 59 in number, have been sold to private traders. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
      Commander Viscount CURZON: Are there any more standardised ships under construction?
      Colonel WILSON: There are at present under construction 283, which were ordered before the Armistice and which are not yet completed.

      WOMEN'S ROYAL AIR FORCE.
      Mr. THOMAS GRIFFITHSasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry if Mirabelle Hallan, a member of the Women's Royal Air Force, was detained in a cell at Redcar for three and a-half days because there was no resident magistrate's clerk in Redcar; whether the charge brought against this woman was dismissed; whether he proposes to take any action against those responsible for wrongly accusing this woman; and whether he will consider the possibility of granting her compensation for the financial loss sustained by her as a result of being kept in prison for this period on an unfounded charge?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major-General Seely): Miss Mirabelle Hallen was guilty of a breach of her contract of service, namely, refusal to perform her duties, and, after being several times warned, was handed over to the civil authorities in accordance with the terms of the contract. The action of the civil authorities has already been dealt with in the reply given on behalf of the Home Office on the 24th instant.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      CHEESE.
      Lieutenant-Colonel A. HERBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he will consider the advisability of stimulating the production of cheese?
      Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Board are already doing a great deal in this direction. County education authorities are encouraged by means of special grants and other provisions to provide practical instruction in the art of cheesemaking through travelling and co-operative cheese schools, and farmers and dairy men are encouraged to use for the manufacture of cheese any milk produced in excess of what is required for human consumption.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 61.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 61.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

SELECTION.

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Mr. Hogg; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Glanville.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added to (Standing Committee D the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Public Health (Medical Treatment of Children (Ireland) Bill and the Local Government (Ireland) Bill): Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Devlin, Captain Dixon, Mr. Gange, Lieutenant-Colonel Walter Guinness, Mr. Harbison, Mr. Hopkinson, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. Mallalieu, Mr. Moles, Major Newman, Mr. O'Grady, Major Waring, Mr. Aneurin Williams, and Sir Robert Woods.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee D the following Members: Mr. Burn, Mr. William Coote, Sir Maurice Dockrell, Mr. Lynn, Major Morrison-Bell, and Major O'Neill.

  STANDING COMMITTEE E.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee E the following Fourteen Members (in respect of the Dogs' Protection Bill): Sir Frederick Banbury, Sir John Butcher, Lord Hugh Cecil, Major Farquharson, Mr. Joseph Green, Mr. John Jones, Major M'Micking, Dr. Donald Murray, Captain Ormsby-Gore, Mr. John Parkinson, Colonel Raw, Mr. Rawlinson, Mr. Sitch, and Sir Alfred Yeo.
  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee C the following Members: Mr. Baldwin and Sir Alfred Mond.

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills the following Ten Members (in respect of the War Charities (Scotland) Bill [Lords] Lieutenant-Colonel Bell, Mr. Britton, Sir Clement Kinloch-Cboke, Major Nail, Mr. Robert Richardson, Mr. Tillett, Sir John Tudor Walters, Sir Joseph Walton, Colonel Penry Williams, and Sir Frederick Young.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Civil Contingencies Bill,
Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to the sale by retail of Excisable Liquors." [Public House Improvement Bill [Lords].
Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill,—That they do not agree to the Amendment made by this House to one of the Amendments made by the Lords, for which they assign a reason.
That they do not insist upon certain of their Amendments to which this House has disagreed, but insist upon their other Amendments, for which insistence they assign reasons.

INCREASE OF RENT BILL.
Lords Reasons for disagreeing to the Amendment made by this House to one of
606
their Amendments to the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill, and for insisting on certain of their Amendments to which this House has disagreed, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]
Benjamin Tillett, esquire, Salford Borough (North Division), took Oath and signed the roll.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Charles William Chadwick Oman, esquire, for the University of Oxford.

BILLS PRESENTED.
VIVISECTION OF ANIMALS BILL,—"to prohibit the Vivisection of the higher Animals," presented by Mr. CATHCART WASON; supported by Colonel Burn and Sir Henry Cowan; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]
SCOTTISH BOARD OF HEALTH BILL,—"to establish a Scottish Board of Health to exercise powers with respect to health and local government in Scotland, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. MUNRO; supported by the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. ADAMSON: Can the Leader of the House inform us what business will be taken next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday we shall take the Third Reading of the Naval, Military, and Air Force Service Bill, the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Bill, the Army (Annual) Bill, and other Orders on the Paper.
  Tuesday and Wednesday evenings are reserved for Private Members' Motions, and I, therefore, assume that both days will be wanted for the Second Reading of the Housing Bill.
  On Thursday we shall take Supply. Ireland will come first, and, though it may be sanguine, I hope that there will be adequate time for the discussion of indemnities.
  Mr. A. SHAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Scottish Health Bill will be taken, and also when there will be a sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say. The Health Bill will be presented to-day, but it cannot be discussed.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the House will adjourn for the Easter Recess?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is impossible to give a definite time to which we can pledge ourselves, but I hope that the House will be able to adjourn on Tuesday or Wednesday, 15th or 16th April, till Tuesday, 29th April. I hope that will be the arrangement.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in the event of there not being time to discuss the subject of indemnities next Thursday, whether another opportunity will be afforded?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly! I have already promised that. If we do not have the discussion on Thursday, we will try and arrange for it as early as possible in the following week.
  Ordered,
  "That the Civil Services Estimates, 1919–20, Class 2, Vote 8 (Board of Trade), be considered in Committee of Supply."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

GOVERNMENT MOTOR WORKS, CIPPENHAM.
Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
Sir DONALD MACLEAN: The subject upon which I wish to raise some points is in connection with what is now popularly known as the "Slough Scandal." It is a matter which has been before the House since 5th June last year. A very large number of Members, irrespective of party, evinced a very deep interest in the matter, so much so that on at least twenty occasions between 5th June and 14th November questions were asked and answers given, and on one occasion a prolonged Debate took place at 8.15. The case which was made by the Government for this scheme was the urgent military necessities of the dark days through which this country was then passing. The Leader of the House on the evening on which this matter was first debated laid great and very proper stress upon that aspect of the question. Very great changes have taken place since that 650 acres of some of the best corn-producing land in the country was taken over by the Government. By way of visualising what the extent of that area is, may I give this comparison? It is, within perhaps 50 or 60 acres, twice the size of Hyde Park, and that 650 acres has now become very much more like a fortified area in the battlefields of France and Belgium than the smiling, peaceful countryside which was first taken over in June. I stood on one of the railway bridges connecting the two parts of this on Wednesday morning last, and as far as the eye could reach there were works, miles of trenches, railways, forests of poles, and the whole thing in full swing. In spite of all these efforts, it was admitted in another place yesterday that there is no reasonable probability of that vast undertaking being ready for the purposes for which it may be necessary, because that is not even settled yet, until December next. [Interruption.] Lord Milner said December, according to the report. ["September!"]
4.0 P.M.
I will say September, if you like. Considerable uneasiness was manifested, not only in this country but also throughout some of the Departments of the Government, and particularly the Sub-committee of the Select Committee

643
on National Expenditure took the matter up. The chronological sequence of dates in this matter is vital. The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) was one of the members of that Committee, which rendered very great public service which has not been at all adequately realised by the Government. They have not adopted their suggestions. In their eighth Report with regard to this scheme, in August last, after stating that in their opinion a case for the scheme, or some such scheme, had been made out, they said, in paragraph 22:
"There remains the question of the scale upon which the depot is to be built. As to that, we say that the War Office should proceed with great caution. If the end of the War appeared to be in sight, the situation would be completely altered. For although the depot, once in being, could be put to excellent use during the period of demobilisation, and possibly afterwards, we should not have endorsed the proposal on account of post-war considerations alone."
It would, no doubt, be possible, they go on to say, to find some national establishment thrown out of use by the end of the War for dealing with the necessities which might arise in connection with motor vehicles, instead of that vast and costly scheme. Not only did that Committee say that, but it was mentioned in another place, and I feel, therefore, quite justified in mentioning it here to-day, that there was a very great deal of uneasiness in the Government Departments themselves over the matter. Applications were made from time to time to the Priority Committee of the Ministry of National Service. I will only summarise; I take it from the Debate in another place yesterday. It was decided that no priority should be granted pending a review of the scheme by the Works Construction Committee. That was in October—between the 9th and the end of the month. What was the next step? I am simply trying, as far as I can, to link up questions and answers in the House and the Reports which I have been quoting. The hon. and gallant Member for White-haven, on 7th November, asked whether, in view of the then military conditions, any diminution in expenditure was contemplated. The military situation, happily, had changed completely since June, July, and August, and, instead of disaster threatening us, sunshine was on our arms. What was the reply of the Under-Secretary? He said, "The authorities are in close touch with the Select Committee re-
644
garding the works in view of the military situation. Pending a decision, expenditure is being curtailed as much as possible." That was on 7th November. That Select Committee met on 13th November, and I have here their Report. They said:
"Their Sub-committee had inspected the progress of the works and have taken fresh evidence. They find that the estimate of the expenditure required had been increased from the figure of somewhat over £1,000,000, which had been furnished to them in the summer, to a figure of £1,750,000. Little additional accommodation was contemplated, the increase of 75 per cent. being attributed partly to the constant rise in the cost of construction, partly to the first rough estimates not having proved reliable when examined in further detail. Your Committee are surprised that the Department should have prepared an estimate which, in so short a period of three months, should have been found incorrect by so large a percentage."
I am sure the House will share that surprise. In the next paragraph it says:
"In view of the prospect of the early termination of the War, our Sub-committee urge upon the War Office that they should at once get into communication with the Ministry of Munitions with the view of ascertaining whether that Ministry would have at its disposal premises that could be released either for the storage or for the repairing, or for both, for which the establishment at Slough had been intended. This had been done, but no reply has been received as yet from the Ministry."
They go on to make three very vital recommendations in regard to that:

"(1) That the Estimate referred to should at once be subject to independent expert examination.

(2) That the Ministry of Munitions should be required to give an immediate reply to the inquiry of the War Office as to the availability of alternative premises both for the storage and for the repair of motor vehicles, and

(3) That the Government should review the question of proceeding with the works at Slough, in the light of information so obtained, and

(4) That, if the works are to proceed, the proposals with respect to the housing of the personnel should be re-examined."

I invite the attention of the House to what I am going to say. No reply was given. Why was no reply given? I am at a loss to make out why, but something was being done. Shortly after that the curtain falls for General Election, and no opportunity is given for the public voice to be heard through this House until 25th February. On 25th February a question was addressed to my hon. and gallant Friend the Patronage Secretary as to what was being done. He said, "The original plans have been generally adhered to, subject to certain modifications in detail." Asked whether the whole scheme was going forward, he said, "I cannot say definitely

645
whether all the land will be required eventually, but the whole acreage [twice the size of Hyde Park] will certainly be utilised for some purpose." Then he was asked: Under what conditions has this contract been granted? He replied, that an arrangement had been made to invite tenders from a limited number of contractors on the basis of repayment of cost, with a fee to include profit and superintendence, and that Messrs. McAlpine made a proposal to carry out the work at cost, the fee to be settled afterwards by the Colwyn Committee. He said that the firm was considered to possess unusual qualifications for carrying out the work, and that the contract was granted to them. That is what happened between 7th November and 25th February, and, notwithstanding the urgent requests of this Committee that a reply should be given to the War Office and to their specific recommendations which I have detailed, the contract was given out to Messrs. McAlpine, and they started. When did they start? They started work, according to their own statement in a letter to the "Times," six weeks after the Armistice. That is a matter which demands not statement across the floor of the House, but a public inquiry.
The next step in the matter brings me to an inquiry to which, I think, we are entitled to an answer. What was the policy—for, after all, policy controls expenditure—which the Government must be presumed to have had in mind when they allowed their Departments to embark on this expenditure? Let us see if we cannot find out what that policy was. On 25th February somebody asked my hon. and gallant Friend whether the works were to be national works? He said, "It is almost certain that they will be required for Government purposes. The Army are of opinion that they will require them, but nothing but time can settle that question." He was pressed as to how things were going to be done. The Secretary of State said on 4th March that the Estimate of £1,750,000 did not include the land.
The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): How much was the land? What do you put it at?
Sir D. MACLEAN: I only know that 650 acres of the best corn-growing land in the country must be very expensive. What does the Secretary of State for War say
646
in reply to a question as to whether it is the intention to transfer the undertaking to the Ministry of Supply:
"It was my first intention to transfer it to the Ministry of Supply, but I received from the Ministry of Supply such strong arguments that I was led to believe that they wished me to retain the responsibility for dealing with the matter."
That is the position with regard to policy up to 4th March. Then the right hon. Gentleman was asked, "Would it not be better to have a Report from a Committee of independent Members of this House?" and he replied, "I am afraid that on behalf of the Government I cannot agree to that at all. The enterprise was put forward as part of a war effort; the War has come to an end; the question is whether immediately to wind up, or to consider whether it can be placed on a peace organisation." Still no policy to justify the expenditure. This vast undertaking has been thrown from hand to hand, from the War Office to the Ministry of Supply, and back from the Ministry of Supply to the War Office; but expenditure goes on all the time. Then we come to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House on 20th March. I say that that bald record of events justifies the request which I am putting forward to the Government that there should be an inquiry by Select Committee, whether jointly with the House of Lords, I do not know and I do not care. I think it would be a very good thing if it was a joint Select Committee, but it ought to be a public inquiry. It ought to consider questions as to the remuneration of the contractor, the wages paid to the workmen, and the bringing out of these workmen from London. If hon. Members care it would be worth their while to make a trip to Slough and see for themselves.
Sir E. CARSON: What would they see?
An HON. MEMBER: Not much.
Sir D. MACLEAN: I dare say the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been to France and has seen the sort of trenches they dig, and the miles of railways. He would see the same thing there. He would also see a large canteen, big enough to accommodate 300 men. He would see a railway station there, and empty trains waiting to take workmen to and from London. I think these matters are not for discussion in the House, but ought to go to a Committee. I will say one thing only on the question. What is going on? We are face to face with a most urgent

647
housing question. There is scarcely a single material used there—concrete, wood, steel, iron—which would not do for housing, and they are being thrown away, as far as I can see, on a scheme of expenditure which has no policy behind it. The Secretary of State for War said that he hoped the War Office and the Post Office and the Board of Agriculture and other Departments would get their supplies from there, beginning some time in November or December. These matters go far beyond the money involved. I believe that in the investigation of this matter we have only got one single clear-cut concrete instance of what is a widespread danger amongst our Government Departments. Here is an opportunity for the House of Commons to probe this matter to the bottom, in public. Let all those who are responsible for this justify their action in public. If there is nothing to be ashamed of, all the better for them and all the better for the public life of the country. If there is anything wrong and rotten in it, let us have it out. It is time it was out and time that not only this, but that a crowd of other things should be brought to the light of day. What you want to do is to restore public confidence in this House. If this House lends itself to a secret inquiry you will have your Report, but on goes the work and the expenditure. No policy behind it; no co-ordinated idea of how the public money is being spent. Do we wonder that men distrust the whole machinery of government at the present day? I do not wonder at it. There is no grip at all; no central driving authority which will take the responsibility of pulling the entire nation back from the disaster to which we are hurrying. Long may it be before we get there! But we have an opportunity here and now. Let this House reassert its ancient privileges and its right to control over expenditure of Government Departments, and insist that it shall not only be a selected but a public inquiry.
Sir CHARLES SYKES: I do not wish to detain the House very long in this matter, but I would like to say that I have been very much struck since I have had the privilege of being a Member of this House with the waste of time we incur in raising matters which to my mind seem to be raised from political points of view. This afternoon I wish briefly to refer to the matter now before the House from a
648
business point of view and as a business man. My right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) asked what is the policy of the Government. My answer to that query is that the policy of the Government, and their avowed policy, is one of economy. Unfortunately in bringing these matters forward we estimate that from 11th November, 1918, the War was over, but I submit that the War will not be over, or the immediate consequences of it, until peace is signed and ratified. The Prime Minister and a lot of his Ministers during the election laid stress on the fact that we as a nation required business men. During the War, I think the Members of this House will readily agree, the business men of this country rendered yeoman service to different public Departments, and I wish to claim the indulgence of the House whilst I refer in a personal way to the efforts of my Noble Friend Lord Inverforth. For almost two years he was the Surveyor-General of Supply, and I am absolutely well within limits when I say that as a result of his efforts, and of the efforts of his colleagues, he saved a sum certainly approaching £100,000,000. He did this by instituting systems of costings, and he never in any way impaired the supply of the various materials that were required by the War Office, the Admiralty, and other services. He is one of our preeminent business men, and certainly he has reflected great credit on the business men of the country by the magnificent way that he handled supplies during the trying period of the War. He is now the Minister of Munitions, and eventually will become Minister of Supply.
During the election it was stated in various places and by various people that we had hundreds of millions sterling of surplus stores that were no longer needed, and that had been prepared for war. It was also stated that if we had to dispose of these surplus stores we must do so in a businesslike way. At the present moment as Minister of Munitions, and eventually as Minister of Supply, it will be the duty of Lord Inverforth and his advisers to dispose of that huge amount of material. Lord Inverforth yesterday made a statement in the House of Lords in regard to which I would like to give a Yorkshire illustration. I almost hesitate to illustrate my point in this way, but I am going to tell a Yorkshire story which will serve better than a long speech to drive home my point. I am not versed in debate,

649
and I want to come straight to the point. When we have all these figures given, and people speak as if they know all about them, it makes me feel that I have great difficulty in putting my point unless I put it in my own straight way. This is a story of an inspector of schools who went to a school to test the intelligence of the children. He said to the children, "Give me three figures," and the figures one, two, and four were given. The inspector wrote on the blackboard four, two, one. There was silence. "Give me three more figures," said the inspector. The figures one, five, six were given, and the inspector wrote on the blackboard six, five, one. He thought, "These children are dense." "Will anybody give me three more figures," he said. A little boy put up his hand, and said, "Three, three, three; and muck that about if you can!" I say to all the critics of my Noble Friend, "You take the reply that was given in the House of Lords yesterday. Take the figures that were given. Do not have political bias, and let neither newspapers nor politicians interfere with this matter." It is purely a business proposition, and ought to be treated as a business proposition. I do not believe that this House of Commons, which is composed of a good many business men, will allow their ancient privileges to be delegated or relegated to any newspapers. I sincerely hope that we will not 0be led away because, as was said in the House of Lords, a certain man had written an article in a certain newspaper pointing out these things. Let us take these things on their merits, and, for goodness sake, do not let us prejudge anything, but let us judge the question as business men.
It has been suggested that we should cut our losses. It has been suggested that we should throw away £800,000 of the taxpayers' money; that we should forego profit on repairs and vehicles to the tune of £1,200,000. This is the figure, after allowing for all expenses and the writing down of capital by 75 per cent., and it is quite apart from £300,000 annual saving estimated on a scheme of a total initial cost of rather less than £2,000,000. I understand that Lord Salisbury is the chairman of the Disposals Advisory Board. What alternative scheme is he prepared to put forward? If the House will realise the magnitude of the disposals we have to deal with they will realise the wonderful task that lies before Lord Inverforth. If the lorries started from Charing Cross to-day, and were put 35 feet apart, they would
650
stretch from Charing Cross to Berwick-on-Tweed. That gives some idea of the vast number of motor lorries we have to deal with. We have to realise these vehicles to the very best advantage; we have to see that they are in proper shape when they are sold, and we want to sell them when we think fit, and not be forced into any corner, as has been the case in the past. There has never—and I say this quite deliberately—been a sale by the Government in the past that has not been subject to some ring or some corner, and in that way the ratepayers have had to pay through the nose. I am not going to come to this House without raising my voice, with the permission of Mr. Speaker, when I realise that these things are going on. I know for a positive fact that men have gone round to the various ports. A friend of mine went to one sale, and he was thought to be in the ring, and at the finish they said to him, "Your sale is £600." The second time he went they knew he was not in the ring, and he got nothing.
The Noble Lord who started this discussion in the other House yesterday said what a terrible thing it was that there were so many acres of land put out of cultivation by the establishment of this depot at Slough. He said that from 3,000 to 4,000 quarters of wheat were lost. At one time it was certainly a serious thing to lose 3,000 or 4,000 quarters of wheat, but, compared with the national undertaking, that is a mere fleabite, and does not count. I realise that the Noble Lord and other distinguished gentlemen may be worried through the works being put up in their midst. I come from the town of Huddersfield where we had put in our midst—I am not raising any objection—the British Dyes, and some of my friends have complained most bitterly of their fruit trees and other trees being destroyed by the fumes from British Dyes, and we have not grumbled as a town. We knew that it was a necessity—only I would like to give this warning, that if it is not altered very soon somebody will have something to say. There is another question to which the Noble Lord did refer and which amused me very much. He said that they could not keep workpeople, men such as gardeners, because they went to the works—and a jolly good job for the workpeople too. If they are working as gardeners for 30s. a week and they go and get £4 a week, good luck to them! That is what we want; we want to raise wages, and we cannot keep our kid gloves on in this

651
business. They have a perfect right to go to that employment, and I do not consider that the employers had any grievance. But I want to make this appeal to my fellow countrymen. I am as keen as any Member of this House that we should have economy, but I do not want us simply to get afraid. I want us to consider everything we do. Personally I am fully convinced that if you have an inquiry the Noble Lord will satisfy you in every way, but I do not think that it is necessary, and I hope that the House will reject the Motion.
Colonel DU PRE: I feel bound to disclaim, both on behalf of myself and on behalf of others who have drawn attention to this matter, any bias, and still more so any intention to make an attack on Lord Inverforth. We wish no more than to have this matter treated on a purely business footing, and it is on the ground that what has been done is not good business that I support the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles for a public inquiry into the whole case. Hon. Members may be aware that I have some special interest in the matter. The Cippenham Works are in my district, and I have no desire to conceal the fact that I am an owner of part of the land which has been taken, and also that so far no question of expense has been asked or offered. This scheme was originated this time last year in consequence of the German offensive. I think that the case for a separate depot of this nature was made out. It is clearly proved by the Report of the Committee on National Expenditure, but they by no means were satisfied that so complete a ease had been made out for the particular site that was selected. Paragraph 21 of the Report reads,
"It is not within our province to consider how far objection was properly raised to the site selected on the ground of the injury done to food production. The evidence received by our Sub-committee indicates that the site is not unsuitable for a depot such as is proposed."
But I still venture to believe that a better site, or certainly a site of equal value, could have been found, and that it was not necessary to destroy a large number of acres of fine corn land at the particular moment when the whole of the farming community of the country was being urged to increase the corn production by every means in their power. The
652
method by which the site was selected is still very obscure. We know that General Smuts was appointed as arbitrator. I would like to know in what way the case was presented to him? What option was he given of choosing? Were the Food Controller and the Agricultural Department consulted? What opportunity was given them of expressing an opinion, and how much weight did General Smuts attach to their opinion? We all know that an invitation can be put in such a way as to indicate the answer. I have no doubt that, if the case was put before General Smuts in such a way as to indicate the answer, he would have no option but to say that that site was the only proper one to be selected.
The work itself was commenced in June, and the Armistice was signed in November. Urgency was the reason given for the work, and if it was the case that the work was so urgent as to justify the tearing up of crops in May, how is it that we have Lord Milner yesterday admitting in another place that from June to November, while this depot was in charge of the War Office, progress was slow, slower than it should have been, and that regrettable mistakes were made. In fact, so much does it appear that the case for urgency was not indorsed by other Departments that the National Service Department refused labour for this depot on the ground that there wore other and more important national enterprises that should be undertaken, and in such a case what value can we attach to the War Office plea that the work was so urgent that it was necessary to take this ground? The history after November is clearer and even more interesting. After the Armistice had been concluded, it was felt that some decision must be come to as to what should be done, and I understand that in November the Mechanical Transport Corps decided that, so far as the repair shops were concerned, the work should be proceeded with in its entirety and should be pushed on with all speed, which wais in direct contradiction to the recommendation of the Committee on National Expenditure that, should any modification take place in the war position, they felt bound to urge that the scheme should be reconsidered and that they would not give it an indorsement on post-war considerations alone. It was, however, to be pushed on in its entirety and with all speed.

653
Certainly some modifications have been made since then. A famous store of which we have heard has been dropped and one or two other features, but what remains? By courtesy of the Secretary of State I looked over the works on Tuesday last. I had a special interest in them naturally. The general impression left on my mind, after a somewhat bewildering morning among thousands of workmen and all the paraphernalia of a great contracting enterprise, was the immense magnitude of the work which is being done and is being pushed on with all speed. I was shown an enormous lorry shelter which is nearly in completion. It will hold a thousand lorries. I was shown the repair shop in process of construction which covers actually nine acres of ground and when completed will be able to provide for the repairs to 800 lorries at once. There were half a dozen other buildings of this kind. A foundry, tyre stores and stores of various kinds. The complete acreage covered by these buildings must run into scores. Then there are railway sidings, and the site for the canal, which was in the original scheme and was supposed to be dropped, though I believe there is now some talk of reviving it. There is also a canteen which will, I understand, seat 2,000 civilian workers. From that it is to be supposed that the depot besides its military personnel will employ at least 2,000 civilians. The magnitude of the work gives one the idea that it cannot be meant for what I may call the temporary purposes of repairing Army motor lorries in order that they may be disposed of. It is a work which must have some permanent use. What that permanent use is, so far as I can understand, has not been disclosed.
The decision to push on with the scheme was apparently only arrived at after hostilities had closed. Until then the work had been under the Works Department of the War Office. Then the contract was given to Robert MacAlpine and Sons. I must say that the circumstances under which the contract was given need the closest investigation. The contractors are to be paid a lump sum. Can the Government give us any idea what that sum is likely to be? On what basis has it been estimated? Also what control is being exercised over the work? There are abroad numerous stories as to lavish expenditure of all sorts. There are stories
654
afloat as to the rate of wages paid. I have here a statement compiled by an employé whom I have every reason to believe states the facts, and I would like to read some extracts from it. Here is one specimen of the weekly wage paid county of London building mechanics. The rate is 1s. 5½d. per hour for fifty and a quarter hours, £3 12s. 11d., 12½ per cent. bonus 8s. 7d.; twelve hours walking pay, 17s. 6d.; subsistence allowance, 9s.; total weekly wage, £5 8s. Here is another wage sheet for a London county labourer: fifty and a quarter hours at 1s. 1½d. per hour, £2 16s. 3d.; 12½ per cent. bonus, 7s.; walking pay, 13s. 6d.; subsistence allowance, 9s. 5 total, £4 5s. 9d. per week. There are over 40,000 men on the pay roll, and it may readily be understood that the cost of this enterprise is mounting up to a very considerable sum. There is one other point I should like to mention, and that is the case of the supply of electric light. Within one mile of the depot are situated the works of the Slough Electric Light Company, which supplies Slough, Datchet, and Windsor with electric light. The company when the work was first commenced asked to be allowed to tender, and said they were prepared to meet all the requirements. So far as I can judge—of course I am not a technical expert—they were able to show that they could do the work quite as economically as it could be done at a separate generating station.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Only light, not power.
Colonel DU PRE: I understand they were prepared to supply both. I do not know why they were not allowed to tender, taut what has been done in this matter appears to me to be in entire contradiction of the policy of the Government in centralising the electric power system of the country. Then there is the case of the machinery and plant required. I do not understand whether the estimate, as given by the right hon. Gentleman, includes the cost of buying and installing all machinery. If it does not do so, then it is clear that many scores of thousands of pounds of expenditure will have to be incurred in that direction. In putting forward the case for an inquiry, I do not wish to deal with minor points, although no doubt there are many that could be brought forward. But I do feel that the public interest which has been aroused in this matter goes far beyond the actual instance which has been selected in this

655
case. There is a widespread feeling that as it is at Cippenham so it may be with many other Government undertakings, and Cippenham is merely a danger signal which the Government would do well not to disregard. I trust that they will not oppose the request for a full and independent inquiry into the whole matter, and I also hope that the House in its dual capacity, first, as guardian of the public purse, and secondly, as the ultimate controller of the executive, will insist, in this case at all events, that full public inquiry shall be made.
Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: I believe I am the only Member present of those who sat on the Sub-committee of the National Expenditure Committee which inquired into the question of the Slough Depot last year. We were a body of five only, presided over by Mr. Herbert Samuel, who is no longer a Member of the House, but I mention that fact because those who worked with Mr. Samuel will know the real relentlessness of his public efficiency and the meticulous care with which a subject of this sort, coming under his review would be examined. I am free to confess that when we first applied ourselves to this question, we came fresh from Loch Doun, and that that was not a very good introduction from the War Office point of view. In the case of Loch Doun it was perfectly clear that none of the ordinary preliminary business precautions had been taken, but in this case in a very short time the War Office and other technical witnesses were able to satisfy us, as is detailed in an earlier paragraph than the one read by the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) that a case had been made out for the depot. We were completely satisfied on that point. My right hon. Friend will remember we had a discussion on it, and our recommendations were come to after examining the depot, hearing about and seeing the conditions in France, and considering what alternative could be suggested. The paragraph reads:
"It appears, therefore, that the case for the depot has been fully made out: Indeed the criticism that may properly be made is that much waste would have been avoided had the repair workshop been established long ago."
One of the witnesses two years before had the foresight to see the position we should be in in France, where they were piled up with unrepaired motor lorries and cars of every description, and with no means of repairing them, the result being that we
656
had here to go on building, although we were short of material and labour, at a far greater cost than if we had had a special depot of this sort. Thus the case for a central depot was clearly proved. There had been some small points raised. I have seen correspondence, letters in the "Times," and so on, and I have in mind, too, the point raised by the last speaker with regard to the Slough Electric Light Company. The Leader of the House the other day said that even Cabinet Ministers had commonsense, and I would ask the House to apply that to the private Members who served on this Committee. Does the House imagine that we did not go into the whole question? We had every sort of evidence before us, and we came to the conclusion on that evidence that this electric light company were incapable of supplying the power to carry on these great works, and that a new installation would in any case have to be installed. Then, too, we had the question which had arisen with the motor manufacturers of the country. These had an opportunity of sending whatever witnesses they chose. The whole question was thrashed out, and eventually they agreed there was such a large proportion of American cars, and there were such difficulties of labour, plant, and transport, that a case was made out for a central depot, although I admit they were of opinion that after the War individual traders should be given an opportunity. But I am only dealing with the case for this depot while the War was on. That is what we were concerned with, and that was the case which we found was made out.
5.0 P.M.
In October it was reasonable to suppose that conditions might alter. We published a report, and then took further evidence to see whether the depot could not be curtailed. Major-General Twining, on the 22nd October, was examined in this House, and we spent the whole afternoon with him. The burden of the whole examination was contained in this one paragraph. I asked him whether the depot was being built in self-contained compartments, and, if so, what would be the cost of the first instalment. The idea in my mind in asking that question was that if an armistice came and hostilities ceased, one self-contained smaller depot might suffice. The witness's answer was, I submit, perfectly reasonable. He said:
"That certain work was essential, whether the depots were done in sections or not, and certain expenditure would have to be spread over

657
all, i.e., for the work and expenditure on roads, railways, etc. But he pointed out that they had only begun to construct three buildings and they were not laying complete foundations in other cases at the present time."
In these circumstances, what was the Government's position? They had in any case to incur a considerable expenditure in regard to the overhead charges. I will not say that there is a certain amount of blame to be cast, but, as Lord Milner said in another place, mistakes were made. I think that the greatest mistake was in putting all this work into the hands of the Director of Fortifications and Works. Do not let it be thought by that that I do not realise what an energetic and capable officer the then Director of Fortifications and Works was or the splendid services he rendered to the country during the War. But it was too big a job for his branch as it then existed. It was the sort of job where you required elasticity. It is obvious that if you have a Government service, still more a disciplined Government service, it is quite impossible to expect that elasticity can be secured and the discipline observed. At any rate, you cannot get the elasticity you would have with a civilian conductor. It would have been well if a civilian contract had been given for the carrying out of the works at the start. There were delays, I have no doubt, and extra expenditure incurred owing to the fact that from the very nature of things there was not the resilience and elasticity which you would have under a civilian contractor.
My last point is the question of the selection of the site. An hon. Gentleman opposite said that he was not satisfied about the site. The Director of Lands was sent to us to give evidence. He is satisfied. What the Government did was to take a sensible precaution. They laid down certain conditions. They decided on the policy of a central depot, and in order to establish that depot they laid down four or five main conditions as to locality, water supply, transport, and so forth. Sir Howard Frank and his staff spent three weeks scouring the country trying to satisfy those conditions. He had no interest. As he made it perfectly clear to us, his one object was to find a site that conformed to the Government's conditions. That is a complete answer as to the selection of site. I can only offer my hon. and gallant Friend opposite my sincere sympathy that they happened
658
to pitch upon his Garden of Eden. As to the future, it appears to me that the Government now have only two alternatives—either to cut an enormous loss or to make this a self-contained industrial enterprise which will have both a selling value and an income-producing value. They cannot make up their minds until peace is signed, and while things are in their present fluid condition, whether it will be surplus to their particular national requirements or not. Therefore they are driven to the conclusion that they must at all speed make it an income-producing concern with a selling value. They should do that at all costs at the earliest moment in the national interest. After peace is signed they will be able to decide the requirements of mechanical transport both from a military and a national point of view. If they decide then that it is surplus to their requirements, they have an adequate machine by which they can convert it into money—the Ministry of Supplies. The only concern I have is that I happen to be the Chairman of the advisory body that deals with land, factories and buildings. If the Government should decide that this depot is surplus, they can send it to my advisory body. There I have at my disposal the best experts the country can produce in matters of that sort. There is the other alternative, that with your Ministry of Ways and Communications and your Defence Services you may be able to make real use of the depot in the national interest. Whichever way it goes, it seems to me that now the only policy the Government can follow with any real usefulness is to make it complete as an income-producing industrial machine. When the conditions have settled and solidified, then, and then only, can they decide as to the ultimate use to which this industrial machine is going to be put.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: I thought it was the duty of the Opposition to give as much help as they could to the Government of the country. I therefore seriously demur to the Leader of the Opposition demanding, with so much emphasis, a public inquiry, as if there were something here that savoured of some actual wrong doing. The whole of this matter started in a newspaper article, written not by an engineer or a practical man but by a very clever journalist. He started this hare. The speech to which we have just listened has done a great deal to dissipate the view that there is any-

659
thing wrong about it. I do not think it is right to demand a public inquiry with such emphasis, because, of course, it suggests to the public that there is something very far wrong. So far as I can see, there is no more justification for an inquiry into this contract than into the building of any battleship. The facts connected with the concern are very short. We have heard them stated here. The main thing is that most of this material was purchased and in hand before the Armistice, and it was left, like other immense stocks, on the hands of the Government. Fortunately, in this matter the Government were not in the hands of permanent officials, but in the hands of business men, some of them very eminent business men, like Lord Inverforth and others, all of them, I am glad to say, from a leading business city. These gentlemen ran a great part of the provision for the War very successfully. They are backing this enterprise, and why should we, before the thing is finished, demand an inquiry? One hon. Gentleman said that he went down and saw the thing. Well, he could not judge it in its uncompleted state. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) is far too previous. Why has he forgotten the teaching of his late leader? Why cannot he wait and see before he judges this thing? I am glad to see that the War has had the effect upon him that he is now going to take an interest in agriculture and the growing of grain. I wonder if he voted for the Com Production Bill?
This is a small matter compared with a great national enterprise. We had to get this place because the storage accommodation of the War Office was completely occupied. The Government could not get storage for anything. There was nothing for them except to commandeer all the churches and store the lorries in them. As we have all this stock on our hands, are we going to put it up to pubilc auction and sell it at break-up value, as the permanent Government officials would have done? They would not have had the enterprise to take up a scheme of this kind. Of course, it is hard lines on the people who live in the aristocratic section at Taplow and other places, to have these workmen coming into their midst. [An HON. MEMBER: "They do not live there; they come by railway!"] I thought it was somewhere on the Maidenhead line. Of course, these men travel down there by
660
special trains. Did the hon. Gentleman expect them to walk or to fly? They had to get there somehow, and there were no houses for them. The houses will ultimately come there, but to take them by train was the most economical way in the beginning. Undoubtedly the time will come when, owing to the spread of population, all the land round London, because of the crowded conditions of this City, will be dedicated to building houses for the people. It is no use complaining about it or saying it is any hardship, because it is bound to come. Even if it is agricultural land we cannot help that: it is in the vicinity of the city. It is said that some workmen who are working for fifty-one hours a week are getting £5 a week. If it is skilled labour, that is not an extravagant figure in these times. The arguments against the scheme and the demand for an inquiry are mares'-nests. The proper thing to do is to wait till the job is finished. When it is finished and put to proper uses, with the development of transport which is ahead of us, and seeing that all these lorries will be required for opening up agricultural and our rural districts, I have not the slightest doubt that in the skilled hands of the Minister of Supplies, who comes from the Kingdom of Fife, where people are very prone to get good value for their money, this thing will turn out to be a good enterprise. If we were to hang things up by inquiries started by alarmist articles in newspapers, this country would never get on with its business.
Mr. D. H. MACDONALD: This is a matter which I have followed with very great interest since first it appeared in the columns of the public Press. There is one aspect of this question to which I would like to direct the attention of the House. Up to the present time the points discussed have been, first, whether or not the Government were justified in proceeding with this scheme, and, second, whether or not the work at Slough has been carried out with due economy on the part of the contractors. It is with regard to the latter subject I desire to speak. In the London "Times," of the 13th and 14th instant, articles appeared making serious allegations against the contractors of waste of public money. The week after the first of those articles appeared the Secretary of State for War made a statement in this House, but he said not one word regarding those charges against the con-

661
tractors. All his arguments were devoted to a justification of the Government action in prosecuting this work. I can assure the House that I hold no brief whatever for these particular contractors who were engaged in carrying out the work, but as one who has done a very considerable amount of work for the Government during this War I have got a fellow feeling, and my sympathies do go out to this firm of contractors on the invidious position in which they must find themselves placed at present, and I am sure that every business man in the House must have a somewhat similar feeling. In my humble opinion it was the bounden duty of the Secretary of State for War, in view of these great charges made against the contractors, to have at once and without the slightest delay instituted inquiries as to their accuracy, and at the earliest possible moment to inform the House as to the results of such inquiries. I am sure if the right hon. Gentleman had given even a passing thought to this side of the question he would have realised the unfairness to this firm of being compelled to rest so long under such very grave charges. He must know that many commercial reputations have been damaged in less time and through less cause than this, and I may add that many political reputations have been damaged in less time as well. It may be stated that the contractors did publish a letter denying these charges, but my point is that surely the onus of making the facts known should not rest on the contractors but on the Department for whom the contractors were doing the work. The conduct of the work, the character of the work, and the expenditure necessary for carrying out the work, is under the supervision and direction and control of the Department, and if that supervision and that control is not efficient, then the Department concerned is not performing its duty to the State. Surely the War Department did not give this contractor carte blanche to carry out the work as he chose, not only regarding the expenditure but also regarding the character of the work. I think the House has got a right to know from the right lion. Gentleman whether this is so or not. I would also like the Secretary of State to inform us how many men were employed on this work before he called in a firm of contractors to assist them, and I would like to know if the number of men was increased by the contractors. We know that the production of the work
662
after the contractors took it in hand was increased enormously. Was this increase effected without adding to the number of men previously employed by the Government? I may say that this firm of Sir Robert McAlpine and Sons are compatriots of mine, and in part that may account for my rather strong feelings on this subject. It is a Scottish firm, as its name implies, and it is a firm of which I can assure the House we Scottish people are very proud, and justly proud. I consider that this firm was one of the great assets of the War. As the House knows, at the beginning of the War general contracting firms such as this firm could have been counted on the fingers of one hand, and had it not been for the ability, organisation and resources of such British firms the machinery of war could not have been set going as it was. I do think, and I speak as an employer of labour, that it is rather a poor return and poor recompense for such great firms to be treated by this particular Department in such a cavalier way. They should, I think, be treated more loyally by the Government than they generally are. The House should bear in mind that in this particular undertaking at Slough the Government had been endeavouring for a very long time to carry out the work by their own labour and their own supervision, and, as happened elsewhere, they were in fact making a holy hash of the job, and they called in this firm of Robert McAlpine and Sons to carry on the work. The Secretary of State for War wag very careful not to make this known in the statement he made in the House last Thursday, and this firm did take the War Office out of their difficulties. They expedited the work enormously after they had secured possession. Immediately after taking over the work the result of the change from administrative management to the trained management of a contractor became apparent. Seemingly, as far as I can make out, the objection now is that they were getting on rather too fast with the work. The general point I wish to make is that the heads of the Department and the Government should really be more loyal to their contractors when they are unwarrantly assailed like these contractors. Contractors are simply the servants of the Government, and are engaged in carrying out the behests of the Government. In my opinion the right hon. Gentleman in the statement he made to the House a week ago did

663
justify this work being proceeded with at Slough, but whether he did or did not does not affect my arguments. Even assuming that this work at Slough was a wild-cat scheme, surely it should not be left to the contractor carrying out the work to answer charges made as to the need and as to the performance of the scheme. During the period of the War, as the House knows, contractors in all branches of industry have stood loyally by the Government, and some of them I know without getting very much consideration and some without getting very much remuneration—I speak for myself—in return for their services; but I think when an occasion arises like this the Government should stick loyally to their contractors, just as the contractors have stuck loyally to them. In conclusion, I hope the Secretary for War will enlighten the House on the point I have raised regarding the charges made in the public Press against the contractors, and I hope he will do so with his usual courage and frankness, and that he will not hesitate to shoulder the responsibilities which are, I think, quite unfairly resting on the contractors.
Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member who has just sat down has dealt entirely with the contractors. I do not think any particular charge has been made against them, because the point is much more serious than any charge against the contractors. The charge is that the Government, in entering into a time-and-line contract with the contractors, did a foolish thing. The hon. Gentleman made an extra ordinary admission, because lie started by saying that the Government had made a holy ash of the matter until they called the contractors in. Now, apparently, the whole thing has been changed, but the charge against these proceedings is that they were taken without due justification, and that the erection of an enormous depot like this, whether erected by a good or a bad contractor, was unnecessary. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite, who was a member of the Sub-committee—I was a member of the main Committee, and it was the main Committee which drew up this Report—
Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: I do not want to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but the original Sub-committee's Report was drawn by our small Sub-committee and was hardly altered by the main Committee at all.
Sir F. BANBURY: We made what amendments we thought were necessary in it. My hon. and gallant Friend forgot to draw attention in the Report of 7th August to paragraph 22, which says:
"There remains the question of the scale on which the depot is to be built. As to this, we think it advisable that the War Office should proceed with caution. It will be some months before any important section can be brought into use. If the end of the War appeared fro be in sight the situation would be completely altered."
That was the Report which was made in August. Let the House cast its mind back to the situation in August last year, at the time when my hon. and gallant Friend, as a member of the Sub-committee, was making a special investigation himself into the matter, and that I, as a member of the main Committee, had to consider the draft Report which was presented by the hon. and gallant Member. It must be remembered that this Report was made some weeks before August. We had been told in June by the Leader of the House and by the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant that, owing to the offensive of the Germans in March, it was necessary to establish a repairing-place for the various motors which could not be repaired in France, owing to the Germans having taken possession of the repair places there, and therefore we on the main Committee were face to face with this problem: We were informed that, as far as the Sub-committee could ascertain, there was no particular objection to the site, and we knew, or we were told by the Leader of the House, that it was necessary some depot should be established, and therefore it would have been impossible under those circumstances and at that time for the main Committee to have done anything beyond what they did. I would draw the attention of the House to this, however, that they put in a caution, even at that time, when the Germans were advancing, and when it was very necessary, probably, to have some depot of this sort—they put in a caution that, if the circumstances changed, the matter ought not to be proceeded with. That is a very important point, and it affects the whole case, because when we come to November the Committee make a further Report, which was read by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and that completely altered their Report in June. They recommended as follows:

"(1) That the estimate referred to in paragraph 18 should at once be subjected to independent expert examination.

665

(2) That the Ministry of Munitions should be required to give an immediate reply to the inquiry of the War Office as to the availability of alternative premises, both for the storage and for the repair of motor vehicles.

(3) That the Government should review the question of proceeding with the works at Slough in the light of the information so obtained.

(4) That, if the works are to proceed, the proposals with respect to the housing of the personnel should, in particular, be re-examined."

In paragraph 19 they say:
"The plans provide for the construction, at a considerable cost, of barracks on a large scale for the housing of military labour, both men and women. Our Sub-committee have been informed that these plans are such as to allow portions of these barracks to be converted into quarters for civilian families. We are of opinion that, if the scheme is to proceed—"
We were all extremely doubtful at that time whether the scheme ought to be proceeded with at all—
"the necessity for providing any housing accommodation should be reviewed, and, if such accommodation is found to be necessary, the question should be considered how far the present plans meet the requirements of the new situation."
The hon. Member for Huddersfield began by saying that, as a new Member, he had been much struck by the time which was wasted on political matters, but I do not know what foundation he has for saying that. The Select Committee on National Expenditure was, it is true, composed of various political parties, but I venture to say, and I think every old Member of the House will agree with me, that there are three Committees of this House which are absolutely non-political. The first of these is the Public Accounts Committee, the second was the Estimates Committee during the four or five years during which it was constituted, and the third was this present Select Committee on National Expenditure.
Sir C. SYKES: I was not referring to any Committees. I was referring to the action of the right hon. Gentleman in bringing this forward, and I thought he was actuated by political motives.
Sir F. BANBURY: I will leave the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to defend himself, but, after all, the right hon. Gentleman was only drawing attention to the Report of the Select Committee, which, as I have pointed out, in its last Report distinctly said that the whole thing ought to be reviewed. The hon. Member for Huddersfield told me, what I did not know before, that the avowed policy of the Government was economy. Could he show me any particular instance
666
in which that is not the case? I do not think if I had a microscope I could find it. I am not concerned with the Noble Lord in the other place. I have not the pleasure of his acquaintance. He may be the most excellent administrator in the world, but all the same he may make mistakes. I do not believe, even in Scotland, that men never make mistakes. I observe that the Scottish Members have all defended these proceedings. We know that blood is thicker than water in Scotland, and that they are all very keen to defend their compatriots. Whether or not Lord Inverforth is a Scotsman I cannot say, but he may make mistakes. I was in the House of Lords yesterday, and I took some interest in the proceedings there, but as Mr. Speaker says, "for the sake of greater accuracy" I read in the "Times" what took place. I may say here that, after all, I do not think the "Times" ought to be attacked for drawing attention to a great expenditure of public money. I will not say a great waste of public money, because that remains to be proved. The "Times" opinion may not agree with that of the hon. Member opposite, but I am glad to see the "Times" taking an independent line. I should have said the fault of the "Times" has been that it was rather too much inclined to back up the Front Bench whatever they did, and I am only too glad to see it taking an independent line. What did Lord Inverforth say in his speech yesterday t He said that when he went to wherever it was he did go, in May, 1917, he found there was a great lack of proper accommodation for these vehicles. He has been a very long time doing anything. He did not begin till March, 1918, to take any steps, and that is very nearly a year. Then let me point out that according to Lord Inverforth's own admission in his speech yesterday, these works will not be finished till next September. What has happened between May, 1917, and September, 1919? Where have all these things been kept? And if we could keep them for these two and a half years, during the greater part of which we were at war, in other places, why could we not keep them there now, when we are practically at peace? I hope peace will be signed before next September. It may be, of course, that possibly we may get a rather better price. The hon. Gentleman talked about rings, but does he think that the erection of an enormous depot at Slough will prevent rings? People

667
who run rings—I have never been fortunate to be in a ring myself—know quite as well as the hon. Gentleman or myself that the interest is running up all the time, and the consequence in all probability is that instead of doing anything to avoid a ring, the fact that they have built this great place, and that they will have to show some reason for it, that they have repaired and sold such and such vehicles, will tend the other way. If they say, "We have spent this enormous sum on this place, and we have not done anything with them," what will happen then! That will be a far greater case against Lord Inverforth than if he can come and say, "I have sold them." The real fact of the matter is this: A scheme was entered into more or less in a panic. It was thought, in April or May of last year, when the Germans made such vast advances, that it was necessary to take precautions to keep these motors in repair, and therefore this scheme was entered into. The first estimate was £1,000,000 and the second estimate £1,750,000. You go into a thing, and think it is going to cost £1,000,000, and, before it has hardly been begun, you find it is going to cost nearly £2,000,000.
Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: I ought to remind the right hon. Baronet that the scheme was adumbrated two years ago, but it had to go through the War Office and the Cabinet.
Sir F. BANBURY: If we got on for two years without it before it was decided upon, and we shall have had to get on without it for three and a half years, of which six months are during peace, surely we could do with the ordinary repairing shops! The real fact is that, owing to a panic, this scheme was entered into. A mistake has been made, so let us cut our loss. The War Office are obstinately determined that they have not made a mistake, and it is merely to show it was not a mistake that this scheme has been proceeded with. It is a great waste of public money, and even now it is far better to cut your loss. I suppose we should get something back for material. I do not know what this is going to cost, but I do not suppose, when the estimate was made for £1,000,000, and was afterwards altered to £1,750,000, that it was thought unskilled labourers were to be paid £5 a week and the contractors paid a lump sum upon the cost. Can anything
668
be more wasteful and extravagant, from, the point of view of the taxpayer—and, after all, we are here to represent the taxpayer—than a system by which a contractor cannot make a loss and is bound to make a profit? Under these circumstances, I do hope this House will remember that it is the guardian of the taxpayer. The taxpayer is the person who is going to suffer. The taxes are enormous. The expenditure is enormous, and at least we might try to see if we cannot save a. little money on this particular scheme.
Major TOWNLEY: I would not venture to intervene, as I know the House is anxious to hear the reply of the Secretary of State for War, were it not that I have been intimately associated with this land for some years. An hon. Member has said that the beginning of this agitation was in a newspaper. I beg to deny that statement. I believe it began almost with your humble servant in the objection I put forward, on behalf of the tenant of the land, to the great loss of agricultural produce that was going to result at a time when we wanted every bushel of corn we could possibly get. The same speaker said, the end of it was to wait and see. We have waited and seen in another case, and seen a vast expenditure of money, and we may wait in this instance until there has been an undue expenditure of money on this scheme. I do hope the Government will grant this inquiry. I hope that they will allow the matter to be inquired into thoroughly. I know that the agricultural aspect is looked upon as a detail. I venture to say that, though it is a detail, it is an important one. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) alluded to the fact that when they went over the question of the site there appeared to be no opposition to the site. I think he must have been mistaken. I think I am right in saying that the Noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture opposed this scheme very strongly on behalf of food production, and that his opposition was overruled when the inquiry, over which General Smuts presided, was held. If this inquiry is held, I hope it will find out the way in which the tenant of that land was treated.
These may be details, but they are matters that echo right through the whole of the agricultural counties of England. I was myself at that time in the Eastern Counties, and I can assure the House that when it first came out it sent a regular

669
thrill through those counties, because agriculturists felt they were not so secure as they hoped they might be. I inquired on behalf of the tenant whether this land was going to be taken. I was assured that no such action was going to take place. Then, somewhere about this time of the year, we were suddenly told that the land was going to be taken, or rather a little later on, when the crops were all sown. Then that man was warned off his own crops, and told he was not to go on that land any more. He was an excellent man and did his best, and so did we, and, with the assistance of the President of the Board of Agriculture, we were able to save a large amount of those crops. I want to point out one little incident to show how hardly that man was treated. It has been mentioned in Debate that this is some of the finest corn-growing land in England. And so it is, as well as market-garden land. On a certain 16 acres of that farm there was a particularly fine crop of wheat. That piece of land was wanted by the Government to make an encampment for German prisoners of war. I understood from the tenant that he was told to clear off that land, and was not to go across it to get the crops. He asked for three days to cart away his wheat. He was refused the three days. He had to go round something like 5 miles to bring back the 16 acres of very heavy crop of wheat to his farm, because it was marked for a German prisoner's camp. That camp was not built or occupied for five weeks.
Nothing has been mentioned in this House as to the value of that which is under this land in question? I quite admit that if the necessities of the nation were such that it was absolutely essential to take this high-class land for the purpose of making a repair station, or for any other purpose of national use, I should have been the last person to oppose it being so taken. But I do say every effort should have been made to see that the crops were allowed to be gathered first of all. But under that land there is also a very large and a very valuable deposit of brick earth, and I venture to think some means might have been found by which that brick earth might have been made of more use to the country in its present need of bricks than to be covered over by these concrete floors. I believe it is not even yet decided what quantity of land is to be taken, or how large these works are to be. I sincerely hope that it will not be decided to scrap these works. I sincerely hope that
670
all the nation's money which has been laid out upon that land will not be wasted by scrapping and selling the material for what it will make. I believe myself you. have there now a really good business proposition, that you have it overlooked by an exceedingly able man, and that you may trust him to cut down those works to such limit as is necessary for the country. I have every hope that the tenant may find that some of his land which has not yet been destroyed will be handed back to him. There is no use in any hon. Gentleman thinking that you may take these buildings off that land and hand it back for agricultural purposes. You might as well expect me to produce a six-quarter crop of wheat on the floor of this House in the coming harvest. There is no use in thinking you can restore that land to agriculture.
But there is also scheduled at the present time a large area of land beyond that which is built over, and I hope this scheme will be so curtailed that no more land will be taken, but that the very best use will be made of the land now built over, and that we shall reap the benefit as a nation of the expenditure that has been made. As I have said, I believe it can be made payable. I believe one of the reasons for going there is to save a rent now being paid of £50,000 a year for housing these lorries and other things. They are saving £50,000 a year in rent, and they have not yet paid the owner of that land one single penny as rent for the land they have taken. Nor—and this is a much more important thing—have they paid that tenant one single shilling of compensation for all the damage they have done him.
6.0 P.M.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I have listened to this Debate during the whole of this afternoon with a feeling of expectation, but I must say that as it has progressed that feeling has given place to one of bewilderment. I have been asking myself where is the attack upon the Government? Where is the case for employing the elaborate machinery of a Select Committee of Inquiry? We have had a speech from the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Liberal Opposition. As is naturally to be expected, the right hon. Gentleman criticises anything that the Government do; on every topic, on every occasion, in all weathers, and in all fortunes! The right hon. Gentleman presents himself to repeat the current criticisms of the newspapers in regard to the policy of the Government,

671
no matter what Department is concerned. We have had a speech from the right hon. Gentleman who represents the City of London. Although he is removed by poles from the right hon Gentleman opposite, he, too, in his Parliamentary action and attitude has a critical bias very strongly pronounced. These two statements to which the House has listened were reinforced by a speech from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is the owner of the land, and by another hon. Member who has been closely connected with the tenant of the land. Both of these seem to complain, not at all of the lavish manner in which the Government were dealing with the public money in this case, but with the severity and lack of consideration with which they were treating the private owner.
Lieutenant-Colonel DU PRE: No; I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I made no such statement.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly, I understood that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's complaint was that this valuable land had been taken away from him, and that so far he was quite ignorant of the terms on which he was to be compensated.
Lieutenant-Colonel DU PRE: I said taken away from agriculture. That is what I said.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Oh, I see! In principle from agriculture, and incidentally from himself. I only want to get it quite clear. Then the hon. Gentleman who spoke last criticised us from the point of view of how the tenant had been treated. I dare say a great many tenants dispossessed under the Defence of the Realm Act have been roughly treated in the time of war from which we are emerging. But when the right hon. Gentleman came to discuss the actual merits of the question before us he evinced himself a strong supporter and considered the Government were absolutely right to go on with the work, believing that a very substantial profit would accrue therefrom. So I say, reviewing the Debate so far as it has proceeded, that I am entitled to ask, Where is the attack? Where is the case for a Select Committee?
Last Thursday, in this House, I stated what would be the policy of the Government. That policy was that we should continue with the utmost practicable and
672
economical speed to complete this work at Slough. If, however, the House, after debate, desired that there should be an inquiry by a Select Committee, the Government would put no obstacle in the way. That is our position; therefore we are indifferent to any course which may be adopted by the House in regard to an inquiry. We hope to elicit from the House in the Debate and by their vote a free expression of opinion. We do not propose to put on the Parliamentary Whips. We propose to be guided entirely by what the House desires. Unfortunately, this matter has been prejudiced by the discussion which has taken place in another place yesterday afternoon and evening. An inquiry was demanded and was promised by the Government in the House of Lords last night. If there is to be an inquiry by a Select Committee, I think there can be no doubt that the House of Commons should participate in that inquiry. If there is to be an inquiry, let us at any rate make it as authoritative and as efficient as possible. Therefore the Government will raise no obstacle to the participation by the House in the inquiry which it is proposed to set up by the House of Lords. I assume the ordinary negotiations will take place to arrange for that inquiry to be transferred into a joint inquiry.
All the same, I think the House of Commons has some reason to complain that it has been forestalled in this matter by the House of Lords; that it has been deprived of the opportunity of arriving at its own conclusion. It has been committed to a course of action which, in its better judgment, it might have condemned. It would have been perfectly easy for the Upper House, after they had expressed their opinion in debate, to have waited until the discussion took place in the House of Commons, and then to allow the matter to be arranged between the two Houses in the ordinary way. The question, however, has been prejudged, and I see no alternative open to the House but to participate in the Committee and do their best to make it an authoritative, searching, fair, and exhaustive examination of the topic. The Government is not, however, prepared to allow this matter to pass into the domain of a Committee without stating very clearly their considered opinion on the merits of the Slough project, and of the controversy which has been excited in regard to it.
The Slough project results from three perfectly distinct decisions taken at

673
different times, under different circumstances, taken, I readily admit, on somewhat different grounds, and with a slightly different scope. The first decision was a war scheme taken to meet the needs of the War. The objects of that decision were the creation of a vehicle reception department, the creation of a spare parts store, and the creation of a repair shop. The necessity for these was realised as early as August, 1917. Such, however, was the difficulty of getting anything done with our ever-diminishing store of labour and material, and such was the opposition to the acquisition of the site, that the actual approval for the scheme was not finally obtained until, I think, March or April of last year. All this time the expert military officers and technical officers in the Mechanical Transport Department were pressing to the utmost of their ability the necessity that this matter should be dealt with at a central depot, and gradually, under the pressure of circumstances and of argument their policy was accepted, and made its way successfully over all the obstacles, real and artificial, which were interposed in its behalf. That was the first decision. The second decision may be called the Armistice scheme. It was taken on 19th November of last year by the Mechanical Transport Board, and was finally approved by Lord Milner, the then Secretary of State for War, about the middle of December last. The reasons for the Armistice scheme were as follows: A reception depot was still required. The storage accommodation might be reduced. The repair shops must be proceeded with as quickly as possible. That was the decision which was taken by the Mechanical Transport Board, and commended to Lord Milner by Lord Inverforth after the operations on the Western Front had been stopped, and after there was every prospect that they would not be resumed. The third decision is the present scheme which I announced to the House this day week. The objects of the present scheme are to complete the vehicle reception depot, to afford the necessary facilities for the maintenance and repair, not only of military but of Government mechanical vehicles, and to provide storage accommodation for spare parts and accessories. These three decisions vary, as the House will see, in a certain degree. They do not cover exactly the same ground. In the first we are concerned with purely war needs. In the
674
second, the Armistice having been signed, the War Office is seen to be largely preoccupied with the proper repair and marketing of their enormous supply of mechanical transport of which they have become possessed during the progress of the War. In the third decision the repairing facilities are limited to the maintenance of Government vehicles and the repairing of our existing stock of motor lorries.
Mr. T. WILSON: Is there any machinery there?
Mr. CHURCHILL: Machinery will be put in under the third scheme. It is contemplated that under this scheme repairing facilities should be available for the maintenance of Government vehicles of all Departments, but the matter of repairing at Slough our enormous existing stock of War Office motor lorries is not now definitely decided. It is not definitely decided whether or not we are to repair this enormous stock or any portion of it at the Slough depot. It has not yet been decided by the Ministry of Supply, to whom the sale and disposal of all surplus stores is now to be handed over, and who therefore are in charge of this very important matter, whether any portion of the 80,000 vehicles of which we are possessed should be repaired before sale in the Government depot so far as its resources will go, after dealing with the current maintenance of Government mechanical transport; whether on the one hand these vehicles should all be sold in the condition in which they are now, or handed over for repair to the trade. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or given away to some hon. Members!"] That decision still has to be taken. It appears to me to be a difficult question of policy to decide. When we consider the enormous quantity of our motor vehicles, the immense amount of this stock, and that 35,000 of them are of American make, for which the Government alone hold the stock of spare parts and accessories, when we remember the limited capacity of the motor trade, which was stated by Lord Midleton in the course of the Debate last night as not exceeding 20,000 vehicles per year; when we consider the immense difference between the price likely to be gained by the public for marketing and selling these vehicles after they have been repaired and rendered serviceable, as against what will be got for them if they are thrown down in any condition; when,

675
I say, we consider all those facts, it does seem to me that it would be a very serious decision for the State to deny itself altogether the great opportunity of profit for the public which obviously would be open to us under this scheme. The matter is one, as I have said, the responsibility for which rests with the Minister of Supply, but so far as I may express an opinion I trust they will not allow themselves to be deterred from coming to a right decision in the public interest by the hostility, the prejudice, and the clamour which has surrounded this project.
There are two very remarkable things about this project. One is the persistence with which the Mechanical Transport Department of the War Office, and the able officers and business experts associated with it, and the consistency with which they have pressed this matter forward over so many obstacles and are daily pressing it. The other is the virulent, ceaseless and intense hostility of which it has been throughout at every stage the object. This hostility has a curious character about it. Without, of course, making any suggestion in regard to the part any hon. Member or Noble Lord may have taken, I am bound to say that it has caused a doubt in my mind whether all this attack on Slough—Slough in particular, while scores of other great works which have been put up all over the country, and under conditions of war, are I dare say open to criticism—whether all this concentration on Slough which brought up the Leader of the Opposition once again, which has led to all these articles in the newspapers and has excited the Second Chamber to the highest pitch, whether all of this really is quite spontaneous, whether it may not be fed by what is called "a stream of facts" or a sedulously nourished propaganda, or whether it may not be sustained by what is known in America as "a strong lobby," which is animated by some powerful interest which would like itself to reap the profit of repairing these vehicles. Let me give a few instances of the kind of extraordinary misstatement of which this project has been the object.
We have heard in some quarters of the appalling sacrifice of growing crops at the moment when food was so precious to our country, but I am advised that only two acres of growing crops were sacrificed. We have been told that there was a mistake in the design of Farnham Bridge
676
which proved the great incompetence of the builder. I am advised that no mistake was made in the design of the bridge, nor were the rails lowered in consequence of any revision of the plan. The rails were laid high in the first instance to suit the temporary diversion of the Farnham road, and the rails were afterwards lowered to their permanent level as originally designed. We have been told that the building collapsed. What has happened is that at an early stage, in the case of girders not permanently fixed in position, the edges of the uprights have pulled a small portion of the masonry down with it. We are told there is a waste of a one-inch watermain. I had these points carefully watched and examined as they have been stated. Every day a new set of arguments are found against this scheme. Perhaps it may be retorted that a new set of arguments are found in favour of it, but I am drawing attention to the direct inaccuracies with which this case has been sustained. There is the alleged waste of a one-inch watermain. A one-inch temporary watermain was put in to supply 300 men. At a later date the Inland Waterworks and Docks came and erected a watermain to serve a camp of 1,000 men, and also to supply water for the buildings. They laid a three-inch temporary main, and the one-inch main was taken up and re-used elsewhere. All these matters, to which there is a perfectly good answer, are collected in a bouquet and presented as a specimen of the ineptitude of the Works Department of the War Office or other persons employed by the Government.
I have heard a question raised about the electric power supply. We are told that it was a great mistake to put in a separate instalment for power and light. This was a matter most carefully examined. First it was considered by the technical branches of the War Office, and their scheme was submitted to the Electrical Services Committee. The director of the Electrical Services Committee was Mr. Gridley, who dealt with electrical questions for the Ministry of Munitions. It was impossible to have a more able and competent expert than Mr. Gridley, nor could there be a greater fanatical advocate of the concentration of electric power and its generation. So far from being prejudiced, all his prejudices were the other way. But on examining this matter on the merits, this Committee under Mr. Gridley preferred the installation of a separate War Office

677
plant for the supply to making use of the Slough Electric Power Company's supply, subject to the question of the scheme for heating being investigated. It was referred to a committee of experts outside the War Office, and they reported that the heating scheme as proposed was perfectly satisfactory. Then we are told that I have made a gross mistake in telling the House that the value of the spare parts was £15,000,000 sterling, because it was pointed out that in the Report of the Committee on Public Expenditure it is stated that the value of the spare parts was £6,750,000, and I was confronted with this apparent gross inaccuracy. Let me expose this matter frankly arid fully to the House The £6,750,000 alluded to in the Report of the Committee on National Expenditure referred to the stock of spare parts at home in this country, to which must now be added those of the great depots in France which are coming back on top of us as the winding-up proceeds, and these make up the total to £15,000,000. Lastly, the House will have read in the Debate in another place about the old man of ninety-two who is receiving £4 a week. I have been searching for this aged man of ninety-two all the day. [An HON. MEMBER: "Any relation to the shepherd?"] But the contractor declares there is no such person on their books. The best they can do is a man of sixty-five, who apparently they were very doubtful about engaging, and he was taken on because it was in accordance with the wishes of the trade union, with whom, I understand their relations are quite satisfactory. So much for all that long series of inaccurate misstatements, which I will not pursue any further in detail. I have dealt with them specifically in order to show the House the kind of methods by which public opinion, or what is called public opinion, is worked up in regard to some case which it has been decided to "feature" in this matter.
Then there is the price of the land. The land was taken under the Defence of the Realm Act, and the price must be settled by tribunal in the ordinary way. I wish I could tell the House what our idea is as to what addition to the total cost the price of the land will make. I believe it would greatly relieve the House, with the exception, perhaps, of my hon. Friend behind me. It would never do to make any statement as to the price of the land or the compensation to be paid to the tenant
678
while negotiations are pending and are the subject of judicial investigation. It would prejudice the matter.
There is then the fee of the contractor. I was glad to hear an hon. Gentleman say a word about this firm of contractors, against whose reputation I have never heard the slightest aspersion, who have thrown themselves into this work with great energy, and are pushing it forward rapidly and with satisfaction. Everyone knows the difficulties of the time and line basis. We were forced in the early part of the War to have trials on the time and line basis, but it has long since been found to be a wasteful process. That, however, has nothing to do with the method employed in this case. Most stringent Regulations are made, and there is inspection as to the actual cost of production by the War Office, and this would be carried on by the Ministry of Munitions and Supply. Then, when the work has been discharged under strict supervision at an exact cost price, the Colwyn Committee of the Treasury is to fix the fee that the contractor is to receive. I cannot conceive that you can have a more reasonable and a more proper method of dealing with a matter of this kind, and I believe it is in accordance with all that we have learned during the War, where our experiences have not always been uniformly happy in this matter. That really represents what is the view of the Treasury as to the best method in a case like this of dealing with the remuneration of the contractor.
I have shown these three decisions and I have also shown the line of criticism which has been directed against the policy of the Department. Although these three decisions differ one from the other in their scope and application, the central purpose and policy which has been pursued by the Government are the same, and the great bulk of the needs to meet which that policy is designed are the same, namely, that there should be in peace, as in war, for the future, whether under the War Office or under the Ministry of Munitions and Supply, a large central Government depot for the storage, repair, and maintenance of Government mechanical vehicles.
I want to know if that main feature of our policy is challenged seriously in the House. The case is overwhelming for a central depot to deal with Government mechanical vehicles. That it should be disputed elsewhere only shows how diffi-

679
cult it has been for some people to follow the mechanical developments and the changes which have come over transportation during the passage of the great War. Let me take one figure: Before the War the War Office owned 80 mechanical vehicles, after the War they owned 80,000.
No one ever contemplates a reversion for military purposes to purely horse-drawn transport. Before the War we had not got even a full supply of mechanical transport for our Regular Army, let alone for our Territorial Divisions. Henceforward, whatever Army we have will have to be thoroughly equipped with the necessary proportion of mechanical vehicles. It is not possible now to say how big the After-War Army will be, and I am not going to attempt to do so, but let me remind the House that before the War we had eight Regular Divisions, of which six were at home and two abroad, and we had fourteen Territorial Divisions. Those Territorial Divisions were, of course, very ill-equipped. Every pound's worth of stuff for them was guarded. Now we are about to recreate our Territorial Army on a voluntary basis out of the magnificent, veteran, trained material which the great War has given us. Are we not to secure to these divisions of our Territorial Army that equipment of munitions and transport that they require? What is the use of having divisions, however many or few, if you do not have them equipped with the necessary appurtenances and appliances to enable them to take the field? We have got all the material, we have got the artillery, we have got all the appliances, and we have got an enormous surplus of them—far more than we shall need to equip the divisions that we shall be keeping after the War. It would be folly not to use all this large surplus of equipment and not to use it properly and take good care of it, and for this purpose a Government depot for the storage, maintenance, and repair of mechanical vehicles for military purposes is just as necessary for the Army as the Royal Dockyards are for the upkeep of the Fleet.
The War Office is only one of the Departments which will employ motor vehicles. The House will be surprised to know the great number of Departments and services for which the War Office has been used in regard to mechanical vehicles. The Air Ministry, the Post Office, the Board of Agriculture, the Stationery Office, and a number of other
680
minor Departments have all during the period of the War moved forward on the basis of motor transport, and all will either have to make a variety of local and separate contracts with various firms all over the country or they will have to be supplied to a very large extent from a great central Government depot. Surely in the face of that, it ought not to be difficult to realise that our complete entry into the motor age and our absolute dependence upon mechanical transport in every form of Government service render this large central Government depot to deal with motor vehicles absolutely indispensable. At any rate, I leave that to the House.
I notice with pleasure that the central part of the Government policy has not received challenge in any quarter. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) said that there was no policy behind the various schemes of the Government. I have tried to show that though the actual expression of their policy has varied, and varied necessarily with the changing circumstances of these three different schemes, yet the central policy has beers quite unchanged and the main necessity has never varied or diminished. Let us now take these three decisions separately and see which, of them is specially open to, challenge.
The first decision is the War scheme to meet war needs. No one, I suppose, will dispute the necessity for that. If they do, they have only to read the eighth Report of the Committee on National Expenditure and they need only have been present when the hon. Gentleman opposite (Lieutenant-Colonel Weigall), who was a member of that Committee, explained to the House in an admirable speech how he and his colleagues on that Committee, coming to the discussion of the subject deeply prejudiced by what they had read and learned about the waste at Loch Doon, were driven by the ability and by the reasoning of the experts of the Mechanical Transport Department and business advisers step by step and inch by inch to the conclusion that not only was this necessary, but that it was overdue and ought to have been put in hand long before. I do not think that there can be any dispute about that. My right hon. Friend told us that he had been down to see this depot, and that he was shocked by its immense size. I shall be delighted to arrange for the right

681
hon. Gentleman to go over to France to the American lines of communications where he will see a depot with precisely the same object and which I am credibly informed is four times as big in every respect as the one which we are constructing here. How can the matter be argued so far as the necessity of meeting the War needs was concerned? It is not argued.
Next there is the Armistice scheme, the second decision, and this, I suppose, is the one which will be most readily attacked. The first, of course, is covered by the War needs, and with regard to the last decision, the third, for which I am partly responsible, it may be said that matters were too far advanced to turn back. But this second decision, this Armistice scheme, was a decision not merely to continue under the Works Department at the War Office the completion of the scheme by ordinary methods, but to accelerate it and to make a contract with an entirely new outside firm and to push the work on by every means after the fighting had ceased. That is the point to which I have no doubt Parliamentary criticism and outside criticism naturally directs itself. It seems to me that the case presented to Lord Milner and Lord Inverforth, supported by all the experts of the Mechanical Transport Department, who are personally, quite disinterested in the matter, not to stop, but to go on with added speed in spite of the fact that the War was over must have been an unanswerable and overwhelming case. If it had not been so, I cannot conceive that they would have gone on with the scheme. What imaginable motive had Lord Milner and Lord Inverforth for going on with the scheme? The Slough project, as I have said, has been persistently attacked from the outset. At every stage obstacles have had to be overcome. There were difficulties about materials, there were difficulties about the site, the work was progressing very slowly, and there was a shortage of labour and of efficient labour which made itself so painfully apparent in every direction during the closing phases of the great War, which invested the undertaking necessarily with many depressing features, and I have no doubt that it is here that complaints may be preferred against the construction of this work, as against all other great works of construction during this final phase of the
682
War, because of these difficulties of obtaining the necessary labour and material.
Powerful interests were vigilantly watching their chance to attack, and here was a splendid opportunity for Lord Milner and Lord Inverforth to get clear of the whole business without the slightest difficulty or reproach if they had wished to do so. They could have abandoned the project and cut the loss, and the whole subject would have passed away out of the range of public criticism and would have been lost in the general confusion which in so many ways was inseparable from the final convulsions of the great War. But they did not take the easy course; they took exactly the opposite course. They altogether cut themselves off from this means of escape, and after a deliberate and measured review of the whole subject, supported by all the business and technical advice available, with their eyes fully open to the kind of opposition with which this scheme was being beset, they decided unhesitatingly that it was their duty to persevere with the scheme, and indeed, to accelerate it in this modified form to the utmost of their power. Lord Inverforth is a very successful business man, and his ability had won him a reputation in the public Departments during the great War which led to his appointment to a high office in the Government. Lord Milner had not only had experience of government, but he was a Civil servant years ago, and he had actually been Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, the second great official of the Treasury in the country. Nothing would be more surprising than that these two experienced men should have taken these very important decisions, bound to involve them in so much labour and criticism which they could easily have avoided, unless there was an overwhelming case on the merits of which they acted. I may say that nothing has given me more confidence in my study of this subject, and my confidence has grown with my exploration of the subject, grown steadily as I have learned more and more about it, than the circumstances in which this decision to go with the scheme after the War was over and after the Armistice had been signed was taken. I am not a business man. I am only a politician. I can only apply my common sense, sharpened by political experience, to this topic, but I say that nothing has convinced me more that the Government case was a sound one than

683
the fact that this decision was taken by these responsible Ministers on the advice of all their experts in such circumstances and at such a time.
Sir D. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman means that it is the action of the Government subsequent to paragraph 13, and after the Report of the Select Committee which has given him the great confidence to which he refers?
Mr. CHURCHILL: That is what I was endeavouring to convey in language as clear as I could make it, and I hope not more emphatic than the circumstances required. The matter was thoroughly examined and investigated, and it seems to me that this decision to go on, when one could easily have wound up the whole thing, shows that the Minister and Lord Inverforth were acting in response to practical reasons pressed upon them by men in whom they had the greatest confidence, and were in fact responding to an imperious need for action. Let us see what some of those reasons were. By the time that the Armistice had been signed we were already committed to the expenditure of nearly £600,000 in the collection of materials and other steps which had been taken, so that in the first instance more than a third of the total cost of the scheme we were already committed to.
Sir E. CARSON: Did that include the land?
Mr. CHURCHILL: No. We were committed to the land, but the £600,000 does not include the land. I was speaking merely of the material collected and the work done. Here is another reason—the great evacuation which was to be expected from France. All these enormous depots on the other side of the Channel had to be vacated, and have now to be vacated as quickly as possible, and their stores and supplies brought away. I have spoken already of the 80,000 motor vehicles and the possibility of marketing them far more successfully if they are repaired and handled instead of being put on the market in a damaged condition. They are a permanent need of the Army and of the other Departments of State. Let us look at the position of affairs in the home depots. I will only examine one subsidiary branch of the scheme in a little more detail. I have spoken of the £15,000,000 worth of spare parts and acces-
684
sories, of which, roughly speaking, about a half were stored in the home depots. Most of those depots have been acquired under the Defence of the Realm Act. There is the King's Hall suite at the Holborn Restaurant. I believe it is a white-and-gold apartment used for dining purposes, which the proprietors are very anxious to have back, and which they wish to have cleared of these mechanical parts at as early a date as possible. There is a place called Short's Gardens. There is an establishment at Camden Town which is railway property rented by Messrs. Allsopps, who are anxious to have it back. There is a depot at Carlow Street. The Carlow Street depot is so congested that large quantities of stores are actually stacked in the public highway, according to my information. There is a property owned by the Royal Free Hospital in Gray's Inn Road; there is one in Cressy Road, owned by the London County Council Tramways; and there are offices in High Holborn which are connected with Canada House and India House, which we have been ordered by the War Cabinet to vacate at the earliest moment. At Avonmouth there is a depot which the Admiralty wish to clear for an oil installation. At Liverpool there is one which is needed in connection with barracks for the return of troops from abroad. The total floor area of all these premises amounts to 500,000 square feet, and they are all filled to overflowing, and the great mass of stuff which is expected back from France has not yet begun to arrive. In addition to this there are approximately 400,000 square feet of space occupied by these stores in the works of the makers of the spare parts, who naturally wish to have their places cleared in order that they may get on with their work. These premises are of a most unsatisfactory character, entirely separated, not at all brought together on any system, and by their dispersal and inconvenience make it almost impossible to sort and bin the stores and decide which are required and which are disposable. For these premises—inadequate, inconvenient, and wasteful as they are—we are paying in rents alone nearly £45,000 per annum. I cannot help feeling that all these reasons constituted an overwhelming case on the merits, and it was owing to this overwhelming case on merits that Lord Milner and Lord Inverforth, instead of freeing themselves from all this criticism and difficulty, as they could so easily, decided that it was their duty in a manful

685
way to go forward with a scheme which they believed was absolutely necessary for the public interest.
Now I come to the third decision, the last decision, for which I am partly responsible. I have done my best to study this case, and I came to its study prepossessed against it to some extent. When I was at the Ministry of Munitions I did not approve of the Quartermaster-General's Department of the War Office dealing in matters of supply. I argued that if we made guns and repaired the guns, and we made motor vehicles, we ought to repair the motor vehicles too, and I made several attempts to get this whole business transferred to the Ministry of Munitions during the last year of the War. I thought the Ministry of Munitions or the Ministry of Supply could quite easily have discharged these functions and put up any central depot which was required in the same way that they put up all these great national factories all over the country. Since I have gone to the War Office I have succeeded in transferring from the War Office to the Ministry of Munitions all these supply services, including clothing, mechanical transport, engineers' stores, and so forth, to the Department where they properly belonged, namely, the Ministry of Munitions or Supply, so as to leave the fighting Departments free for their proper work of managing the fighting services. So I say I started to examine this question not merely impartially but actually prepossessed against it. I should have been very glad if the advice tendered to me and the facts laid before me had been such as to enable me to clear myself of all difficulty and embarrassment on the matter by putting an end to the whole scheme. I could have done that quite easily. I suppose, had I taken that course, everyone would have been delighted who have now been complaining. The motor trade would have regarded me as a statesman. The "Times" newspaper would have written an article and said that at last a man of action had appeared. The "Daily Mail" and the "Daily News" would have united, from different points of view, in praising a step which they would have said was at last an indication of a true spirit of economy. All the financial authorities would have been agreeably relieved, including my right hon. Friend (Sir Edward Carson), and even the august assembly at the other end of the corridor, where I have hitherto found very little
686
acceptance, would possibly have spoken of me with expressions of goodwill. But I resisted the temptation. The House may think it odd, my right hon. Friend who chaffed me on this subject yesterday may think it specially odd that my better nature triumphed. I was borne down by the facts and arguments with which I was confronted. I was borne down by the opinion of two perfectly independent experts, Sir James Stevenson and Sir Benjamin Johnson, both of whom examined the matter from a perfectly fresh point of view and both of whom said it would be absolute folly to stop now and cut the loss and that the scheme should be carried through. I am certain that each of these three decisions can be justified. No decision is more capable of justification than the decision, when as much as £850,000 was already compromised, to go forward and spend another £1,000,000, and obtain this indispensable central mechanical transport.
The Debate has occupied the greater part of this afternoon. I am no enemy of economy. I greatly sympathise with the feeling of hon. Members in all parts of the House, and in the other House, that we have got to make a most earnest effort to prevent the appalling expenditure of public money which is undermining the very foundations of our national prosperity. I repudiate the suggestion that I am not as earnest in that cause as any other Member. All my political life I have been an advocate of that, except during the period before the War when I was endeavouring to get the necessary money for the Navy, and was exposed to the criticism of some of those who to-day are still ready to make charges that we are not actuated by a genuine desire for economy. But why did not the House this afternoon, instead of debating this particular subject, which is out of all proportion and is not well selected even for the purpose of disciplinary action by the House—why is the House not engaged in asking for a strict general financial account of the enormous mass of the Army and Air Estimates? I should be delighted to make a very full statement to the House. It would have swept away a great many misconceptions on points of substance as to the current and the after-war winding-up expenditure. That is a subject on which we might have thrown a most valuable light in guiding public opinion. It is just like the other night, when we were voting £60,000,000 or £70,000,000 for

687
the Air Estimates and the House was almost empty until Miss Douglas Pennant's case was debated, when it filled up with overflowing crowds, and there was animation and excitement. It is very important that the House of Commons should form its opinion independently and spontaneously and should not really be led by the Press and by the Peers, but should make a definite contribution of its own. The weapon of a Select Committee is one which ought not to be blunted by being used without overwhelming cause and without a cause which gives a clear and solid expectation that facts will be revealed which will form a basis for public censure and for public Parliamentary disciplinary action. We have had no choice in the matter of the Select Committee. The Government was perfectly ready to give one if the House had wished it. I regret very much that the House has not had an opportunity of expressing its opinion. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) would no doubt say the House was strongly in favour of it. He speaks one day in the name of the House, another day in the name of the masses of the people, another day in the name of the Army, and another day in the name of the Liberal party. I should greatly like to see the result in the Division Lobby this evening of his claim that the House as a whole is resolute and determined to have a Committee of Inquiry upon this subject. As far as the Government is concerned we shall make no opposition whatever to the Select Committee, and we recommend, if the House of Lords sets it up, that the House of Commons should participate in it. But in view of the charges which have been made so freely here and out of doors and of all the misconceptions which prevail, we think the House ought not to refrain from expressing its opinion on the merits of the case, and indicating what its opinion is in the Divison Lobby on a vote for the Adjournment, although in any case it is our intention that a Select Committee should be set up.
7.0 P.M.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I would not have intervened in this discussion at all except for the closing words of the right hon. Gentleman which I heard, I confess, with very great surprise. The Government have, no doubt, with great propriety and wisdom, acquiesced in the appointment of a Select Committee. I am not competent to
688
review the very able speech of my right hon. Friend, but I do not think he convinced me that there was no case for inquiry, though he did convince me that there was a very strong prima facie justification for what the Government has done. But if there is to be an inquiry, could there be a more absurd thing than to invite the House to come to a decision before the inquiry takes place? No doubt the Joint Committee of the two Houses will inquire into the matter and will make a Report, very possibly stating that the whole scheme is a justifiable and very proper one. Then, if the House desires it, there can be a discussion on that Report, perhaps with one of the supporters of the Government moving a Resolution; but to ask the House to vote on the Motion for the Adjournment is a most meaningless thing. I, personally, have not the least idea how I should vote in order to express my opinion that there should be an inquiry by a Select Committee, which the whole of the House wants. It would be very absurd to take a Vote on the Motion for the Adjournment, which would convey nothing whatever. The proper way to proceed would be to appoint a Committee, and after they had reported, if anyone wished to do so, we could discuss it.
Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I quite agree with my Noble Friend that the position is an extraordinarily difficult one, but what my right hon. Friend beside me said amounted to this: It was not the Government who desired a Division—not at all. But we have said that in any case, since there is to be an inquiry, we propose that the House of Commons should take part in it. That is right. I believe that nobody could have listened to the speeches made to-day without having the feeling that the House was trying to judge on the merits whether or not a primâ facie case had been made out for an inquiry. The course which we adopted was that the Adjournment of the House should be moved before the decision was taken in another place, and we thought we might take it that those who voted for the Adjournment would be those who thought there ought to be a Select Committee, whilst those who voted against it would be those who thought there was no case for such a Committee.
Lord H. CECIL: We all think there ought to be a Select Committee.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, no, not at all. I do not in the least think there ought to be a Select Committee, but since it is evident that there is going to be a Select Committee, I think it proper that the House of Commons should take part in it. But much more than that is involved. I should be the last man to find fault with the action taken by my Noble Friends in another place. They have their rights; but so has the House of Commons its rights, and I think it would not be an entirely good precedent that we should take the attitude that when we had decided to settle this thing in a particular way that our decision should be simply thrown aside because of action in another place. All that my right hon. Friend said—and he said it with my full approval—was this. We do not think there is a primâ facie case for this inquiry. That is our view. [An HON. MEMBER: "Then why set up a Committee?"] It must be set up; we cannot help it; we do not think there is a primâ facie case, and the Government thought it necessary, holding that view, to state the case as it has been stated by my right hon. Friend. I do not in the least contend that a Division in a certain sense, would not be futile, but what my right hon. Friend meant, and. what I mean is that if there are any hon. Members in the House who wish to carry out, by a Vote, the attitude which they have shown in their speeches, it is open to them to take that action in the Division Lobby.
Lord H. CECIL: It is not open to them in the least.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, it is.
Lord H. CECIL: It is quite clear that a Vote in favour of the Adjournment of the House would be a wholly silly and meaningless Vote. The Government are not entitled to say to those who criticise them, "You must either be misrepresented or you must behave like a fool," because they thought there ought to be a Select Committee. They are not children, to be treated in such a way as that. We cannot be told that we have to vote on a wholly artificial question propounded by the Government because they have an absurd arrangement of that kind.
Mr. BONAR LAW: We may have different opinions about that, but I do think that on a question of this kind the House of Commons is entitled to express its own opinion.
Mr. DEVLIN: Opinion on what?
Mr. BONAR LAW: Whether or not there is a primâ facie case for this inquiry.
Mr. DEVLIN: Do I understand that there is to be a Committee appointed, no matter how the House of Commons votes? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"]
Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said that the vote will, in any case, be futile, and to that extent it will be absolutely ineffective so far as the action is concerned. My right hon. Friend did not ask that there should be a Division, nor did I; but if there are any Members of this House who wish to show, by their votes, that a prima facie case is made out, they can do it by having a vote.
Mr. DEVLIN: As I understand it, there is no justification for the somewhat extraordinary attitude taken up by the Leader of the House. We who are not very deeply interested in this question, and who have not followed it up very closely, are being told that we must walk into the Lobby over something which we do not understand. I am not saying that that is a thing which does not frequently happen, but it never was so earnestly placarded as has been the case this afternoon. So far as I can gather, and I am only now dealing with the question from the point of view of procedure and precedent, because there is a domestic quarrel amongst members of the Tory party, between the Unionists in the House of Commons and their friends in the House of Lords—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—the Members of this House are compelled to take part in what the Noble Lord has rightly described as a most silly and futile performance. You may throw dust in the eyes of Englishmen, but you cannot throw dust in the eyes of Irishmen, and although I have no doubt that physical exercise is good for us all, I object altogether to be compelled to engage myself in a physical operation for not the slightest justifiable reason. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have said to the House, "There is no justification for the appointment of a Select Committee." The Minister for War has spoken for an hour and twenty-five minutes—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—well, he spoke for nearly an hour, because I went out for a considerable interval, and when I re turned he was still as eloquent as ever, and it may or may not be, according to the intelligence of the person who was listening to him, that there should or should not

691
be a Select Committee appointed. But that is for the Government to say. If there ought not to be a Select Committee appointed they should say so; but they say that because the House of Lords has declared that there must be a Select Committee, there must be one. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have appointed a Select Committee!"] Well, that is their business and not ours. If it is done, why are we pressed to vote?
Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry to say I am afraid all this is due to my having expressed myself very badly. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I have not said that the Government wish a Division—not at all—and it may be that my suggestion may seem a futile one. What I mean is, that if there are any Members who take a different view from us, and who wish on this occasion to express the opinion that there is a case, as represented by my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean), and who think that there is what has been described as a glaring scandal—I should not like it to go out from this House that I was assenting to that statement—if there is anyone in the House who thinks so he should have an opportunity of expressing his view by voting.
Mr. DEVLIN: The House of Lords, I understand, say there is a glaring scandal, and they have decided to have a Select Committee. I gathered from the Minister for War that he does not believe there is any scandal, and that there should be no Select Committee.
Mr. CHURCHILLindicated assent.
Mr. DEVLIN: Therefore, if the House of Lords want a Select Committee let them appoint one of their own. I have no respect for any decision which the House of Lords would come to. But I object, on a matter of this sort, to the intelligence of the House of Commons being mixed up with the non-intelligence of the House of Lords. If we have to associate ourselves with a transaction of this character we must do it alone; but a more extraordinary course of procedure than that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman I have never listened to in this House.
Sir E. CARSON: So far as I understand the somewhat complex and involved situation it merely amounts to this, that the Government have announced that they
692
propose that this House should join in the Select Committee which the House of Lords last night undertook to set up. So far, I think, that is a proper course, and so far I see no difficulty. Then, the Government having made that announcement, they have not got the control of whether or not there will be a Division at all. There is no way in which the Government can prevent a Division. Therefore, I do not see that anybody is really embarrassed. Whoever wants a Division can call it himself. Having made an announcement of definite policy—I wish it was always so definite—the decision does not lie with the Government, because, under the Rules of the House, any Member can call a Division. There is no difficulty as regards any hon. Member now that an announcement of policy has been made.
Sir D. MACLEAN: I can only intervene for a moment by the permission of the House The Question, Mr. Speaker, which, you will put from the Chair is this: "That this House do now adjourn." That was moved from the Government Benches. Those Members who wish to support the Government view, that there is no need for a special inquiry, will, of course, go into the "Aye" Lobby. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
Mr. SPEAKER: We have had many occasions on which, for the convenience of the House, a Motion for the Adjournment has been moved in order to give hon. Members an opportunity and a free hand in discussing a matter. It was for that purpose that the Motion was moved to-day.
Sir D. MACLEAN: May it be withdrawn?
Mr. SPEAKER: Well, it may be.
Sir D. MACLEAN: He can withdraw it. That is all right, and the Select Committee is to go on.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I say again that I think this has been complicated and that I am responsible for it? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I believe the simplest method would be that my Noble Friend should now ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Lord EDMUND TALBOT: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SUPPLY.— [6TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1919–20.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  BOARD OF TRADE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,113,254, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments, including certain Special Services arising out of the War."
  [NOTE.—£1,300,000 has been voted on account.]

IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.
Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I beg to move to reduce the vote by one hundred pounds.
I move the reduction of the Vote for the purpose of calling the attention of the Minister who represents the Board of Trade to several matters, more particularly the restrictions which at the present moment are imposed upon trade in this country. The first thing I would like to point out to the hon. Gentleman, of which he is no doubt aware, is that the trading community is labouring under a very great sense of grievance, and considers that its interests are suffering severely under the delays and irksomeness of Government control. This is not in any sense a party matter. It is raised purely in the interest of the trader, and it is practically the universal feeling in trading commercial circles, that at the very moment when we are at the end of the War, and should be in a position to put all our efforts unfettered into the increase of production in order to rebuild the trade which has been shattered during the War, it is impossible to take any steps without consent, or in many senses without consent, and sometimes it is impossible to know what consents have to be obtained before steps can be taken. I know that the hon. Gentleman has removed a good many of these controls, but combined with the removal of control has been the imposition of what we, who are of a different political and economic faith from him, regard as Protection. I want first to deal with the question of control, and what I have to say is very well expressed by two extracts from the "Daily Telegraph":
694
"The door, no doubt, is opened very cautiously from time to time and some of the prisoners themselves are set free, and sent on their way rejoicing, but what British industry wants is that the door should be taken clean off its hinges."
Another extract in the same sense says:
"What the trading community desires, above all things, is to get rid of the cramping hand of officialdom, and the whole system of licences and permits which is like a millstone round its neck. Even if the system worked quickly it would still be troublesome, but it is notorious that the delay to which the business world is subjected are most vexatious."
I think these are opinions which would be concurred in by any business man irrespective of party. I will give the hon. Gentleman an instance which came within my own knowledge. It is that of a firm which desires to export seeds. In a matter like this time is everything. Whether the War Trade Department issues the licence or does not issue it, or whether the Board of Trade takes a week or a fortnight to give the necessary permit, the seasons progress, and if you do not serve the seed at the right moment you lose the market. My correspondent knows me perfectly well and I have every reason to believe that he is stating the case quite fairly. He says:
"I am informed on good authority that London firms can get licences granted within forty-eight hours, but the average time it takes for Scottish or Irish firms to let a licence granted is between a fortnight and three weeks."
That is a very important matter if you are trying to sell seeds. My correspondent gives me an instance of what has happened to him. He says:
"I had a representative of a large American seed firm calling on me this week. He informed me that he had been in Europe for over a month visiting France, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, and that he had done good business. He said there was now no restrictions or licences required to ship seed from the United States to the Allies or neutral countries in Europe. He also mentioned that when in Scandinavia he met several representatives of German seed houses pushing their business—"
He goes on to say:
"Before the War my principal competitors in Scandinavia were German firms. America did very little trade there. A good deal of the seeds I sold were American seeds which I imported here in British vessels and exported with seeds from other countries to Scandinavia. Now, owing to the restrictions and the difficulty of getting licences, America has captured this trade and it will be very difficult for this country to get it back."
I can give another instance showing the irritating effect which the cumulous of restriction has on the minds of the traders who desire to start their trade after the

695
War. My correspondent goes on to say that his son, who was a captain in a certain regiment, applied for a passport about a month ago. Several communications passed and a great many inquiries have been made. Though he was fit to command a company in Gallipoli, Palestine and France, the authorities seemed to have some doubt as to whether he was a fit and proper man to give a passport to in order to push British trade in Belgium and France. The passport had not yet been granted. Now it was too late to be of any use. It is this sort of irritating restriction and delay which is heartbreaking to the business man. Some business men think there should be a system of protection, while others think there should be freedom of trade, but all agree that whatever you do you should know what the system is, and that the thing should act with smoothness and celerity, so that you are not subject to heavy losses in trade such as my correspondent has pointed out. To give an instance how things are complicated by delays I will read an official document which has been issued to the Press. It says that in order further to assist exporters, a Department has been set up to which anyone is entitled to go who is a subscriber to the "Board of Trade Journal," and this Department will inform people who have difficulties with the War Trade Department, by telegram or telephone, whether their licences may be granted or not. Control and restriction by a Government Department may have been necessary during the War, but it now is really a restraint of trade, and now we find that in order to correct the laxity and slowness of one Government Department, another Government Department is set up to urge on the other Department. I suppose that next a Department will be set up which will urge on the urging Department. The thing is, as the newspaper writer said, that we do not want to have the door opened a little, but we want the door taken clean off its hinges.
I pass to the question of the Consultative Council which has been appointed to advise the President of the Board of Trade on the question of import restrictions. My Noble Friend Lord Emmott was the chairman of the Council, but he resigned recently and his place has been taken by a very able and gallant Member of this House, the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Colonel Sir S. Hoare), whose determination to do this work
696
in an impartial way was expressed at the very first opportunity, and whose capacity and gifts for this work those who have the pleasure of enjoying his acquaintance are very well aware. But it is not a question of personality in any way whatever. It is a question of principle. Lord Emmott's objection amounted really to this: that in deciding as to whether imports could be permitted or not, you were not leaving the decision in the hands of the the class that we represent—the consumer, the citizens as a whole—but that, owing, as he thought, to an arrangement of the Sub-committees, the decisions were being left in the hands of the industries primarily affected. The council of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has become the chairman has been formed with what I suppose the Government consider to be a fair representation of all interests. It consists of a number of hon. Members of this House, the nominees of Government Departments, representatives of chambers of commerce, the Federation of British Industries, the union of manufacturers, Whitley Councils (two employers and two workpeople), trade protection societies, the Chamber of Trade, one co-operator, and two members of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress. Our objection to this arrangement is that whether it takes the intense form of sub-committes deciding as regards certain imports, such sub-committees, consisting of persons actually engaged in importing these articles, or whether it takes the form of a general council of traders themselves deciding the question of imports, we object to it altogether, because we say that the public interest is the interest of the consumer. Although it is quite true the members of these industries are better informed on the technical points and details of the trade, and that that information in their official capacity is valuable, yet the duty of this House is to safeguard the interest of the consumer, and the consumer in the list I have read, save the nominees of certain Government Departments, finds no representatives whatever. The representatives on the council are representatives of bodies of traders and manufacturers.
Mr. R. McNEILL: They are all consumers.
Captain BENN: Of course everybody is a consumer, but they are not there to represent the consumers; they are there to

697
represent the manufacturers. That is my point. The hon. Member has made the alarming and interesting discovery that everybody is a consumer, but my point is that these people are there to represent industries and trade, and not to represent primarily the consumer. This system is setting up what is much worse than a tariff. It is continuing the prohibition on imports in certain selected branches of goods. We who are Free Traders object to a tariff. A tariff, at any rate, does produce income, but this system produces no income, so that there is not that to be said for it. Moreover, a tariff is submitted to a popular assembly for consideration. It is submitted to this House of Commons, which represents the consumers. We are the elected representatives of the consumers. We are not elected as representatives of certain classes of manufacturers.
Mr. McNEILL: There is no distinction. They are all consumers.
Captain BENN: The point I am endeavouring to make, and my opinion remains unchanged, is that a tariff has certain advantages to certain sections of the community, and it is submitted to representatives of the whole community for review, but under the arrangements made now, imports are to be restricted in certain trades, and that is decided not by representatives of the whole community, not by anybody who comes into the light of day, but after inquiry the decision as to what shall be restricted or prohibited is made by representatives of the trade themselves and it is done absolutely without the knowledge and without the power of interference by this House. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade whether it is not possible for these inquiries to be held in public. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is Chairman of the Council, will have any objection to that or not. When we wanted to have an inquiry about the coal industry, it was an inquiry held in public, and the public who were going to pay the price involved in any decision come to were aware of what was going on at the Committee. The public will suffer by the restriction of these imports, and personally I wish to see the restrictions removed entirely, and I wish to see freedom of trade re-established. But I do suggest that it is not contrary even to the avowed Protectionist policy of the Government that they should give us publicity in the inquiries that are taking place. That
698
is the very least safeguard that the House of Commons should demand in the public interest.
Many hon. Gentlemen who call themselves Free Traders are supporting the Government because they think this is only a transitional and temporary arrangement. Many people seem to have the idea that peace is going to come suddenly at a given moment; that at one given moment, we will say to-day, we are at war, and that to-morrow we shall be at peace. That is not so. All the new conditions which peace connotes are coming gradually, and therefore war will gradually merge into peace. You cannot have a given date line of the kind suggested. What we have to protect ourselves against is, while we are in a state of war, making arrangements and commitments that will be highly detrimental to our interests in time of peace. The hon. Gentleman said that on the 1st of September this arrangement will come to an end, but he does not say what is going to happen on the 1st of September—whether a trade is going to continue to enjoy the protection now afforded, or whether that protection is going to be removed. He merely says, "We promise you protection till the 1st of September; after that we can say nothing." The inevitable result of that policy will be that vested interests will grow up behind the protection that is given, and when the 1st of September comes it will be perfectly impossible to say, "We now remove the protection on which the whole of your industry depends." We shall be met by traders saying, "You gave us protection. We have built up an industry. Now you are going to remove the protection, and we shall have to discharge our workpeople." Let us disabuse our minds of the idea that this is a temporary measure. Those who support it for other reasons are under no-such delusion. The "Morning Post" says:
"The policy is to be reconsidered when the time of transition is over. We believe that when that time comes, if it ever does, the logic of circumstances and the necessities of the country will keep the Government on the course on which they have now entered."
Many people do desire that, but I do commend it to my hon. Friends who are Free Traders, but who are supporting the Government on the ground that this is a transitional measure. You cannot go back. Once the protection has been afforded it can never be removed.
The point of view which I wish to bring forward is the point of view of the con-

699
sumer, because very much, if not all, of the unrest and trouble which we have at present in this country is due to high prices. High prices are at the root of the whole thing. These restrictions on imports are producing high prices. The protected industries can increase their prices when the prohibition is in force. Everything tends to produce high prices: the gigantic inflated Estimates for the Army, Navy, arid Civil Service, the concessions made to the Triple Alliance of Labour, which mean an increase in railway rates, the enormous cost of out-of-work benefit paid every week to people who are not working and are producing nothing. Yesterday we were told that the Board of Agriculture is to have its status raised. That may be a very excellent thing, but it will cost a lot of money. There are the controls alone which the Board of Trade has set down in its estimate at over a million pounds. All this gigantic public expenditure which is causing the most serious alarm in the minds of all thinking people is forcing up prices and producing the discontent which in many cases it pretends to set out to allay. Alarm clocks which used to cost 1s. 11d. cannot be got now for £1, simply because of restrictions on imports. That is an article which is commonly needed by the poor people. The sort of people who are suffering under this gigantic waste are the poor, the people who have to live on a very small separation allowance, the men who are disabled and who have to live on the pensions which the Government allow them—clerks, all the poor people who are not in a big union, who all have to live on slender resources—they are all being crushed by this gigantic expenditure, which means high prices and rising prices. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman representing the Department whether he can say in his reply, first, that he will do something to remove, entirely, or at any rate at the very earliest moment, this irksome, restricting control of trade; second, that these restrictions on imports shall be kept down—there are cases in which they may be necessary, but that they shall be kept within the narrowest limits; and, in the third place, I hope that he will be able to give a favourable reply to the request that the procedure shall be made in public, subject to the expression of public opinion, which will know what is going on.
Mr. HOLMES: We were afforded an opportunity on the 10th of March of hearing the Minister of National Service state to us what was the policy of the Government in regard to imports and exports. He divided the imports question under three heads—first, raw materials; second, partly manufactured articles; and, third, wholly manufactured articles. With regard to the last, he told us that the policy of the Government was to continue the restrictions until at any rate the 1st of September, when the matter would be reviewed, and the object of continuing the restrictions was, he said, for the purpose of shielding certain industries, industries which were disorganised for the purpose of the War, or which are disorganised while passing from war work to peace work, or which have been created or encouraged owing to circumstances arising out of the War. But the fact that these restrictions are only being continued until the 1st of September and are then to be reviewed is not giving the advantage which the right hon. Gentleman thought he was going to give to the manufacturers of this country, because the very uncertainty as to what is going to happen in the future is preventing merchants from giving orders and preventing manufacturers from manufacturing, because they have no idea, if they buy goods or make goods, whether after 1st September they will find a market for them. The Committee will allow me to give one or two concrete cases, because these are easier to follow than abstract principles.
One of the reasons why manufacturers are doubting the policy of the Government, particularly with regard to those industries which have been created during the War, is because the Government, or rather the Board of Trade, have already let down certain industries which were started since August, 1914. I will first refer to an article of very common use—bootlaces. Before the War 90 per cent of the bootlaces used in this country came from either Germany or Belgium. The Belgian factories which made bootlaces were destroyed very early in the War, so that the opportunity appeared favourable for the manufacture of bootlaces in this country, and a number of firms commenced in that particular industry. They were encouraged to do so, because in 1916 the Board of Trade prohibited entirely the importation of bootlaces into this country. But for some reason they failed to prohibit the importation of hemp braid. Some

701
ingenious person cut hemp braid into the required length and tagged it, with the result that many thousands of hemp braid laces were placed on the market and sold to the public at the price of 2d. per pair. The average life of laces of that sort is about two days. But the very fact that these laces were put on the market discouraged for the time being the manufacturers who had commenced to make genuine laces in this country. The result of the public being taken hi by the hemp laces and the discouragement which the British manufacturer received by the hemp laces being put on the market was that there was a great shortage of laces here, with the result that the Board of Trade took off the prohibition altogether. Japanese laces then flowed into this country, with the result at the present time there are plenty of bootlaces to be obtained. The law of supply and demand has operated, so far as bootlaces are concerned. There is no profiteering, and the public are not paying high prices beyond what is usual.
That is all very well from the public point of view, and from the Free Trade point of view it is perfectly satisfactory; but the Board of Trade have let down the British manufacturer, whom they encouraged to try to get the trade which formerly went to Germany and Belgium, and so other manufacturers are dubious at the present time as to whether after 1st September they are going to be let down in a similar way. I refer to one other trade in the same connection in which there are opportunities of manufacturing at the present time, but everyone is afraid to touch it. That is the glove trade. It is known that in the warehouses in London there are thousands of pairs of Japanese gloves which have been allowed to come here from the other side of the world, but which the Board of Trade refuse to be sold in this country. That is known to all the glove people in this country. It is also known that in Holland there are thousands of pairs of German gloves waiting to be sent to this country if they are allowed to come. That means that every merchant in gloves in Wood Street is afraid to give orders, because he does not know whether after 1st September Japanese or German gloves will be allowed to come into the English market. The glove manufacturer can get no orders. He is afraid to make gloves on speculation. The glove manufacturers therefore are unable to employ all the labour which they
702
could employ for the purpose of making gloves here. It is the very uncertainty of the position that prevents what are apparently restrictions for the purpose of helping these manufacturers being of any use to them at all.
I want also to refer to the question of allowing licences and to support what my hon. and gallant Friend said with regard to them. There is a feeling in many trades that licences are controlled by the people who are particularly interested in the trade, and that as a result there is great profiteering going on. Here, again, I will give concrete cases. I will take electrical accessories. I am informed that all licences for electrical accessories have to go through the British Electric Light Manufacturers' Association. Now these are people interested in electrical accessories, and they are careful to see that no one, except their own particular friends, gets licences. At the present time our own manufacturers who make electrical accessories will not be able to supply our market for six months, and we are entirely dependent on imported articles. The position to-day is a little better than it was a few months ago, when Japanese key-switch lampholders, which are used in practically every factory and private house fitted for electric lighting, came in here at 11s. 3d. per dozen and were being sold at 36s. per dozen. At the present moment they are coming in at 10s. per dozen and being sold at 25s. There there is obvious profiteering at the expense of the consumer, because the licences are coming through interested parties and giving these people an opportunity to fleece the public. British manufacturers cannot possibly deliver these goods for another six months, although Birmingham houses are doing their best to turn them out. One hopes that the representative of the Board of Trade will tell us definitely what policy the Government are going to adopt with regard to imports after the 1st September next. At the present time the uncertainty of the position, and the failure of the Board of Trade to give the promised support to those industries which have been created or encouraged owing to circumstances arising out of the War is preventing them making any progress at all.
Colonel Sir J. HOPE: I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Leith Burghs (Captain Benn) in the policy he advocates, namely, that as quickly as possible all restrictions on imports should be removed and that our industries which

703
have suffered from the War and which have been disorganised by it shall be open to unrestricted competition from other countries which have not suffered to the same extent. But I do agree with both hon. Members who have spoken that it is all important that the Government should make a declaration of future policy as soon as possible. The present uncertainty is preventing enterprise in trade and industry. It makes it impossible for any industry to make any headway in the effort to recover ground lost during the War. I rise to draw attention to one particular industry, but I wish first to read what the Leader of the House stated two nights ago as a declaration of policy. He said:
"I do not suppose there is any Member of this House—I am our the Labour party would not—who would say that at this moment, when all our industries have been occupied in producing materials for war, and are being gradually changed to a peace basis, we should allow unrestricted imports of the very things which these factories are being started to make, and allow them to be sent in by countries which have not had our suffering during the War, and are in a position to send them in to-day. I do not think any man in the House would think that reasonable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1919, col. 355.]
I cordially agree with that declaration of policy. What I wish to call attention to is the manner in which the Board of Trade have recently gone in an absolutely opposite direction to that policy. It has suddenly, and without warning, actually removed all restrictions on the import of paper. No doubt the President of the Board of Trade will say it is only 75 per cent, of pre-war import up to the 30th April. But I may point out it is one-third of 75 per cent. for the first four months of the year, and as this Order was issued when two months of the year had elapsed, it means that up to the 30th April 150 per cent, of the pre-war imports of paper is to be allowed into this country, and after the 30th April there is to be an absolute removal of all restrictions on the import of paper. No warning was given at all. It came like a bombshell en the trade. The Interim Industrial Reconstruction Committee for the Paper Making Industry, which was set up on the initiatve of the Government expressly to advise it upon the paper industry, was not consulted on the matter, and to-day it has passed a resolution setting forth what its advice would have been had it been consulted The resolution is as follows:
"This Committee views with grave concern the prospect of widespread unemployment in the
704
paper-making trade resulting from the Government's decision to allow on the 1st May unrestricted imports of foreign-made paper before paper mills at home have been able to resume work on the normal basis, and would like to know, seeing that this Committee was not consulted in any way, on whose advice the Government acted in coming to this decision, and what knowledge, if any, the Government's advisors had of the conditions of the paper-making trade. They would also like to know whether any steps were taken by the Government before coming to their decision to find out not only to what extent home mills, if given sufficient raw material, could have fulfilled any probable demands, but also what reduction in prices might have been expected from the increased output so obtained. In view of the importance of increasing home production, this Committee strongly protests against the fact that the Government did not take every means of satisfying themselves on this point before deciding to allow increased imports of foreign-made paper."
The paper industry has been suffering in the past very extensively from the War because the import of raw material was continually being reduced. Only last year it was reduced to 16 per cent, of pre-war imports of raw material for the trade. As in the case of many other industries, men have been taken away for the Army, with the result that the production in every mill has been enormously reduced, and, as the over-head charges have remained the same, it was obvious that the price of paper had to be put up in consequence. But if, as the Committee suggests, time had been given to them to increase their production and to adapt themselves to the new conditions, there is little doubt they could have reduced prices. But they have had no chance owing to the uncertainty of the Government action. Since the Armistice there has been practically no sale of paper in this country—or at any rate a very small sale—because the demand for paper has fallen off lately, and the country has adapted itself to doing without paper. There has been practically stagnation in the paper trade so far as selling is concerned since the Armistice, and consequently the majority of the mills have been producing for stock only. Now they are suddenly threatened with this unrestricted import of foreign paper, and they will have no alternative but to close down. Eleven mills in Scotland alone have already taken this step, and many other mills have given their workers fourteen days' notice that they may be compelled to discharge them. That is a serious situation
The only argument in favour of the removal of these restrictions is, I believe,

705
that paper is a raw material in other industries. I do not quite know what other industries are concerned except perhaps newspapers. I do not know of any industries which call paper their raw material which would advocate the removal of these restrictions. A deputation went before the President of the Board of Trade on Tuesday, and it included representatives of the United Kingdom Paper Bag Manufacturers' Association and the National Union of Printing and Paper Workers. All large stationers and cardboard manufacturers are absolutely opposed to this sudden removal of the restrictions. They also have large stocks which they cannot dispose of, and the only result of this sudden removal of the import restrictions will be that the country will be flooded with paper that has been lying in Scandinavia, and with German paper which has been lying in Holland, while paper from Finland will be put on to the British market and sold at a low price. The stationers and the paper-bag manufacturers will not profit because they have already got their stocks. They will be either ruined or badly damaged, and the only result will be that this vital industry of our country will be seriously prejudiced, and the ranks of the unemployed will be swollen. The Government will be called upon to pay the unemployment benefit to an increased number of men and women. Surely there are already enough people in receipt of that benefit without the Government taking action which can only increase the number! I would like to remind the House of the statement made by the Prime Minister in his letter to the Leader of the House last November, in which he said:
"Security must be provided against the unfair competition to which our industries have been subjected in the past by the dumping of goods below the actual cost of production or under unfair conditions of labour."
I may point out that in this country the working hours in paper mills are 128 per week as against 152 per week in Scandinavia, while in Finland, which is pushing paper into this country, the mills are worked on Saturdays and Sundays. I am certain my hon. Friends the Labour Members will not desire to see the importation of paper produced under such conditions.
Mr. FRANCE: Are there double shifts where these large number of hours are worked?
An HON. MEMBER: Three shifts.
Sir J. HOPE: I think it is three shifts. At any rate I am certain of the figures—128 hours as against 152 in Scandinavia. The Minister of Reconstruction stated the other day that—
"Industries which were disorganised for the purpose of the war or which are disorganised while passing from war work to peace work should be safeguarded."
I submit that this action of the President of the Board of Trade is contrary to the statements made not only by the Prime Minister but by the Leader of the House and by the Minister of Reconstruction. At the deputation which I attended before the President of the Board of Trade it was stated, on behalf of the Union of Paper Workers, that if they could not safeguard themselves by Government assistance they would have to safeguard themselves on their own, and that means that the men in the stationery and paper-bag trades will refuse to handle imported foreign paper. Perhaps that may save the situation. But it seems to me that if the Government rely upon that and allow it to decide the issue it will be the very negation of government.
8.0 P.M.
With the amount of unemployment existing and the critical state of the country's trade generally, we cannot afford to throw over or lose any of our industries. The paper industry employs an enormous number of men. Not only did it provide before the War nearly two-thirds of the paper consumed in the country, but it had a considerable export trade. Three millions, five hundred thousand pounds worth of paper was exported in 1913. It is most desirable that the paper trade should have a chance, not only of securing the home markets, but gradually of recovering the export trade it had previous to the War. I am not asking for any new policy, but simply that the principles which have been stated by all the leaders of the Government should be adhered to by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade may have acted hastily and without due consideration of the facts. They may have been influenced by interests whose main object was to secure at once cheaper paper. I do not think they went thoroughly into the whole question. I hope that no consideration of the reversing of any decision of some official will prevent the President of the Board of Trade from reconsidering his decision and restricting the imports of foreign paper to 25 per cent, of the pre-war

707
imports, anyhow up to the 30th September. Why should the paper trade be specially selected for this prejudicial treatment? They should be treated like other industries. I hope also the Government will shortly make a statement of their future policy not only in regard to the paper trade especially, but with regard to other industries. I trust that the President of the Board of Trade will seriously consider the situation in regard to the paper manufacturers who are feeling the danger of ruin to their trade.
Captain AINSWORTH: I ask the indulgence of the Committee for a very short time to say a few words on the question which has been raised by the last speaker. I view with great dismay the decision of the Government to allow the unrestricted import of foreign-made paper into this country. It is well known, I have the information at first hand, that in the paper mills at home there is at present a great deal of unemployment. At the same time I would call the attention of the Government to the fact that although they are removing the restrictions on the import of foreign-made paper into this country, the restrictions on some of the raw materials used in the manufacture of paper in this country are still retained. That is in direct opposition to what we were led to expect at the General Election. I fought my election on the programme put before the country by the Leaders of the Coalition. I did not happen to have the favour of the Coalition ticket, but I was returned in spite of that, because I was supposed to be a better supporter of the programme announced by the Coalition leaders. This question is a very important one. The hardship imposed on the paper trade by the raising of these restrictions without proper notice and at the same time by the retention of the restrictions on the imports of raw material is very serious. I hope the Government will reconsider their decision and not impose upon the paper trade restrictions from which other trades are to be free.
Mr. FRANCE: I feel disposed to apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade who, I am afraid, has heard my voice on this subject more often than he likes. In spite of the crowded state of the Committee at the
708
present time, this is perhaps one of the most vital matters we can consider. I am quite certain that the hon. Gentleman takes a serious view of the responsibilities of his office in this regard. I want to ask him, what I am afraid I have asked before, something about the Committee or Council and their duties. The Imports Restriction Committee was created in order to limit the amount of tonnage used at a time when we were short of shipping. It was appointed purely for that purpose, but gradually and inevitably since the Armistice it has begun to take on other duties. I want to ask what is the extent of the duties of the Committee and have they really to take into consideration the facts and arrive at decisions as to matters such as have been discussed to-night, as to whether or not paper is a raw material, as to whether or not certain articles that are required in the manufacture of paper should be let in in order to assist the trade as a whole, and are they taking into consideration the effect on other trades affected thereby, in other words, are the Council going to do very much what the Commission on the coal trade had to do and were instructed to do in a very short space of time—not only consider the actual restrictions, but the effect they will have upon other trades? My hon. and gallant Friend (Sir J. Hope) said he did not know the paper was the raw material of any trade except the newspaper trade. Any knowledge of business would lead one to know that paper enters into almost every trade and every business as a most essential item of expenditure. Although I quite recognise that the paper mills and those trades who have large stocks at high prices must inevitably suffer when the prices suddenly fall, yet that is an experience which is being, I was going to say, enjoyed or, rather, felt by almost every trader throughout the country at the present time. The only consolation is that traders, having made good profits during the War, they, like the Government, must face their losses and get over them as quickly as possible during the transitional period.
With regard to key industries and dumping, are the Committee during the months before 1st September to consider and decide which are the key industries that are necessary industries to this country? On the very difficult question of dumping, are they to decide what is the cost of

709
manufacture in a foreign country or what is the average price at which the goods are sold? I do not know whether the Committee is going to consider these difficult questions. If they are not, I do not see how they can deal successfully with the difficult matters which are facing every manufacturer at the present time. Another question I should like to ask is whether the Council or Committee is to deal also from the end of this month with all matters relating to licences for exports, because, if that is so, I should like to say a word to the Parliamentary Secretary as to the great importance of dealing with the matter promptly. There is at the present time in the West Riding of Yorkshire, as we heard the other day—I am not going to waste time by repeating what was said then—and also in Lancashire, the greatest anxiety and concern about the prospects of trade, and particularly the export trade during the next few months. It is just now, when very many of them are naturally relieved from the large orders they have had from Government Departments and when prices are naturally high, and to that extent the demand at home is necessarily curtailed—it is just at this time, when other countries are looking forward to enlarging their export trade and becoming serious competitors, that our manufacturers are desirous of taking orders for export and to manufacture for export at the earliest possible moment. It is a fact, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware of it—if he is not it will not be because he has not been told of it in this House—that at the present time there are these restrictions—I know he cannot be held responsible for them, although I hope he will use his influence and that of his Department in the matter—under the general policy of blockade which interfere with exports to neutral countries. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will urge very seriously upon those responsible for the present policy that this question of preventing exports will have very speedily to come to an end. If any of these exports by any chance get into neutral countries or even what are still enemy countries, surely the evil that comes through that, as was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Platting Division of Manchester (Mir. Clynes) the other day, cannot be comparable to the injury we are doing to our own export trade, from which, perhaps, it will never recover. I urge the hon. Gentleman and his Depart-
710
ment to keep that in view, having regard to the necessity of preserving the export trade of this country.
May I give him one example of an interference with trade through the restriction of imports which is seriously affecting a trade which has been brought to my notice? It is an illustration of the want of policy and definiteness in regard to imports restriction. I hope the new council will entirely change all that. This is the case of a small blade, which has formerly been imported and, I think, can still only be satisfactorily made in America, for the purpose of shaving leather, not the human chin. It is a peculiar form of blade, very difficult to make. Nobody in England seems to be able to make it. Several firms are short of this blade. One firm in particular was standing idle for lack of the blades and had to borrow some of them from a neighbouring firm or practically close their works for the time being. I am informed that at the same time there were in Liverpool 5,000 of these blades. The Imports Restriction Committee were applied to, and they said that the import of these blades had been restricted. Although they were there and the particular tonnage space had been used, and although these works were standing still for want of them, they persisted in saying that the blades must not be used. The firm which had imported these may have committed some misdemeanour or gone against the restrictions, but as a matter of fact they were generally sent over without licence in the past and only licensed when they arrived. This is a case of which I should be glad to give the hon. Gentleman particulars, and it is really aggravating manufacturers very much and stands in the way of progress and trade. I desire to support very strongly indeed the view put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain W. Benn) that in these inquiries there should be the utmost publicity. I urged that point before, and I venture to repeat it. As he said in the inquiry with regard to the coal trade, the public were allowed to know the facts. It may be that there may be members on this Council who are capable of giving technical information, but at the same time they may naturally consider their industries as of particular importance and may desire changes which would assist, not them personally, but their particular branch of trade. It is very important that they should not be allowed

711
to press their considerations to the disadvantage possibly of other trades and of the public. I therefore urge that at these inquiries there should be the utmost amount of light and publicity, so that the public may feel that during this period of transition, which is a dangerous and difficult time, that the inquiries are conducted fairly and impartially until it is possible to get that freedom which we all in one form or another desire.
Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: I wish to associate myself with the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) in what he said as to the withdrawal of these licences and restrictions on trade. We have been suffering now, owing to the War, from war measures which have been absolutely necessary during that period, but at present we have to look further than to-day and to realise that these prohibitions, as the licences mean in many instances, result in the trade of the country being absorbed by our competitors. I noticed that an hon. Member complained that London firms were able to get licences in forty-eight hours. I am sorry to say that my experience and the information which I have leads me to the conclusion that in Leith and other places they are much more fortunate than we are in London. I know that in many cases it takes a month to get an answer from the Department in reference to a licence, and you have to go to two or three Departments even then before you get any satisfaction. The hon. and gallant Member mentioned that a Department had been established for the purpose of considering what licences should be granted, or to assist in the granting of licences. That is one of the methods of which the commercial community have been complaining ever since the beginning of the War, and that ever since these restrictions were put on that in these Committees the granting of licences has not been with even-handed justice, and that there are many people who have been unable altogether to get licences while their neighbours have been favoured with permits whenever they applied for them. I saw some gentlemen yesterday from the London Chamber of Commerce in reference to one of these new Committees which has just been established for the granting of export licences for the iron and steel trade, and they complained, and in my opinion rightly, that the whole of that Committee are interested in the trade themselves,
712
and that there are no merchants who are represented on it, and who might be impartial or more impartial in dealing with the applications for licences. We have found at least in the City of London that over and over again the people to whom you apply have certain interests, and consequently very often—I do not say they do it deliberately, but they cannot altogether dissociate themselves with their interests—when the permits are asked for for certain firms they are invariably refused. I have had several cases brought to my notice, and I shall be glad to give particulars to the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench. This is a very serious matter for the number of firms who are interested in the import trade and the export trade. We think that in these circumstances the manufacturers and merchants of the country are in a better position than the Government or the officials to bring about a resumption of pre-war conditions in the interests of the community and industry and consumers than any control can do. We believe that the high prices which we are suffering from are almost entirely due to the restrictions and the curtailment on the freedom of imports.
I put a question to the Ministry of Food two days ago in reference to the imports of wheat and barley, which was answered by the Secretary for War. My question was whether merchants were at liberty to accept consignments of wheat and barley for this country, and whether permits would be given for the importation of this necessary material, or whether it was the intention of the Government to divert this trade to neutral countries. The reply I got was that we were perfectly at liberty to bring wheat and barley to this country, but when it is here you have only one buyer for it, and that is the Government. What is keeping up the prices of foodstuffs and of many other articles is the uncertainty of any permission on the arrival of those articles for the importers to deal with them as they would do in normal times. A reference was made by an hon. Member opposite to the prohibition of the importation of bootlaces and other material, and he said that these articles were being imported from Japan. I raised this question in this House in 1915, because the British merchants were prohibited from importing these fancy goods into this country without any notice being given at all, and I want to ask the representative of the Board of Trade whether we are to

713
have a repetition of this gross injustice to British interests that occurred in 1915? British and Japanese merchants had made considerable contracts for all sorts of material to be shipped from Japan, and suddenly the importation of these goods was prohibited. The British merchants of course protested, and asked that they might be allowed to import the goods which they had contracted for up to a certain date freely into this country, so that they could carry out their obligations. This request was refused by the British Government through the Board of Trade, and the British merchants went to work at the end of 1915 and paid considerable sums to the Japanese manufacturers to cancel the contracts which they had placed with them. The British Minister in Tokio telegraphed to this country to the Foreign Office pointing out that many British firms established in Japan would actually be ruined through the action of the British Government, but they absolutely resolved that whatever might happen they did not care a bit for the interests of the British merchants. The Japanese Government then made representations to the Foreign Office that Japanese merchants had placed large orders and that they might in consequence be involved in very heavy losses if the British Government did not reconsider their decision and allow the Japanese merchants to send their goods to this country. Without a single word to the British merchants in Japan the Foreign Office conceded to the Japanese Minister the right for Japanese merchants to ship the goods that they had under contract to this country. The British merchants in Japan first heard of it when they saw all this material being shipped here by their competitors. They having paid heavily to cancel their contracts, the Japanese merchants went in and bought the very goods that the British merchants in Japan had paid cash for. Representations were made to the Foreign Office and to the Board of Trade about two months after they had given permission to the Japanese, and the British merchants who were represented were told, "It is true we have given permission, and you can do the same thing." Now the Board of Trade have prohibited the import of these goods from Japan. I do not complain at all about that, but what I do ask is that British merchants who have gone out to different parts of the world should have the support of their Government, and should not be placed at a disadvantage and have no protection whatever.
714
If you are going to have this prohibition of imports it is a far more honest way to put a duty on at once. Make your duty as high as you like, but I think the system of prohibiting the import is altogether wrong, because in twenty-four hours the whole thing may be reversed by permits being granted by favouritism, or whatever you like, to different people, and it is a much more honest way and would give greater protection to our manufacturers and working classes to put on a duty, which in itself will act as a prohibition against the import. Another reason that was given by the hon. Member for the restriction of imports during the War was that there was a shortage of tonnage. But I am afraid the Government cannot defend themselves on that ground. As a matter of fact, whilst the imports, especially from the Far East, have been going on joyfully in everything that is unnecessary in this country, such as silk goods and fancy goods of every description, when I myself applied for permission to bring home a few half chests of tea for my own use and the use of my friends in a steamer that was coming from China, that permission was refused. I applied for permission to bring home a few half chests of tea when tea was rationed in this country, but the Government would not allow ten or twenty half chests of tea to be brought into this country. The rationing of tea would not have been necessary if they had allowed merchants to bring tea here from China. They could have had thousands of tons of tea, but they preferred to fill the steamers up with merchandise such as bootlaces, silk goods, china ware, lacquer ware, and every description of fancy goods. I do not think it is very reasonable of them to say that they were suffering from a shortage of tonnage for necessary things when they were allowing materials like fancy goods, to be brought here by the tens of thousands of tons every year, which they were as a matter of fact doing. So that when they plead that it was a shortage of tonnage which necessitated the restriction of imports, I am afraid that with those who know anything about what has been going on, that would have no weight at all.
The hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian (Sir J. Hope) spoke about the importation of paper. That is a matter in which I can support him, because we know perfectly well that that industry has been seriously damaged during the War, the same as every other industry in the

715
country. If it is necessary to bring paper here, I think, at the present time, during the period of reconstruction, we want our paper mills in various parts of the country to be able to restart and be able to compete with imported paper. We have an enormous amount of unemployment which has to be provided for. We must try to get the industries of this country into their normal condition, and we cannot possibly do that by the free imports of goods that must necessarily compete with them, and assist to create further unemployment. We also must have greater freedom in our export trade if we do not wish to go straight to disaster. We have tremendous competition in every part of the world, especially with the United States and Japan, who are taking, and have taken during the period of the War, an immense amount of our trade from us in various neutral countries, especially South America. We are told to-day that it is necessary to supply the North of France and Belgium with certain machinery which we are in a position, perhaps, to do. But what I would ask the Board of Trade is, what proportion of the machinery that is necessary for the reinstatement of the North of France and Belgium is going to be supplied by the United States? Why the whole burden of that should fall upon this country, I fail to understand.
The United States profess to be as interested as we are in the resuscitation of Belgium and the North of France, but, instead of doing anything, so far as I can make out, to help to put those countries on their feet, they leave the whole burden upon this country, and we find that they in the meantime are doing their best in those markets where British interests before the War were paramount. I think, in the interest of the future of our commerce, the British manufacturer ought to be allowed to go to those markets, and be able to re-take the customers whom we have lost to the United States and to Japan during the period of the War. Those markets are essential to us. Belgium and the North of France are temporary stop gaps. We know perfectly well that the moment they are in a position they will be competitors, and I am not quixotic enough to say that we ought to surrender markets in different parts of the world which have been the mainstay of this country for so many years, and sacrifice the future of our commerce for the purpose of placing our competitors in a position to
716
take those markets away from us. I do not for one moment say we should not do something for Belgium and the North of France. We are bound in duty to do every thing we possibly can, but I say that the whole burden of that should not fall entirely upon this country, and that the Board of Trade ought to consider the necessity of retaining the markets where we have been strong before, and not allow our competitors to get an absolute control of them. I hope that the Board of Trade will put on these Committees who have been appointed to look into the question of licensing, in addition to people who are interested, and who are not altogether trusted by the commercial community, at least some independent—
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): Which are they that are not trusted?
Mr. SAMUEL: They are not trusted in this way. For instance, there is the iron and steel industry. The City merchants say that the licences are not given entirely on the merits of the case, and that many people are able to get licences whilst others are not able to get licences. That is the case in many instances in these Committees, and what the commercial community asks is that people not directly interested in that trade should be on the Committees to whom they have to go to get permits for imports and exports.
Major LLOYD-GREAME: I only want to intervene very shortly on two points. In the first place, I should like sincerely to congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade on the complete failure of the violent attack which was going to be made upon him in consequence of Lord Emmott's resignation. Owing to the preparations which we understood were being made, one almost thought that Lord Emmott's resignation was to be followed by his own. I think the case which was made out was eminently a bad one, and, in fact, broke down, I will not say of its own weight, but of its own feebleness. I should like to assure my hon. Friend that from this quarter of the House there is very little sympathy with the main proposition in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith. In a question of this kind, when not only a personal matter was being raised, but a debate on very broad questions of principle, one was a little surprised to see the want of support that the hon. and gallant Member found on his own

717
side of the House. There is no sympathy whatever in most quarters of this House with the pure Free Trade cry, which was really the basis of the hon. and gallant Member's speech. If the Government came back with any mandate at all at the election, it was a mandate to see what could be done, in a thoroughly businesslike way, to secure and stimulate home production so far as possible.
We were asked to consider the question of unemployment. We are considering it every day, and it is the most serious consideration that we have to face. If there is one thing at the present moment more than another which would more effectually add to the very serious volume of unemployment, it would be the abolition of the restrictions on imports which the hon. and gallant Member has advocated. We were told that if you are to administer this you must have an unbiassed tribunal. That is an extraordinarily easy thing to say, and it is an extraordinarily difficult thing to get. In a sense nobody is altogether unbiassed in this matter, and least of all is the hon. and gallant Gentleman who advanced the proposition unbiassed, for he would go into this matter frankly biassed up to the hilt in favour of an entirely unmitigated Free Trade policy. Personally, I regret Lord Emmott's resignation, but I cannot assume from his views upon the question of Free Trade that Lord Emmott is himself unbiassed. These Committees, if they were to follow the suggestion put forward, would degenerate into debates on Tariff Reform versus Free Trade. I do hope that when these Committees get to work, during the transitional period, they will do so in a businesslike way. I believe that is the way these Committees themselves are trying to work. I do not believe that the question of Tariff Reform or Free Trade is ever introduced at all. Each case is taken on its merits as a business proposition and as to what is the best thing to be done. During the transitional period that is the only possible way these Committees can work. At the first blush one feels some sympathy with the suggestion that these Committees should proceed in public, but there are some things it would be extremely undesirable to disclose in public, for the information of foreign competitors, and I can easily suppose it might not be practicable to do that; but the decisions in all the cases to which reference has been made could be disclosed immediately to
718
the general public, and then we have the opportunity here, if it be so desired, of raising any question on those decisions. I must say that I think the hon. Gentleman who at present represents the Department on the Treasury Bench will be able quite easily to reply to this aspect of the subject.
I only want to raise one other point; that is in support of what was said by the hon. Member for Batley. I sincerely hope that the control of exports will be raised at the earliest possible moment. If there is one difficulty more than another in trade, and which traders want to avoid, it is uncertainty. Even a certainty that is bad is better than uncertainty. In this respect it will be conferring a boon upon the whole trading community if the right hon. Gentleman is able to abolish the controls which exist at present. So long as these controls do exist I want to be assured that there is a clear and simple policy stated in terms we can all understand, and that the departmental officials under the Board of Trade in the various departments clearly and intelligently carry it out. The general principles have been quite clearly stated in the extremely clear speech made the other night by the Minister of National Service. I must, however, contrast that—and I know many hon. Members in this House feel the same—with the uncertainty which exists in the Departments as to what the position is in respect of controls. In his speech, the Minister of National Service announced that a number of controls were going to be removed, and a number of articles were going to the put on the C, or Free Export, List, except as to the countries in the blockaded area. But I would just like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to what happened in his own Department, and what has happened among our competitors. I will not be sure of my date, but about 9th January the "Board of Trade Journal" published a letter to say that the export of a number of articles, including rolling stock, was going to be made absolutely free. About a fortnight later that Order was cancelled, or, rather, the Department said it would be cancelled, and that free export would be confined to certain second-hand articles. After considerable delay, owing to representations that were made, the original Order was finally restored, and all concerned were told that these things

719
should go into the C list, that is, completely free export to countries outside the blockaded areas.
The result of these conflicting Orders—three of them within about a month or six weeks—was that, in the first place, the sellers themselves did not know how they stood, and they were all writing to the Board of Trade to find out the position. If the sellers did not know, the purchasers knew still less. I want to contrast with that position a letter which I saw about the middle of that period from an American firm. It was to this effect:
"Dear Sir,—Now that all restrictions on American exports have been removed we are in an excellent position to do business with you immediately. We have got the raw material and we can arrange tile snipping, we shall be pleased to take your orders for quick delivery."
I am paraphrasing the letter, but it was practically to this effect. That letter was being sent to all likely purchasers at the very time when those purchasers ought to have been placing their orders with English firms, and when English firms were writing to the Board of Trade to find out in what position they stood. That is the kind of thing which is losing hundreds of thousands of pounds' worth of contracts to this country at present, and is going to swell unemployment. I believe the Board of Trade know their own minds—I am sure my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bridgeman) and the President know theirs, and the speech of the Minister of National Service was as clear a speech as we could expect—but it would be well, if logical departmental action immediately followed. That plain policy should be known at once to every member of the staff of these Departments, and should be carried out. The orders that are issued should not be issued by reference to something else, but should be perfectly plain, straightforward, simple orders, which everybody, buyer or seller, could understand. If my right hon. Friend can only get that spirit in and through his Department, and so get executive action, he will have done a great deal to minimise the criticism which he finds in this House.
Mr. KILEY: The subject I am most interested in is the fate of a good many merchants and traders who, in the course of their business, have placed various orders in different parts of the world for various commodities. After those contracts had been made the Board of Trade found it necessary or desirable to impose
720
certain restrictions, and meantime the unfortunate traders were bound to take delivery of the goods which they had paid for. These goods have been lying for months in different parts of the world accumulating, as, for instance, in America, where the charges for storage are now three and four times above normal rates. These goods have been duly paid for, and the charges upon them are accumulating week by week and month by month, and they will eventually become the property of that country. Therefore the traders here who parted with their money are not able to obtain their goods. That seems to me to be tomfoolery, for if we part with our money we might as well be allowed to get the commodities we have paid for. I agree that if these things had been done in defiance of the law it is quite another matter, but where the transaction has been done legally it is the duty of the Board of Trade to see that these people are not unduly penalised, and that foreign countries shall not benefit by taking our money and keeping the goods as well.
Another point is that of late certain systems have been set up. The hon. and gallant Member for Leeds suggests that if you pay so many guineas you can get so many journals and information sent to you. In the Board of Trade they have set up a system by which you may be placed on a list and you may get certain confidential information by payment of a small fee, but that list is only supposed to be given to manufacturers, and the Board of Trade look with a good deal of suspicion upon merchants and middlemen, who are debarred from this privilege because they are not manufacturers. I would like to point out to the Board of Trade, if I may be allowed to bring my own personal experience to bear, that in my capacity as a merchant I am debarred from information which, as chairman of a manufacturing company, I might get. Now the Board of Trade is not in a position to do this kind of thing. It is the duty of a State Department to let such information be obtainable by all the citizens of the country. I suggest that the Board of Trade should put this tomfoolery on one side, and, if they have information, it should be available to everybody in this country. I want them to consider the two points I have made, namely, the holding up of goods which have been properly and legally ordered, and the question of sweeping away these pet schemes of the Board

721
of Trade in order to expand their journal and trying to keep information in certain channels.
9.0 P.M.
Mr. REMER: In this Debate a good deal of concern has been expressed for the consumer, but it seems to have been overlooked that we are paying at the present moment something over £1,000,000 per week in out-of-work donations, and those donations are, in fact, being paid by the same consumers for whom so much anxiety has been expressed. I agree with what the hon. Member who spoke just now said, that a tariff should take the place of restrictions, but the time for that is not here yet, and until the time comes the restrictions must stay. As far as the key industries are concerned, I think we are quite within our rights. As far as I am concerned, I stated in my election address that I was an out-and-out Tariff Reformer. I always have been a Tariff Reformer and I always shall be.
Reference has been made by two speakers to the question of paper. I had a very eminent paper manufacturer in the House before the Debate started, and he gave me a great many facts which I do not think are known to the House generally. In order to show he was not prejudiced, I might mention that for a long time before nomination day he was actually a candidate in opposition to me in my Division. There are three paper mills in that Division, and he assures me quite conclusively that their output of paper is only 50 per cent. of their capacity, and that owing to the serious position which is involved by the paper restrictions being removed at the end of April the paper manufacturers are in a very serious state. As my hon. Friend has already said, eleven paper mills have actually been closed down, and thirty-three more have given twenty-eight days' notice that they may close down at twenty-four hours' notice. What does that mean? Surely that we are going to pay more out-of-work donations to these people who will be out of work, and then we shall have a more serious crisis than prevailed before.
I should like to call attention to one fact which has not been mentioned. As the House well knows, there were restrictions upon the importation of wood pulp during the War from Sweden, and very considerable restrictions on all importations. What happened? The manufacture of wood pulp did not decrease in the slightest degree. I am credibly informed by a
722
person who has made very extensive inquiries that that wood pulp went to Germany, where it has been manufactured into paper, and that paper is at present waiting in Holland to come to this country. It is said that there are between 120,000 and 130,000 tons of paper waiting there which has been manufactured in Germany from Swedish wood pulp which should have come into this country, and consequently the whole trade is in a chaotic condition by the announcement of the removal of these restrictions.
I should like to say a word or two about my own trade. All this Debate has been with reference to importations, and an announcement was made by an hon. Member that the high cost of furniture was attributable to the high price of timber, and that announcement appears in the "Daily Mail" this morning, which gives a list of prices that have to be paid for the timber in order to make furniture. Those statements, however, are absolutely misleading and they are not correct. I am quite able to buy the timber mentioned at exactly half the price which has been quoted. Therefore to state in the public Press, corroborated by a large newspaper, that the high cost of timber is responsible for the high price of furniture is stating something that happens to be untrue.
I should also like to say a word about the restrictions on exports. I am quite sure that it is to the great interest of this country that we should do everything that is possible to increase our exports, because that is the one way in which we can provide the necessary means with which to pay for the War. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will see his way to relax the present restrictions which exist in many forms. I think we might even go to the extent of removing the restrictions on exports to those countries which are in the blockade area. I do not see why, if Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Holland care to trust our late enemies at this time, they should not do so. At any rate, it would be a way of enabling our own people to get rid of this terrible debt that we have hanging about us. I feel sure that I have only to place these views before my hon. Friend for them to receive particular consideration. The manufacturers of this country are in a position of very great difficulty and uncertainty, and while they are in that position of uncertainty I think, as far as our essential manufactures are concerned, they should be protected from

723
foreign competition. It has been stated that there are essential imports which would be held back. I do not think if they go to the right quarter that there will be any difficulty in obtaining the necessary licences for essential imports. I have taken several cases of this kind from my own Constituency, and every case hag received the most favourable consideration.
Mr. R. M'LAREN: It must be evident to the President of the Board of Trade that the question concerning Members of this House and the country just now is pre-eminently that of our imports and exports. I have had a gentleman connected with some very large steel works to see me. He was in London to make some inquiries and to fix some orders. He could have fixed those orders, but he was told that as there was some dubiety on the question of export they must go elsewhere. It is evident to all engaged in industrial operations that so long as this question of imports and exports is hanging in the balance the trade of the country must suffer. I would therefore ask the President of the Board of Trade and the Government to consider the question at once, so that the restrictions may be taken off and we may know where we are. My main purpose in rising is to call attention to the restrictions being taken off the import of paper from Scandinavia and other countries, a matter which has been mentioned by several hon. Members, and especially by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Sir J. Hope). A very serious crisis has arisen in the paper trade in consequence. Last Tuesday a deputation, consisting not only of manufacturers, but of those who distribute the paper and the workmen, waited on the President of the Board of Trade in order to impress upon him the fact that if these restrictions were taken off most of the mills would soon be at a standstill. Only this afternoon I had a telegram from some important mills in my own Constituency, stating that 3,000 men are under orders to be sent about their business within twenty-four hours, so great is the difficulty in connection with this matter.
Like nearly all the Coalition Members, I made it one particular plank in my platform in addressing my Constituents, especially in the large industrial part to which I belong, that the one thing above all others which we would not tolerate would be a return to pre-war times. Like the hon. Member who has just spoken I
724
have been for many years an out-and-out convinced Tariff Reformer. I did not hesitate to explain these views to my Constituents, and I can assure the House that upon, every occasion that I mentioned the matter my words were received with the greatest enthusiasm. The workmen throughout the district now complain, after my expression of these views and my return to Parliament, that the Government should without any warning turn round and remove these restrictions upon the paper industry, which, means that eventually they must be idle. They think that it is very unfair that each, a thing should take place. Above all, they do not want any dumping whereby they may be thrown out of employment. As one who was returned upon these pledges, I am bound to say that I cannot go back upon my word and that if a Division takes place upon this question I must certainly vote against the Government. The time has come when we must let the Government understand that having been pledged to a certain policy we are bound to see that it is carried out. I therefore ask the President of the Board of Trade at once to reconsider this matter. It will be a very serious thing for various parts of Scotland and England where large paper mills are in operation if these men are thrown on the streets and become unemployed. Unfortunately, in the district to which I allude there are not many mines into which the men can go, and there are no other industries except certain steel industries which are filled to overflowing. Consequently, unless something is done and done at once these men will be found among the great mass of unemployed. I would, therefore, associate myself very strongly with all that other hon. Members have said, and plead with the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the question at once, and to see to it that the matter is satisfactorily settled so that this huge body of men and women employed in the paper industry may not be thrown out of employment. I voice not only my own views, but the views of the workmen whom I represent, because I have received representations not only from the owners of the mills themselves, but from a large number of my Constituents who are workmen, and who say that they expect me to stand by my pledge and to ask the Government to stand by their pledges, so that they may not be thrown out of employment.
Mr. C. WHITE: I am glad to find someone on the opposite benches who seems to be likely enough to find a seat on these

725
benches. If he votes against the Government, we shall expect to have his company before very long. A great deal has been said about stimulating production and preventing unemployment. I want to put a concrete instance before the House of how the Government can improve the present instead of looking so much to the future. I was in Hull last week, and I got this concrete instance, which may have been mentioned to the House. A man obtained an order for 250,000 bags, at 6d. each, to go to Sweden. He spent a large amount on telegrams to the Board of Trade, and I believe he came to London himself, but he could not get an answer. The day that he told me about the matter he received a message from Sweden cancelling the order and saying that it had now been given to Germany. I understood that the last thing that we wanted to do was to encourage the Germans, but here, by lack of enterprise and stupidity on the part of a Government Department, a licence to send 250,000 bags to Sweden was refused, for fear they might be sent to Germany, and an order placed in Hull, to improve the undustry and find employment in the district, was lost. Instead of that the order is sent to Germany and the bags have been sent to Sweden from Germany. I am not going to speak about Tariff Reform and Free Trade. I notice we keep setting these bogeys up and someone knocks them down as soon as they are set up. It is quite easy to knock down the things which have been set up to-night. I want the Government to look to the living present and to remove these restrictions on exports from this country and thus provide that employment which is so much needed, and to show that enterprise in which they are so much lacking and let us see if we cannot improve the living present instead of looking forward to the future so much.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This Debate, given notice of as one in which the Board of Trade has been criticised on account of Lord Emmott's resignation of the chairmanship of the Restriction of Imports Committee, has developed into a general discussion on the question of imports and exports at large. I came down here to defend the Board of Trade against the charge which I understood was going to be brought against it. We have had two afternoons' discussion on the general question in which the case of the Government has been very clearly stated by the Minister of Reconstruction, and in which
726
again and again the House has been assured that it is the desire of the Board of Trade to remove restrictions on export at the earliest possible moment. It is very easy to talk as if that could be done at once. People are very fond of talking as if all the difficulties lay on this side of the water. We have to consider the blockade. Many speakers have entirely ignored that. We also have to consider our duty and our engagements with our Allies. And although, no doubt, there are delays—and no Department is free from that, or ever has been, or will be even when the hon. Member opposite gets into office, I am afraid—at the same time I should like hon. Members to realise that a good deal of the difficulty exists on the other side, in the countries to which we should like to export. A great deal of good advice has been given, to which I have listened with the greatest interest and with every desire to take advantage of it. The hon. Member (Mr. Kiley) raised two points which I should be very glad to inquire into further, because I think they are points of great substance. A good many Members have raised the question of paper. I want to make quite clear what the exact position is. Hon. Members have spoken of the restrictions being entirely taken off the import of paper. That is not the case. The policy as arranged at present is that imports up to 75 per cent, of the previous imports are being licensed to this country, so that the imports are not entirely unrestricted, up till the end of April. But I quite realise that there are very great difficulties in this question. The difficulty in dealing with the paper question is that, although it is in one case a manufactured article, it is also the raw material of a good many other things. I can only say now that a deputation waited on the President of the Board of Trade on Tuesday on this subject and he promised to consider the point.
Captain BENN: What is the reason for restricting the imports of paper? Does the hon. Gentleman allege that paper manufacturers turned their works to war work during the War, and therefore on compassionate grounds, so to speak, need protection till they can get into business again, or is it that the paper manufacturers should, in the opinion of the Government receive protection?
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not want to enter into a general argument on that point. The question of the restriction of the imports of paper has been very care-

727
fully considered for a long time. The result of the consideration is that a limited import has been allowed on the ground that British works which under war circumstances have been working at half-strength should have some time given them to recover and to be able to work with a larger staff and more mills so as to reduce the general charges on their work.
Captain BENN: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that because the works Lave had to work with half staff during the War, therefore they are to have protection till 1st September. That is Protection. Is not the same statement true of any other manufacturer?
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman keeps talking about having protection till 1st September. That is an entirely misleading statement. What was said in the Debate the week before last was that we have to settle some policy in regard to the restriction of imports during the transition period, but that that policy should not extend beyond 1st September. We are not now considering the general fiscal policy of the Government, but when that is settled it may come in at any time between now and 1st September. There is nothing fixed until 1st September. Everything has got to be reconsidered before 1st September at the latest. That was stated perfectly plainly. It is the transition period with which we are dealing now. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, Major Lloyd-Greame, referred to a mistake, which we fully admit, in the notice given about rolling-stock by the Board of Trade. It was a mistake, and we are sorry.
Major LLOYD-GREAME: I know it was put right immediately.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid not before it had caused a great deal of confusion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Ainsworth) said that while paper was being admitted free the raw materials of which it was composed were restricted. I do not at this moment understand what raw materials he was referring to. Perhaps he will let me know, and I will go into the question.
Mr. T. WILSON: Wood pulp.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There is no restriction on wood pulp. If that is what the hon. Member meant, he was misinformed. I should like to know what they are.
An HON. MEMBER: We will send them along.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member did not mention them in his speech. I thought he was under same misapprehension. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Samuel Samuel) made a very interesting speech on a good many subjects. He referred particularly to what he called the new Committees that were being set up for granting licences. I do not think he really understood exactly what the functions of these Committees were. He accused the old Committees of favouritism, which I strongly repudiate. If anyone got licences in preference to other people it was not due to any favouritism in the Department; it might have been some accident, but I strongly repudiate any suggestion of favouritism in this matter. As the hon. Gentleman is not present I will not try and explain to him what I thought was a mistake in his argument. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) referred to several points—bootlaces, the glove trade and electric accessories. All these are points which should come under the purview of this Committee which is going through the whole of the question of the restriction of imports. There have been reasons for some of the variations to which he has referred, especially in regard to bootlaces. Bootlaces were prohibited in order to save tonnage; then they were allowed in later as part of an agreement with certain foreign countries. It was not because the bootlaces weighed so much, but because they were part of a larger category which had to be prohibited on account of tonnage. They were allowed in later on, as part of an agreement with foreign countries in order to secure certain concessions for British exports in those countries.
I want to come to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain W. Benn), who opened the Debate. He asked me three questions. First of all, were we anxious to remove control at the earliest possible moment? We have already said, again and again, that we are. He also asked whether we were going to keep down import restrictions to the lowest possible point? I have already said that, so far as the interests of this country and of our Allies will allow it, we shall do so. Thirdly, he asked whether the public will be admitted to the deliberations of the Committee on restriction of imports? That I do not think it will be possible to do,

729
but we hope to send to the Press reports of what passes at that Committee when they report—which they have to do—to the Board of Trade, and to give the public the information at the earliest possible moment. Now, I want to speak on what I thought was going to be the general point of attack on the Board of Trade, with regard to the resignation of Lord Emmott. The contention, as I understood it, of the hon. and gallant Member was that Lord Emmott had resigned—and he agreed with his action—because he thought there were on that Committee a preponderating majority of people whom he described, I think, as interested parties, especially the manufacturers. I understood his contention to be that if the original Council over which Lord Emmott presided had not been overwhelmed by the addition of a large number of gentlemen representing various interests and who were included later in that Council, that there would have been no fear of any partiality being shown. The original composition of Lord Emmott's Committee contained manufacturers almost exactly in the same proportion as the enlarged Council now does, and I want to know why, when a half of the old Council were manufacturers, it was perfectly fair for them to be there to decide a thing, and why is it not fair when, on the new Council there is the same proportion of manufacturers, for them to give a decision, and why they are unable to do it impartially? He said there were no consumers. Everybody on the Committee is a consumer.
Captain BENN: Is anybody appointed on the Committee to represent the interests of the consumer, owing to the fact that the Committee consists of representatives of various manufacturing and industrial interests?
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Committee, as the hon. and gallant Member might easily recognise, for it has appeared in the papers, is representative of various interests—the manufacturer, the merchant, the retailer.
Captain BENN: Hear, hear!
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Well, is he not the representative of the consumer?
Captain BENN: Certainly not; he is the representative of the retailer.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Labour Members. I should have thought that the
730
Member for West Ham was a typical consumer. To say that the consumer is not represented is really a ridiculous contention. Everybody is a consumer. Some are manufacturers of one thing, but they are the consumers of what others manufacture. The Co-operative Society representative represents the consumer, and, as I say, there are a considerable number of Labour representatives who represent the consumer. I do not believe anybody could have devised a Committee more generally representative than this one is. What does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean; and what does Lord Emmott mean by saying that there is a preponderating number of affected interests? We have got to inquire into a large number of trades. We have got to inquire into the question of employment in those trades, and how far it has been affected by war conditions. How is it possible to make that inquiry without having people on such a. Committee as this, who know the business, and who understand what are the requirements of their own trade and very often of other people? There is no such thing as an impartial person. There is nobody who can be said to be absolutely impartial. Lord Emmott himself, as everybody knows, is as impartial as anybody can be. His departure from this Committee is a matter of very great regret, because he has devoted himself with the most unsparing devotion to the services of the War Trade Department during the War. But anybody might perfectly fairly say that he was partial, because he was a manufacturer. The real point is this. You have got here a collection of men sent as representatives of great organisations, well-known men who can be trusted, if anybody can, to do what they think is best in the interests of their country.
I object very much to hon. Gentlemen in this House or anywhere setting themselves up as the only impartial people. The contention really is that nobody but a Free Trader is an impartial person. It must be remembered that the Gentlemen who are serving on this Committee have been divided into Sub-committees where the same proportion is represented as on the general Committee, manufacturers, merchants, labour, retailers and so on. All the interests that are affected are represented, not special interests, but the main interests, and they can hear evidence from other people outside. Such bodies are likely to come to a fair

731
decision. Their decision will come through the general council, and no action can be taken upon it until through the Board of Trade the Government have given their decision.
I think the failure to impugn this Committee has been most conspicuous throughout this Debate. The hon. Member for Putney mentioned in regard to this Committee, there was an absence of merchants, and of the particular industries to which he referred. That absence has already been dealt with. It has been our desire to make this Committee as representative of these great interests as can be, and I contend that we have succeeded in that. It would have been impossible in any other way to have arrived at a fair tribunal. Hon. Gentlemen opposite talk in a glib way about taking off these restrictions straight away, hut they must realise that you have to take one or other of two decisions; either you have to ignore the fact that peace has not yet been signed, or you have to keep up some form of restriction.
Captain BENN: On imports?
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman think it is possible to go on without restrictions until peace is satisfactorily signed? Hon. Gentlemen must face this situation. There are certain industries as they know perfectly well which have been engaged in war work, and they have turned over their plant and machinery to war work, and have not had time to recover their normal condition. Are hon. Members prepared to sacrifice all these industries, and the employés who depend upon those industries? If they are prepared to say that, I shall be prepared to take the verdict of the country on that point.
Captain BENN: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting speech, and he really levies a charge against us that we have not made the attack that he expected. As he has made his answer to the attack perhaps it is just as well that the attack should be made. The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken as to what we mean by impartiality. We know that there is such a thing as a manufacturing, producing, or retailing interest and there is such a thing as the consumer's interest. By impartiality we do not mean that the Free Trader is impartial and the Tariff
732
Reformer is not impartial. On the contrary I am perfectly certain that many Tariff Reformers are impartial. What we mean by impartiality on this Committee is that one is the traders interest whose interest it is to get protection, and the other is the consumer's interest, and we ask where is the protection for the consumer's interest on this Council. The hon. Gentleman, with a very eloquent turn of wit, says that if it is not in heads it is in avoirdupois. That may be a very excellent term but it does not answer the point we make. This is not an impartial council. It is a council of people who want protection. The second point is that it is a tribunal. The hon. Gentleman himself says it is a tribunal, which is going to come to a decision. The country is to be put under a system not of a mild tariff but of prohibition on imports by a tribunal sitting in secret, representing not the consumer but the manufacturers and the industrial interests.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not quite know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means. Any decision these Committees come to will have to come through the Board of Trade and through the Government.
Captain BENN: The hon. Gentleman's words were that this is a tribunal which can be trusted to come to a fair decision, and he thinks that by putting on war manufacturers and distinguished commercial gentlemen he is going to make it more impartial. Where is the consumer represented? The hon. Gentleman says that the decision must be reviewed by the Board of Trade. Supposing this House—and, after all, this House is still the governing body—objects to this or that import restriction. What power have they?
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Vote against it.
Captain BENN: How can they vote against it? A tariff has the merit of being put into the form of a Bill, and you can discuss it, and you can move an Amendment to the Schedule to leave out that or insert this. Under the system now proposed there is a sort of Star Chamber tariff, a secret affair. You will not admit the public, but communiques are to be issued to the Press, stating that this prohibition or that prohibition is to be made on imports. That is done secretly, of course with care and skill and impartiality so far as the Chair is concerned.

733
I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman Sir S. Hoare will understand that. My point is that these decisions will be made secretly, and what is the result? The result is that you are going to put up prices. I say again that the waste and the great expenditure of the Government is the cause of all the trouble in the country to-day. Millions are being wasted. Two millions are going to be spent at Slough. The Secretary for War spoke as if the Slough undertaking was so desirable that if he only had the chance he would like to create Sloughs all over the country. We have estimates of £1,500,000,000. I beg the hon. Gentleman to understand that we are speaking on this matter to the best of our ability on behalf of the consumer. There are thousands of people in this country who are being ground between the upper and nether millstone, people who have no trade union, and no means of defending themselves; the wives and dependants of soldiers who are abroad and who are still receiving the same money as at the beginning of the War, and all this expenditure and these restrictions on free imports is keeping up prices for these people and making their position in life intolerable.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the original Committee presided over by Lord Emmott was a perfect Committee. Who were the representatives of the consumers on that?
Captain BENN: I do not say it was a perfect Committee. I am totally disinterested.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The contention was that the original Committee of Lord Emmott has been so altered as to entirely transform its character. The original Committee did not contain a single representative, except one representative of labour, who could be said, according to the definition of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, to be a representative of the consumers. There are more on the new Committee than there were on the old, and to say that this Committee is being swamped by new elements is not in accordance with fact. The proportion is almost identical with the original Committee, and the only thing is that a wider area has been tapped in order to get wider expression of views.
Mr. CAREW: I had several telegrams this afternoon from paper mills, saying that mills were being shut down, and in view of the great unemployment through-
734
out the country, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to say whether he cannot see his way to allow these restrictions to remain, at any rate, until September next. If that were done, it would remove a great deal of the grievances of the paper mills.
Colonel COLLINS: I wish to support the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member who has referred to the case of the consumer. During the War the interests of the producer dominated, and rightly dominated, the minds of the Government, and we are afraid that the spirit which dominated the Department during the last four years may continue to guide their actions during the coming months. Several hon. Members have sought for a definition of "consumer." and the Parliamentary Secretary instanced the case of a retailer who, he considered, was a consumer. But is not the definition of a "consumer," in comparison with a "producer," one who holds no stocks of any kind, and these particular people, the great buying public who hold no stocks, who are neither manufacturers, merchants, nor retailers, are the consumers whom this House should directly represent? There is no doubt in the minds of the country at large that the producers to-day have a very powerful say in certain Government circles, and I hope that notice will be taken of this by the President of the Board of Trade, and that in the coming months the main principle which will guide the Government in its action will be the interests of the consumer. There is little doubt that the producers, no matter whether they are growing corn or making a particular article, are generally very well able to look after themselves, and it is the great buying public whose interests we must safeguard. I trust sincerely that the Government will remove completely the embargo on imports at the very earliest possible moment. By the removal of these imports we shall be able to secure a larger share of the export trade to the neutral markets of the world. Unless Britain during the coming months is able to withstand, and withstand successfully, the intense competition from America and Japan in the markets of the world, our position will be serious and may well become very acute. That position will be determined if raw materials and everything required in the production and manufacture of these goods can be secured at the very lowest possible price.
The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the unpleasant rumours, I

735
think he said, about the licences, or the system of priority which has been instituted and rightly instituted during the last few years. There have been ugly rumours. I do not know whether they have any foundation or not in substance, but they have existed, and so long as by Regulation a Government Department can give one man the opportunity to import which is denied to another, and, it may be, rightly denied, these rumours will find currency and be accepted in certain quarters. My main object in rising is to urge the Government that by 1st September these restrictions on imports shall be removed, and if the Government desire to restrict imports by any means after that date or about that date they should lay their proposals definitely before the House, so that the House should have the earliest opportunity possible of considering these proposals, and, if it thought wise, assenting to each particular trade receiving the particular protection which the Government think they deserve. I desire to press that point upon the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade. I trust that the Government may take notice of the strong feeling that exists throughout the country, whether rightly or not, that the policy of restricting imports does tend indirectly to increase the cost of living and make it difficult for our industries to compete in the neutral markets of the world.
Major BARNES: I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right in repudiating with warmth any suggestion, if the suggestion has been made, that anything has been done in the direction of making these councils not impartial by adding to them anybody who would be likely to give a prejudiced judgment. I do not think that it is a fair thing to suggest that in any way. But I think that he will agree with me that it is not an unnatural thing that the resignation of Lord Emmott should have caused some uneasiness, and I think that the purpose of this Debate would not be wholly served if he concludes that that uneasiness had spread no further than the Members who occupy the benches to my right. I believe it is true to say that that uneasiness is, at least to some extent, shared by those who are sitting in this House as Coalition supporters of the Government. It will be quite a useful function of this Debate if some recognition is given to that. There is no use disguising the fact, if you even wanted to disguise it, that the Coali-
736
tion Liberals in this House have been in the past, at all events, associated with the policy of Free Trade, and at the recent election I think that nothing was said or done to impair that position.
I am speaking entirely for myself, but during the course of that election I had the unique experience of addressing not only the Liberal Club in my Division, but also the Conservative Club, and on both occasions I was accompanied by the same people, so that if I desired it was impossible to make a different speech in each place, and I said quite frankly—and I may refer to this as other Members have referred to the pledges which they gave—that in my opinion the Coalition could only be maintained if the two great questions of the attitude towards Ulster, and the attitude towards Tariff Reform were suspended. It appeared to me that on either of those issues being raised the Coalition must split without any disguise. In the Debate that has taken place to-night, and in former Debates on this question of restrictions, a number of Members of this House have openly declared themselves Tariff Reformers, and avowed that they are pressing in that direction, I think a declaration of that kind can only be received by those of us who have advocated Free Trade in the past with some uneasiness. We cannot help feeling that the work of these Councils and the decisions they may come to must have some effect on legislation, not only during this emergency period, but in the permanent period which we hope very soon to enter upon. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that full confidence should be established in these Councils, and that we should feel that all such matters as do come before them will receive adequate consideration, not only from the point of view of the producer, but also from the point of view of the consumer. I take it that the proceedings of these Sub-committees are going to be reviewed by the General Council, and I think we may hope that the General Council will take a whole view of the subject in their review, because it appears clear as far as the Sub-committees are concerned, and as far as individual manufacturers are concerned, decisions affecting their particular industry must always be in favour of what is generally known as Protection, and if one simply gets a series of individual reports they must inevitably be in the nature of reports in favour of Protection. One therefore can only hope that on a survey

737
of the whole situation taken General Council there will be a fair balance kept as between producer and consumer. The real question, if we are going to get Protection in this country, is, Are we going to get it in the public interest or in private interests? As far as I was able to understand the gist of the letter which passed between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House on fiscal matters, there was nothing in what was said there to suggest that any alteration of fiscal policy would be made on any other ground than that of public interest. I may be speaking entirely from my own point of view, but I should think the real test that we shall apply to any proposal made in the direction of change in fiscal policy will be the test whether it is really done in the public interest or whether it has at the back of it private interests. I do not associate myself with the Amendment, and if it is carried to a Division I shall vote with the Government; but I think it is of importance to the Government itself and to the existence of the Coalition that we should all be satisfied that the investigations that are being made will be thorough, impartial, and unprejudiced in character.
10.0 P.M.
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I want to make a few observations to the Committee on the subject of the removal of restrictions. Being myself engaged in the overseas trade, perhaps I come more in contact with the difficulties and drawbacks of those restrictions than many Members of the House. I notice that the interference with trade—the system of licences and the prevention of free exchange holding up prices as it does—very injuriously affects the whole trade and industry of this country. Take the case of steel, the price of which is held up by the action of the Government. This has enabled very large business to be done by our American competitors while our English steel trade has been more or less held up. I can speak as the director of a large South American railway. We have had offers of steel rails and locomotives from America pressed upon us, with delivery guaranteed, at a time when our own manufacturers of steel rails and locomotives are paralysed by the conditions which are imposed upon them by the Government regulations as to price and restrictions. Wool is being held up, while in other countries where the restrictions have been removed a great deal of trade is being done in it. I was told there
738
were no fewer than thirty American travellers in Scandinavia recently pressing woollen goods on the markets there, at a time when our manufacturers who before the War had the trade and supplied all the woollen goods there are being prevented—by the dilatory action of the Government in holding up prices of wool and restricting exports—from competing in that market with America, who at the present moment is busily engaged in capturing a market which formerly belonged to this country. In connection with another article I propose to show how injurious is this interference to consumers in this country. I refer to nitrate, which is necessary for securing increased crops. At the end of the War, our Government and other Allied Governments, especially the United States, held stocks of nitrate. The price, of course, fell very rapidly in Chile, where it was produced. But our Government by a system of licences prevented any British merchant or manufacturer from dealing in the article or shifting it at all. At the present time a British merchant cannot buy nitrate in Chile, nor can any British manufacturer there send it to this country. The Government have held up the price in order to dispose of their own stocks without showing a loss, and as a result the British farmer has had to pay from £24 to £28 per ton for nitrate when a merchant could buy it in Chile, and even if he paid 80s. a ton freight could sell it at £16 10s. That is a position which is very prejudicial to the consumer. It is due to the fact that the Treasury is unwilling to let its own stock go at a lower price, and it has adopted this attitude to the great detrimen of the farmer and agriculturists in this country, and also to the great loss of British merchants and of shareholders in nitrate companies here. I would also point out that this policy has not been followed in other countries.
The other day I called the attention of the House, by a question, to the fact that our Government had allowed the Americans to take the whole of the German steamers in South America, and I want to point out how this policy of interference with our trade is affecting our mercantile trade in other parts of the world. Take the case of wheat. Here, again, we find the Government keeping up the price of wheat by an arrangement which was made with the American Government. Undoubtedly, our Government have undertaken to buy wheat from America,

739
where there is a guaranteed price equal to 80s. a quarter in Chicago. By selling a loaf at 9d. we are going on losing £60,000,000 a year, because the Government have entered into this arrangement. Although the Scandinavian can go to the Argentine and buy wheat there at a considerably lower price than we are paying for the American wheat, our Government will not allow British merchants, to go there and buy cheap wheat or to send it to this country, because of the arrangement which had been made. Only the other day my own firm bought some of this wheat in the Argentine market and paid a freight for it to Peru which was practically the same as the freight to Europe. We have mills at Peru and the wheat cost us from 15s. to 20s. per quarter less than we are paying for wheat in this country. I say the Government are pursuing a wrong policy altogether. They ought to remove the restrictions as to price and then we would have not only the cheaper loaf but all those engaged in British industry would have the satisfaction of getting cheaper food.
I call the attention of the Committee to these things because these restrictions are really very serious, not only from the point of view of the man who brings the commodities to this country, but eventually very serious from the point of view of cur export trade. It makes it not only much dearer to produce, but we are also still unable to compete. What we want to get back to is the international competitive price by removing these restrictions as soon as possible. They have been kept on too long. One quite admits that there are certain things which have had to be restricted perhaps, or at any rate trade has to be controlled to some extent, until we saw our way clear. But the time has come when we do see our way clear to a very large extent. To main tarn these restrictions on such articles as nitrate of soda is perfectly ridiculous—there is no other word for it. That the Government should prevent people bringing nitrate of soda into this country and supply it to farmers at competitive prices simply because they have a stock on which they do not want to make a loss is perfectly ridiculous. Take the two articles that are let go—copper and tin. What happened? Both copper and tin fell to the cost of production. You can buy tin to-day as cheap as it ever was, if you take into account the difference in the cost of pro-
740
duction to-day from what it was before the War. You can buy copper to-day at £70 to £72 a ton—it was up to £132 when the War ended—and that is equivalent to not more than £50 before the War, bearing in mind the extra freight and cost of production. That £50 per ton was the lowest price copper ever touched. Therefore it is at bedrock price to-day at £70. Tin and copper were let go by the Government because they had not big stocks of them. They must have had large stocks of them, but such stocks were comparatively small.
I urge the Government to remove these restrictions and to let us get back to the international competitive prices. What they are doing now is simply paralysing industry. How is it that the able members of the Government do not see, as most business men do, that they are simply injuring the industry of this country? They are not only maintaining discontent, but absolutely fomenting discontent in industry by the policy they are pursuing. The policy of letting go is the policy they ought to adopt. While I know it is said in this House that that is the policy they are pursuing, they are not following it fast enough. I noticed the other day that the Leader of the House made a speech, in which he referred to the question of restrictions upon imports, and especially spoke about the difficulties of the manufacturer in this country if certain foreign goods were allowed in freely without restrictions of some sort or other. The phrases used were a little ambiguous, but I would warn the Government that if it means that they are going to put on duties for the sake of protecting manufacturers in this country, then they cannot reckon on the support of many people in this House, on whose support at present they are relying. I should like to make that position quite clear, because I speak for others as well as myself, although I have not authority from them to say so now. I hope that these observations may be taken from one who supports the Government, who wishes the Government well, and who wishes it to bring the affairs of this country to a satisfactory conclusion, to complete the work we have taken in hand in connection with this great War, and to bring about a satisfactory peace. But at the same time I want to make it quite clear that I cannot personally approve of the policy they are pursuing, and I say that they ought to remove the restrictions.
Mr. TYSON WILSON: Is this Committee to sit in secret, and will nobody know what they are doing unless a Return is moved for? If that is going to be the policy of the Government, I am afraid there is going to be trouble. Once the industrial people of this country get it into their heads that a Committee sitting in secret, whose proceedings are not known at all, is responsible for the high cost of living, they will take matters into their own hands. The more openly the Department deals with the affairs of the country the better it will be for the Department. We remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was compelled to withdraw certain restrictions upon new issues of capital. We may be sure that the industrial people will not be indisposed to follow the example of the capitalists in the City and will take steps which will force the hands of the Government and compel them to remove the restrictions if they think that the action of this Committee is keeping up the cost of living. The matter ought to be dealt with openly, as was the case of coal before the Coal Commission. The more confidence we place in the people of this country the less discontent we shall have, I appeal to the Board of Trade to remove as quickly as possible the restrictions which are hampering British trade. Until quite recently the restriction on the import of leather was having the same effect as that described by the last speaker. Anything which prevents the development of our trade is not in the best interests of the country. A Department or a Government studying the best interests of the country will always keep in close touch, not only with the parties interested in the selling and buying of the goods, but with the consumers as well.
Mr. BETTERTON: This is the third time during the last few weeks on which this question has been raised, but having regard to its enormous importance and gravity no one will grudge a moment that has been spent in its consideration. During all these Debates, and also in questions that have been asked from time to time, I have noticed that right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, indeed, some hon. Gentlemen on this side claim to speak in some special sense as if they were the representatives and protectors of the rights of consumers. This House is the guardian of all rights. It is not only in the interests of the consumer that you should consider in the transition time, but you should also
742
consider the fact whether you embarrass and possibly ruin great national industries when they are passing from one stage to another. I frankly fear these progressive steps in the descending scale, the first of which is unfair treatment, the second unemployment, the third elimination, and the fourth the ultimate inevitable rise in the price to the consumer on whose behalf hon. Members claim to speak. With regard to these export licences—it is absolutely impossible to sever the one part of the question from the other—I am in entire agreement with almost everything I have heard to-day and with no speaker more than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn (Sir A. Williamson). On the 10th March the Minister of Reconstruction made a speech in which he held out hopes—in fact, he gave a definite pledge—that many of these restrictions would be removed. He said:
"The policy is that the maximum number of manufactured goods which it is possible to transfer shall be transferred to the free list."
Later he said:
"For the rest, we are trying to get the maximum number of goods moved on to List C, which, as anybody engaged in export trade knows, is a list which means export under licence to any destination."
I confess that I for my part am disappointed at the progress which has been made between 10th March and this date. I have here two lists issued by the Board of Trade. The first is dated 21st February, made before the pledge of the right hon. Gentleman, and the second March 21st, some days after, and by comparing the two lists you will see what has been added. In the second list there are a considerable number of articles, but many of them of the most trifling importance. For instance, you have fresh flowers which you can export overseas, and there are many other articles scarcely more important. The only commodities of real importance that I see are certain iron and steel manufactures. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he speaks, whether he cannot tell the House that in his opinion the time has now come when the restrictions on the export of, at any rate, cotton, woollen and jute goods should be absolutely removed. I know that the anxiety amongst manufacturers of cotton, woollen and jute goods is very serious and growing day by day. The Minister of Reconstruction on 10th March pointed out that many of those goods would be removed to List C, except so far as concerned Scandinavian countries. Those are

743
the countries which afford the best market for cotton and jute and many other goods from this country. Many people in those countries have made great fortunes during the War, and those countries are aft the present time the only market for export of goods we have. The right hon. Member (Sir A. Williamson) made a statement which, if correct, is about the most serious statement possibly, because he said in this connection that America was sending goods to those countries, while restrictions prevented us doing so. On the 19th instant the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Lieutenant-Colonel Pickering) suggested that goods were being sent and ours refused admittance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his reply, said, "I am informed that is not so. The Americans have been booking orders and giving long credit for goods to be delivered when the blockade is raised." If what the hon. Member said this evening is true, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was misinformed and on a most vital question.
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: What I stated was that there were a number of American travellers in Scandinavia at the present time pushing the sale of American woollen goods.
Mr. BETTERTON: Possibly I misunderstood what the right hon. Gentleman said and I am glad it is not as I thought, as it would be a most serious charge against the integrity of America. We have been in the War over four years and the Americans only about two years. They send their travellers over to Scandinavia and Holland and Norway, and when these travellers meet Scandinavians, and Norwegians, and Dutchmen and ask for forward orders the reply they naturally get is: "The last order I placed in England was three or four years ago; they have had my goods and my money for the last three years, and till they deliver one or the other we shall do no more trade with them, but we shall deal with, you, the Americans." That is what is happening every day. I read only the other day in a Dutch paper, I think it was the "Handelsblad," that something like 37,000,000 florins' worth of goods from Holland alone were in this country at the end of January. That means, of course, that the Dutch purchaser is not going to place another order with an Englishman until he gets some of those goods or his money, both of which he has been out of
744
for so long, and that is the way in which the Americans are getting in in front of us and getting our markets in Scandinavia and Holland. I most earnestly press the Government to do all that is in their power to cause these restrictions to be removed, and if pressure is necessary, either on the Economic Council in Paris, referred to in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or elsewhere, I trust they will do all that in them lies to take all possible steps to get these export restrictions removed at the earliest possible moment.
The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Sir Auckland Geddes): Before I begin to answer any of the very numerous, points which have been raised by hon. Members in the last hour, I wish to apologise once again for the absence of the President of the Board of Trade (Sir A. Stanley), who regrets that he is unable to be here this evening to take part in this, most interesting and most important Debate. As my hon Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Betterton) has said, we have discussed this subject now several times in the course of the last week or two, and I am glad the Committee should have had these discussions, because there is no subject more important, more vital to us at the present time than this very subject of getting the trade of the country restarted. Before I come to deal with some of the general questions, I would like to answer one or two of the points raised by hon. Members which cannot fall with any ease into the general answer. The first point with which I wish to deal is that raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Tyson Wilson) on the subject of the Committee which has been appointed by the President of the Board of Trade to advise him with regard to the import restrictions which it is desirable to maintain. My hon. Friend said it was very necessary that there should be full publicity about these restrictions. I agree. It is necessary that there should be the fullest possible publicity about all these restrictions. That does not mean that all the discussions of each of the numerous Sub-committees must be published. That would be an impossible way of doing business, and no one knows better than my hon. Friend what difficulties could be created by the publication of the discussions of Sub-committees of various bodies of men in this country.
But what it is necessary that there should be published, and published fully, is the decisions at which the President of

745
the Board of Trade arrives on the advice of his Committee, and the reasons upon which that decision is based. You cannot carry on with a very difficult procedure of this sort without publicity, unless you are prepared to run the risk of unfair influence and unfair decision unconsciously being given by the President of the Board of Trade. So we agree that there must be sufficiently full publicity with regard to all these restrictions which are maintained. But I would like once more to remind the Committee what difficulty this procedure under the advisory council is intended to meet. The difficulty is this: we are passing through a transition stage, in which the conditions change from day to day. It is not possible to say there is a decision which is permanent in character. The decisions are avowedly transitional. They have either to be taken by officials gaining advice from such people as they can reach to consult, or they can be taken by the President of the Board of Trade himself upon the recommendation of a Committee, the membership of which is known, the chairman of which is a Member of this House, and several members of which are Members of this House. That is surely a vastly better, a vastly safer, procedure than leaving decisions of this vital character to officials consulting unknown experts, and I am sure the Committee agrees. Criticism there may be upon the personnel and upon the composition of the Committee, but a committee of known composition is surely a much safer thing than leaving it to officials, and I have not to apologise either for the shape that the Council has taken or for its composition. It is, in the circumstances, the only step which the Government could have taken to establish such a Council, and, at ail events, to be largely guided by its recommendations.
Another point separate from the main question with which I wish to deal is that of the restrictions on paper. My hon. Friend opposite urged the Government to retain these restrictions on paper until 1st September, on the ground that if these restrictions were not maintained there would be an exacerbation of the difficulty of finding employment for the people of this country. The decision to remove the restrictions was arrived at after a very careful consideration of that very point—unemployment. Paper, as a raw material for industry, when present and available in large quantities, provides greater employment than it does in its own manufacture.
Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British mills can provide all the paper that is required?
Sir A. GEDDES. I am informed that the British mills at the present moment cannot provide all the paper that is required, but it is absolutely essential that in dealing with a problem of that sort the balance of gain must decide the Government's action. The Government, knowing full well that for a time there would be some disturbance in connection with the manufacture of paper, decided to remove the restrictions, in order that the businesses dependent upon paper would be able to get what they wanted. The advice we have been able to receive from the experts makes it clear that that decision of the Government to remove the restriction was right.
Mr. REMER: The statement has been made by the Government that the English mills are not at the present moment producing sufficient paper for the country. I happen to know that the production of the mills, as I stated earlier, is only 50 per cent. of their total capacity. They can produce twice as much paper as they are now producing.
Mr. RAFFAN: Is not the price of the paper important?
Sir A. GEDDES: The expert advice given to the Government made known the fact that when they are working at their full capacity the British paper mills can produce all the paper that is required for use here. But the question is "at the present time." And we held that they could not at the present moment produce it.
Mr. REMER: I am sorry to interrupt, but—
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has already put his side of the case.
Sir A. GEDDES: I do not think there in anything I can add on the question of paper. The Government, in taking their decision, acted upon the best advice given, and in the recognised public interest.
An HON. MEMBER: la the right hon. Gentleman aware that several mills in the country are being shut down at the present time?
Sir A. GEDDES: We were well aware that with the restrictions off paper many of the mills would temporarily close. But that seems to me to be a lesser evil than

747
to have hundreds and thousands, if not tens of thousands, of those engaged in the secondary trades suffering. It is never so easy to decide these things as it is to criticise them. These are what I may call minor points.
On the general question with regard to our policy at present, we have been told that the restrictions that are still being maintained on trade are unnecessary. We are told that the restrictions on imports are raising uselessly and unnecessarily the cost of living. That may be perfectly true—the Government knows that some of these restrictions are doing so for the moment. These restrictions are quite likely to be, fairly enough, included in the many contributory causes which are raising the cost of living. But it would be a poor policy for the Government of this country to try and meet that sentiment by saying, "We will throw away the trade upon which hundreds and thousands of people depend." You have to take the larger view. I assure this Committee that there is no subject more than this in the whole range of government which at the present time is more continuously under review, and upon which the Government is more continuously consulting experts who are in possession of the best information that we can command. We cannot do more than that. But this whole policy of the restriction of trade is separate from those things which go with it. It is as distasteful to the Government as it can be to any hon. Member of this House or any member of the trading or commercial community. We do not like restrictions for the sake of restrictions. We do not maintain them for the amusement of the Government, for the Government has twice as much work to do as it would have were there no restrictions. But all these things take time and thought, and more time and thought, I can assure hon. Members, than some who have spoken with great confidence to-day have ever considered. This question of the cost of living is one of the most difficult and intricate problems that the mind of man could have to tackle. It is said it is due to inflation. So it is in part. It is said that it is due to restrictions on imports, and so it may be in part. It is quite likely just as much due to another factor, and that is to the increased velocity of the currency due to the higher rate of wages. That is a factor which is continually overlooked, and it is one of the
748
most difficult to deal with. As a result of the raising of wages there is more to spend for the wage earner and the money passes more quickly. Those are some of the factors which are steadily under observation and consideration and are considered every time when this question of import restrictions come up.
Think what would be the effect of removing all the import restrictions at the present moment! All sorts of people all the time ask me to remove this and that import restrictions. What would be the effect? We should have this country flooded with goods which we do not really require for our national life, such as mowing machines, sewing machines, roller skates, scooters, with and without motors, and we can get on without those things, and if they came in our money would go out of the country. It is so easy to talk about removing restrictions and sometimes one feels inclined to do it, but we are now playing for too high stakes, and therefore I would urge this Committee to believe that the Government really and honestly desire to get rid of these restrictions on imports just as fast as it safely can do in the public interest, remembering all the time that this Government, led by our Prime Minister, is pledged before a General Election to see that the key industries of the country, on which the life of the nation depends, are shielded, and to see that our wage-earners, our trade, and our national life are protected against unfair competition and dumping. Those are deliberate pledges given by the Government to the country before the election, and those pledges will be carried out, but it is not easy at this moment to sit down quietly and see exactly what is the best thing. Therefore, we have adopted what is, I admit, in many ways an undesirable course, but it is the least undesirable among many undesirable courses, and that is to fix a transitional period and say that during that time we will have a jury structure of protection, and during the time that jury structure is in place we will prepare and will submit to the House the plans for the permanent breakwaters which will protect our national life. That is our policy. I myself, speaking some days ago, explained to the best of my ability what the policy was, and I can only repeat that it is our policy during this transitional period to prepare the permanent plans. It is impossible to do it now in the

749
national interest. Too much is at stake to do it hurriedly. We have got to do it carefully, and, with all the other things that there are, it will take all the time to get it done by 1st September. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Sir A. Williamson) spoke of the restrictions on the export of locomotives. I know of no such restrictions, and the Government officials who are responsible are ignorant of any such restrictions. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not have made such a statement if he had not had some evidence which made him believe it was the case that there were such restrictions.
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. The Government have so fixed the price of steel and iron that it is impossible to export locomotives and rails in competition with America.
Sir A. GEDDES: I apologise for having misunderstood my hon. Friend, but surely my hon. Friend knows that the Government are subsidising every ton of steel in order to try and keep this very trade, and a subsidy is a very different thing from a restriction—at least, I used to believe so. I am glad that my hon. Friend explained what he meant when he spoke of Americans obtaining trade in the neutral and blockade countries. Unfortunately, I had misunderstood him in the same way as the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Betterton) had misunderstood him. I thought he meant that the Americans were actually at this moment sending goods to the blockade countries. There is no restriction about British travellers going there. There is no great difficulty in getting passports. If people who wish for passports apply to the Overseas Trade Department for recommendation they will find no difficulty in getting passports. All that question of the difficulty of passports which existed has been dealt with, and, I believe, from reports I have received, satisfactorily dealt with. If the complaint about passports to those countries for trade representatives are founded on recent experience, I should be only too pleased to know of them so that I might assist in getting them removed. But these great restrictions on our exports, which we agree are at present most hampering upon trade, are now restricted, except goods falling in the three classes I indicated the other day, to exports to the blockaded countries and those who
750
know most of the conditions of affairs in Europe at this time know how difficult it is to remove the restrictions upon trade with the blockaded countries. Every day that passes makes it more clear that the policy of maintaining the machinery of the blockade and a great part of the substance of the blockade was well advised. If we had thrown away that weapon, as we are now laying by a large number of our swords and bayonets, there would have been a great deal of work which was done at the cost of much blood to be re-done. So for a little time the Government, recognising fully the difficulties, must maintain in connection with its Allies the restriction upon exports to the blockaded countries. It is no good my saying at this moment that I think they will be removed quickly. I hope they will be removed quickly, but they will not be removed until our beaten enemy admits in writing her defeat. That is the policy of the Government. We are full of desire, full of sympathy, recognising that it is of vital necessity to do everything that we can for British trade. There is nothing within the agreement with our Allies, and within the limits set by the interests of the nation we will not do for British trade, but there is one thing we will not do. We will not be pushed by uninformed criticism into a course which, after full consideration of the many facts which can only be known to the Government, we believe to be wrong.
Amendment negatived.
Original Question again proposed.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again "—(Mr. Bridgeman)—put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

RUSSIA (ADMIRAL KOLCHAK'S GOVERNMENT).
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESS: I wish to raise, in rather greater detail

751
than was possible at Questions this afternoon, the urgency of recognising the Government of Admiral Kolchak in Siberia. When I asked the question this afternoon, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said, in effect, that we could do nothing, because the Paris Conference was sitting, and we must leave the matter for them. That, perhaps, answered the parallel which I had drawn between the recognition of Esthonia, to which we consented a year ago, and the proposed recognition of Admiral Kolchak's Government. But there is another and more apposite case which I would put before the House and that is the recognition by France, a few weeks ago and during the sitting of the Conference, of the State of Finland. We have not recognised Finland, and for various reasons I am glad we have not. But the fact that France has recognised Finland shows there is no inherent objection to individual countries recognising Governments in Russia and other parts of Europe at the present time owing to the fact that the Peace Conference is sitting. If you are to recognise any Government the claim of Admiral Kolchak's Government is, I think, overwhelming. That Government is now acknowledged to be the paramount Government in Russia. It has been admitted as such by General Denikin, of the Kuhban Cossacks of the Crimea, and by Tchackovsky, head of the Archangel Government. Those Governments now have representing them in Paris, but with no official position there, a committee of the most eminent men, whose names were known in Russia during the period of Constitutional Government. Collaborating with Monsieur Sasonoff, the late Russian Foreign Secretary, there is Monsieur Tchackovsky himself, as evidence that the Archangel Government is entirely at one with the Government of Admiral Kolchak. Under these conditions it is very difficult to see why the Government has so long delayed recognition.
I believe in this House the feeling is overwhelming against the Bolsheviks. There are a few hon. Members who have asked supplementary questions in their interest on questions about Russia, but these supplementary questions are always directed against military action, and the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn), and many
752
Socialist Members, have joined in reprobation of the action of the Bolsheviks, and in urging the importance to this country of an orderly and durable form of Government being set up in Russia. The whole House is, I think, united in deploring the continued disorder in Russia, and we all wish to avoid the necessity of sending a British or Allied Army to that country. Obviously, it is more satisfactory if the present Bolshevik regime can be overthrown by a reaction of the Russians themselves against the poison than if it is overthrown from outside, because any Russian steps which can be taken against Bolshevism will prevent their friends in other countries saying that another form of Government was imposed on them by forces from without.
The Bolsheviks have not been slow to exploit the indecision of the Allies. They have been dropping leaflets on the forces of Admiral Kolchak's and General Denikin's Government in which they misrepresent the case. They misrepresent our unwillingness to recognise them, and make out that it is because we have sympathy with their Bolshevik methods. Shortly after the Armistice, pamphlets were dropped by the Bolsheviks on the forces of General Denikin, saying:
"Soon the English soldiers will come, but not to help you, but us. Have the Allies given you anything. Have you any English guns or any English tanks."
After the Prinkipo proposal, which tried to impose disarmament on all forces alike in Russia, they became even more confident, and stated in a pamphlet:
"You see the Allies are anxious for a rapprochement with us, but as yet we do not know whether we will even talk to them."
The Bolsheviks are spreading amongst the ignorant population the theory that we refuse to help or to recognise the more orderly Governments in Russia, because we are afraid of the strength of the Bolsheviks. The Prinkipo proposal has given the impression that Europe is going to insist upon disarmament, that it is no use going on fighting, and naturally many of the war weary Cossacks feel that they might as well go back to their villages. We know that the failure to recognise Admiral Kolchak's Government is not due to fear but due to the infirmity of purpose which is always the disadvantage of committee procedure, and that if it had been left to one man here instead of a Conference sitting in Paris, we could have evolved a Russian policy

753
many months ago. In the absence of a decided opinion in Paris we urge upon the Government—and I believe we speak for a very large number of Members of this House—to recognise this feeling and to apply the necessary stimulus of our example in Paris.
The Bolsheviks have reached their present success entirely by the mistakes of the Allies. Their great difficulty was food. The territories of the Ukraine, the rich granaries of Kherson and Bessarabia, have been lost, and lost because our representatives, who were thinking of other things, neglected to reinforce Skuropadsky, or to take over from the German forces in the Ukraine the territories which they held up to the Armistice. A disastrous result of our lack of policy in Russia. Surely it is time to take steps to stiffen up the attitude of the Paris Conference! We have waited four months and we have seen the condition of affairs go from bad to worse, because of our vacillation; and we now ask that Great Britain should use its example and its influence in Paris to give moral support to the Governments who are striving to restore order and good government in Russia; because we know that the moral support of the civilised Powers of the West is only next in importance to an armed force at the present time to consolidate the position of the Kolchak Government and to make a lasting victory possible.
11.0 P.M.
Sir MONTAGUE BARLOW: I should like to say a few words in support of the position taken up by the hon. Member who has just spoken. There is no subject which presents to the minds of hon. Members so much difficulty as the question of Russia. First, there is the difficulty of ascertaining what is happening. One thing which is abundantly clear is that there is a position of absolute chaos. Secondly, anything like armed interference on a large scale at the moment is, for reasons into which I need not go, practically impossible. At the same time, as the French Foreign Minister said in a speech which is reported in this evening's papers, there is no use living in a fool's paradise with regard to the chaos in Russia. We contemplate hopefully the prospect at an early date of a real peace settlement as far as Germany is concerned. I, for one, think that any peace of a lasting character with. Germany is practically im-
754
possible so long as the difficulties arising on the German Eastern Front are not adequately dealt with. Granting these propositions, we seem to be forced inevitably to the position which has been admirably put by the hon. Member. We have a reconstructive regenerative force at work in Russia. Admiral Kolchak is making a fine struggle for a reasonable theory, a reasonable policy in Russia. His hands would be immensely strengthened if recognition can be given to him by the Government of this country. Surely it cannot do any harm. It is a possible line, and in all the circumstances of the case, I ask the Government to give very serious consideration lo this proposal with a view to a favourable answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend.
Lieutenant-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I desire to say two or three words in support of what has been said by my hon. Friend on this subject. Admiral Kolchak's Government is in possession of enormous territory, extending for a distance of something like 4,000 miles. It is certainly the most important anti-Bolshevist Government in the Russian Empire. In the circumstances, I cannot see why the Government have not recognised his Government yet. It may be that we cannot yet intervene with armed forces. I for one do not believe that that is the case. I believe that we can get up a very large volunteer Army which could intervene now with great effect in conjunction with volunteer Armies from America and France, and even an Army of 150,000 men added to the anti-Bolshevist forces would turn the scale and alter entirely the situation in Russia. As long as this beastly barbarism, which is called by the name of Bolshevism, is rampant in Russia there is not any possibility of peace in Europe. Therefore, I cannot conceive why we cannot do something alt any rate to help the anti-Bolshevist forces by recognising Admiral Kolchak's Government. Only the other day I saw a photograph of the building in which some of the Russian Imperial family had been incarcerated at Ekaterinburg. The fact that these photographs had been taken by anti-Bolsheviks is proof of the tremendous extent of territory which is commanded by Admiral Kolchak's Government. I at the same time saw a photograph of the mine-shaft down which those grand dukes and their suites were thrown, bound hand and foot, still alive and then finished off by bombs cast upon them. This bestial

755
work that is going on in Russia will spread unless taken in hand at once. The first step is to recognise these people, who are putting up a most gallant fight against the enemies of civilisation.
Mr. INSKIP: I am sure that the sympathy of the House goes with the hon. and gallant Member in the appeal which he has made to-night, but I venture, with great respect, to suggest that there is an even more important principle we should bear in mind than the principle of supporting the Government which appears at the moment most likely to reintroduce law and order in Russia. That principle surely is that our Government will be wise in refraining from recognition of any insurgent State or community which has not de facto power at the moment, because if our Government once begins to recognise according to sympathies which may move it, different bodies in such a distressed country as Russia, they are likely to be dragged into difficulties which they had not foreseen. This is not the first time in the world's history this difficult question of recognition has arisen, and it would be well for our Government to remember the example of Canning, who waited twenty years before he recognised the Republics of South America, which were as much deserving of our sympathy as is Russia at the present moment. I think some of the troubles of the Government at the present moment are due to the fact that the Esthonian Provisional Committee were accorded a recognition to which probably they were not entitled according to the principle on which our Government has always acted in this matter. As far as I know, the principle is that before any community can be recognised as a Sovereign Power it shall be the de facto Government in possession of the territory over which it purports to exercise sovereignty. When a de facto Government has been put in power, then will be the time to discuss the question of expediency which will arise, and whether or not recognition shall be given. I have intervened in this Debate lest we should add to the difficulties in which we find ourselves in regard to Russia. Desirable as it is that law and order shall be restored and that the Bolshevik Government should be resisted by every means in our power, yet that appears to be a question entirely distinct from this question of the recognition which the Government will offer to Admiral Kolchak at the pre-
756
sent time. I hope our Government will be slow—however strong their sympathy may be—to accord recognition to Governments which are not Governments, lest we establish in Europe what has been called the right of insurrection—a right which I venture to think our Government has never yet recognised, and I hope always will be slow to recognise in any form whatever.
Lieutenant-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: I am not quite sure that I follow what was said by the last speaker, nor am I quite clear as to which Government he referred to when he spoke of an "insurgent Government." So far as I can see the only insurgent Government in Russia at the present time is the Bolshevist Government. As to the Government of Admiral Kolchak, there are few Governments who can claim as well to be a de facto Government as that one. I would remind my hon. Friend that Admiral Kolchak has under his control the whole of Siberia and a small part of European Russia, while the Government of General Denikin, that acknowledges allegiance to Admiral Kolchak, has also wide territories in the Caucasus and the South under its direct control. If ever there was a Government de facto in Eastern Europe, that Government is the Government of Admiral Kolchak. I would add my word to those which have already been said in support of the recognition of this Government without further delay. The Government of Admiral Kolchak represents all that is best, quite apart from parties and political opinion, in European and Asiatic Russia. It is a Government composed of all sections of opinion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) this afternoon implied that it was a Royalist Government. Even if it were a Royalist Government it is a Government de facto, and there is no reason why we should not acknowledge it. But, as a matter of fact, it is not a Royalist Government. It numbers amongst its members prominent representatives of the extreme Socialist parties. It represents every section of loyal and reasonable opinion in Russia at the present time. To suggest that it is a Royalist Government bent upon bringing back a reactionary Czarism is as far removed from the truth as anything can be. Only in the last few weeks Admiral Kolchak has officially declared that his first act when he has destroyed the Bolshevist power will be to form a Constituent Assembly and to leave it to the Russians to decide for themselves,

757
without any interference, what kind of Government, Republican or otherwise, they desire.
I suggest that it is due to Admiral Kolchak and his loyal supporters that the Allies should recognise his Government. I also suggest that it would be extremely advantageous both from our own point of view and the point of view of the Peace Conference. My own view is that one of the great difficulties with which the Peace Conference has been faced over its Russian policy is that it has not recognised the Government of Admiral Kolchak, and has therefore not been in direct communication with any official body of Russian opinion. I am convinced that it would greatly expedite the conduct of the Peace Conference and make it much more easy for them to adopt a Russian policy if without further ado they recognised Admiral Kolchak's Government and at once entered into official relations with his accredited representatives in Paris. From these two points of view, first, the debt that we owe to Admiral Kolchak as the representative of the Allied parties in Russia and as the enemy of the Bolsheviks, who entered into an unholy compact with our enemies, Germans at Brest-Litovsk, and, secondly, from the point of view of the Paris Conference who are much more likely to be in a position to adopt a reasonable Russian policy if they are in direct communication with the loyal Russian Government. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should bring the strongest representations to bear upon our delegates in Paris at once without further ado, to recognise the only de facto and the only just Government in Russia at the present moment.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I am very much obliged to all my hon. Friends who have spoken for their recognition of the fact that this is an extremely delicate matter. It is like so many subjects that arise for consideration at the present time in connection with foreign policy. It is so difficult to speak on one side or the other that often already I have taken the liberty of asking some of my hon. Friends not to raise certain questions. Here we have to consider a matter which must be recognised as one which concerns our Allies as much as it concerns ourselves. As one of my hon. Friends has said, there is, of course, a certain disadvantage in working by way
758
of inter-allied co-operation, no matter how enormous the advantages may be on the other side in other connections. But there is this great disadvantage, that whatever might be the private view of Ministers, or indeed the general view of this House, that view cannot be given effect to without the concurrence of those with whom we work in association. I am disposed to agree with my hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last in his description of Admiral Kolchak's Government. I am not sufficiently skilled in these matters to know what is the proper diplomatic description of that Government, but it is a substantive Government, and as my hon. Friend pointed out, it exercises sway over a territory not only enormous in size but of the utmost importance. I was very glad to hear him point to the fact, and one which is not often recognised, that Admiral Kolchak's Government is not in any sense a Czarist Government. My hon. Friend also pointed to the fact that at a recent date Admiral Kolchak issued a statement of policy, guaranteeing land for peasants, and promising the convocation of a national assembly to determine the future form of government as soon as that is practicable. We have every reason to believe that Admiral Kolchak and his Government enjoy the support not only of the military in Siberia but of moderate public opinion of all kinds. One of my hon. Friends spoke of moral support, and much has been said about recognition. I do not want to go into that question of formal diplomatic recognition at present, but it cannot be overlooked that we have afforded to this Government moral support and much more than moral support. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, only two evenings ago, gave a very full description of the kind of material support that we are lending to Admiral Kolchak at the present moment. We have sent him guns, rifles, and ammunition, and instructors in some of the more difficult branches of the art of war have also been sent to him. I think we must leave the matter there for the present. I gather that my hon. Friends have been speaking this evening not so much to the Treasury Bench and, indeed, not so much even to this House as with a view to their views being heard in Paris. They have asked me to use influence in Paris. I cannot pretend, occupying the relatively humble sphere I do,

759
to be able to exercise far-reaching influence in Paris. If my hon. Friends mean that I should take such steps as are open to me to bring their views to the British delegation in Paris, that, of course, I will do with the greatest pleasure. I think that, to be prudent, I had better confine my remarks to what I have already said, and I do so with the greater pleasure because by 'sitting down at this juncture I can afford an opportunity to one of my hon. Friends to make a speech as well.
Major HILLS: I wish to thank my hon. Friend for his very sympathetic reply. The great point he made was that when you enter into alliances you expect certain limitations, and one of those limitations is that you act in common with that alliance. But may I point out that all sorts of smaller nationalities, much smaller bodies than Admiral Kolchak's Government, have received recognition in Paris. Armenia has stated her case to the Peace Conference, Albania has put her case to the Peace Conference, and yet the representatives of Admiral Kolchak's Government have not been received.
I think this is a case in which this country can very fairly give a lead.
760
After all, we have got the example of France, who recognised Finland, but I put the case much higher than that. The hon. Member who spoke about expediency said that we ought to recognise none but the de facto Government of a country. If he means the absolute Government of the whole country and that we ought to wait until one Government is supreme, I should like to ask him if Poland is now the de facto Government of the Baltic and if Roumania is now the de facto Government of Transylvania? No; we cannot wait for that. May I also say that, when he talks of expediency, there is a higher claim than expediency, and that is right? Here it is not a case of two contesting Governments. You have one Government, that of Admiral Kolchak, and on the other side murder and lust and anarchy, which never can form a stable Government. I quite agree that we cannot carry the matter any further to-night. I thank my hon. Friend most heartily, and I am sure from the way in which he has received the case we have made that he will represent it in the most forcible terms to the proper authorities.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  CIVIL SERVICE (TRANSFER AND PROMOTION).
  CIVIL SERVICE (TRANSFER AND PROMOTION).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  SUSSEX AREA (OFFICIALS).
  SUSSEX AREA (OFFICIALS).
  OATS (PRICES).
  OATS (PRICES).
IRELAND.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (SUPERINTENDENTS).
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (SUPERINTENDENTS).
  AGRICULTURAL SCHOOL, STEABANE.
  AGRICULTURAL SCHOOL, STEABANE.
  MAIL SERVICE, DUBLIN.
  MAIL SERVICE, DUBLIN.
ROYAL NAVY.
  GUNNERS (PAY).
  GUNNERS (PAY).
  RECRUITS (CHARACTER).
  RECRUITS (CHARACTER).
  DOCKYARD MEN (CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS PENSIONS, ETC.).
  DOCKYARD MEN (CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS PENSIONS, ETC.).
DEMOBILISATION.
  FISHERMEN.
  FISHERMEN.
  ARMY RESERVE (CLASS Z).
  ARMY RESERVE (CLASS Z).
  OFFICERS' GRATUITY.
  OFFICERS' GRATUITY.
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (SIGNALLERS).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (SIGNALLERS).
  TROOPS ON WEST COAST OF AFRICA.
  TROOPS ON WEST COAST OF AFRICA.
  APPRENTICES AND STUDENTS.
  APPRENTICES AND STUDENTS.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  ORGANISATION.
  ORGANISATION.
  BRITISH TROOPS, TIFLIS (PAY).
  BRITISH TROOPS, TIFLIS (PAY).
  PUBLIC LANDS (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  PUBLIC LANDS (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  ANTI-AIRCRAFT FORCE.
  ANTI-AIRCRAFT FORCE.
  VICTORIA STREET HALL, KIRKWALL.
  VICTORIA STREET HALL, KIRKWALL.
  OFFICERS DEMOBILISED, RETIRED, ETC.
  OFFICERS DEMOBILISED, RETIRED, ETC.
  MISS DOUGLAS-PENNANT.
  MISS DOUGLAS-PENNANT.
  COLONIAL SOLDIERS (LEAVE).
  COLONIAL SOLDIERS (LEAVE).
  RE-ENLISTED SOLDIERS (BOUNTY).
  RE-ENLISTED SOLDIERS (BOUNTY).
  ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT (ACTING-PAYMASTERS).
  ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT (ACTING-PAYMASTERS).
  EAST AFRICA CAMPAIGN.
  EAST AFRICA CAMPAIGN.
  OFFICERS SURPLUS TO ESTABLISHMENT.
  OFFICERS SURPLUS TO ESTABLISHMENT.
  PRISONERS OF WAR (DEATHS).
  PRISONERS OF WAR (DEATHS).
  NON-COMBATANT CORPS (EMPLOYMENT).
  NON-COMBATANT CORPS (EMPLOYMENT).
  RESERVE OF OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
  RESERVE OF OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
  CROUCH YACHT CLUB (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  CROUCH YACHT CLUB (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  ARMY TAILORS (PROMOTION).
  ARMY TAILORS (PROMOTION).
  NAVY AND ARMY CANTEEN BOARD (FUNDS).
  NAVY AND ARMY CANTEEN BOARD (FUNDS).
  HAY (FARMERS' APPLICATIONS).
  HAY (FARMERS' APPLICATIONS).
INCOME TAX.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  CIVIL SERVICE CLERKSHIPS (EXAMINATION FEE).
  CIVIL SERVICE CLERKSHIPS (EXAMINATION FEE).
  EX-OFFICERS (GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT).
  EX-OFFICERS (GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT).
  SURPLUS ARMY HUTS.
  SURPLUS ARMY HUTS.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  MEDICAL BOARDS (REVIEW OF AWARDS).
  MEDICAL BOARDS (REVIEW OF AWARDS).
  NAVAL PETTY OFFICERS' WIDOWS.
  NAVAL PETTY OFFICERS' WIDOWS.
  UNIVERSITY COLLEGES (TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION).
  UNIVERSITY COLLEGES (TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SALARIES).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SALARIES).
  EDUCATION (EXPENDITURE).
  EDUCATION (EXPENDITURE).
  SHUTTLE-KISSING (COMMITTEE).
  SHUTTLE-KISSING (COMMITTEE).
  PORT OF LONDON (WHARFINGERS).
  PORT OF LONDON (WHARFINGERS).
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  APPROVED SOCIETY OFFICIALS (WAR BONUS).
  APPROVED SOCIETY OFFICIALS (WAR BONUS).
HOUSING.
  MANCHESTER SCHEME.
  MANCHESTER SCHEME.
  BIRKENHEAD SCHEME.
  BIRKENHEAD SCHEME.
  INCREASE OF RENT BILL (HOUSE PUECHASE).
  INCREASE OF RENT BILL (HOUSE PUECHASE).
  HOUSES BUILT BY PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.
  HOUSES BUILT BY PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.
  RAILWAY FACILITIES.
  RAILWAY FACILITIES.
  PAPER INDUSTRY.
  PAPER INDUSTRY.
  OIL LAMPS AND STOVES (IMPORT LICENCES).
  OIL LAMPS AND STOVES (IMPORT LICENCES).
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
  COMMODITIES (CONTROL REMOVED).
  COMMODITIES (CONTROL REMOVED).
  SPIRITS (CANADIAN WHISKY).
  SPIRITS (CANADIAN WHISKY).
  CIVILIAN WIRELESS OPERATORS (RELEASE).
  CIVILIAN WIRELESS OPERATORS (RELEASE).
  SEA FISHERIES (DEVELOPMENT).
  SEA FISHERIES (DEVELOPMENT).
Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
BRENTFORD GAS BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

PUBLIC NOTARIES (ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I think no detailed explanation is required; but I may toll you in a sentence that when the case of solicitors' clerks was dealt with in 1916, the case of the articled clerks of public notaries was not dealt with. The short effect of this Bill is to modify the requirements of the enactments relating to public notaries with respect to articled clerks who have served in His Majesty's Forces or in other public service or have been prisoners of war or interned in connection with the present war.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SOLICITORS (ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in short explanation of this Bill I may say that the. Solicitors (Articled Clerks) Act, 1918, dealt only with persons who were serving. It is, of course, not unreasonable but necessary that provision should be made for articled clerks who have served at any time during the continuance of the war. With modifications, about which I need not trouble you now but which will be explained in Committee if necessary, that is the object of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On-Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GRANT OF ADMINISTRATION (BONDS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I ought to explain that when there is a vacancy in the office of the President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division great inconvenience has been felt because bonds which are required under the Court of Probate Act, 1857, can only be given to the President, and in the vacancy of the office there is a necessary suspension of that very important branch of public activities. The object of the Bill is to provide that in the event of such a vacancy such a bond can be given to a registrar.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I am extremely glad that the Government have brought in this Bill, which removes a very serious difficulty. I received a number of complaints from solicitors during the recent vacancy, when business was much interfered with, and I was much pressed to secure some legislation of this kind.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ADVOCATES AND LAW AGENTS (QUALIFI- CATION OF WOMEN) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

PUBLIC-HOUSE IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, there is a privilege Amendment which has to be made, and I move that it be made.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, privilege Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment, and reasons for Commons disagreement to certain of Lords Amendments.
[NOTE.—The references are to Bill (21) as first printed for the House of Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 1, page 1, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("the time when but for this Act the principal Act would have expired") and insert ("Michaelmas Day nineteen hundred and nineteen").
The Commons disagree to this Amendment:
Because it is inexpedient to derogate from the rights already conferred on tenants by the Act of 1915.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 1, page 1, lines 10 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 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 Commons disagree to this Amendment:
Because it is not expedient to allow rents to be raised immediately, or by more than ten per cent, before the Act is directed to expire.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 4, page 4, line 2, at the end of the clause insert the following new paragraph:
"(v) At the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following proviso:
"'Provided that if the rateable value of the dwelling-house on the said third day of August exceeds the standard rent as so defined, that rateable value shall, as respects that house, be deemed to be the standard rent.'"
The Commons disagree to this Amendment:
Because it is inexpedient to make substantial retrospective amendments to the principal Act.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
After Clause 4.
Insert the following new clause:
"Restriction on raising assessment.
"5. It shall not be lawful during the period of the operation of the principal Act to raise the assessment (or in Scotland the valuation) for rating purposes of any house to which the principal Act or this Act applies by reason only of any increase of rent permitted by this Act."
The Commons disagree to this Amendment:
Because it alters the law with regard to the assessment; and the Commons consider that it is unnecessary on their part to offer any further Reason, hoping that the above Reason may be deemed sufficient.

LORD AMENDMENT.
Clause 5, page 4, line 22, after subsection (2) insert the following new subsections:
"(3) The principal Act both as originally enacted and as extended by this Act shall have effect as if in proviso (vi) to subsection (1) of section one of that Act after the word 'until' there were inserted the words 'or in respect of any period prior to.'
"(4) Any rooms in a dwelling-house the subject of a separate letting shall, for the purposes of the principal Act and this Act, be treated as a part of a house let as a separate dwelling."
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by leaving out subsection (4).

LORDS AMENDMENT.
After Clause 5.
Insert the following new clause:
"Limitation on rent of houses let furnished.
"6.—(1) Where the occupier of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act, either as originally enacted or as extended by this Act, applies, lets, or has before the passing of this Act let the house or any part thereof at a rent which includes payment in respect of the use of furniture, and it is proved to the satisfaction of the county court on the application of the lessee that the rent charged yields to the occupier a profit more than twenty-five per cent, in excess of the normal profit and twenty-five per cent, as hereinafter defined, the court may order that the rent, so far as it exceeds such sum as would yield such normal profit, shall be irrecoverable, and that the amount of any payment of rent in excess of such sum which may have been made in respect of any period after the passing of this Act, shall be repaid to the lessee, and, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, may be recovered by him by means of deductions from any subsequent payments of rent.
"(2) For the purpose of this section 'normal profit' means the profit which might reasonably have been obtained from a similar letting in the year ending on the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen."
The Commons disagree to this Amendment:
Because it is inexpedient to extend the principal Act to furnished houses, and because of the practical difficulty of ascertaining the "normal profit" in the county court.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
After Clause 5.
Insert the following new clause:
"Amendment of definition of standard rent.
"6. 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."
The Commons disagree to this Amendment:
Because it is inexpedient to extend the Bill to cover cases not contemplated by the principal Act.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment and Reasons be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I waited for a moment in the expectation that the noble and learned Lord, or some other member of the Government, would give your Lordships some guidance in the consideration of these Amendments. As the noble and learned Lord no doubt has only deferred for a few moments any observations he has to make perhaps your Lordships will allow me to trouble you very shortly in respect to these Amendments. May I state, in the first place, that I have it in charge to say to your Lordships, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, how very sorry he is that he has been called away and is not able to be in his place to-night. He had made arrangements in ignorance of when this stage would be taken, and he was unable to alter them.
Your Lordships' House is placed in a rather special position in respect of this Bill. It has been my good fortune or my ill-fortune to have been engaged in many of the occasions when there has been a difference of opinion upon Amendments between the two Houses of Parliament, but in all my experience, which is not so great as that of some of your Lordships, I never remember a case precisely like the present, because in this case the House of Commons has rejected, not some, but all of the Amendments made by your Lordships' House except a few of a drafting character or Amendments which are very little more than drafting. All the Amendments which your Lordships inserted in the Bill have been rejected in the House of Commons, including one which was moved by His Majesty's Government. That is a significant occurrence.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: And this was done on the Motion of the Ministers of the Crown. It is only one more example of the novel system of Cabinet government under which we have the fortune to be administered at this moment, and of the total want of solidarity between the various Ministers who compose the Government, which allows one Minister to move an Amendment in this House and another Minister to move its rejection in the other House within about twenty-four hours.
1062
I have been trying during the period which has elapsed since I had the opportunity of seeing the Commons treatment of the Lords Amendments, to find what could possibly have been the reason for these proceedings. It is not, I am well assured, that your Lordships' House treated the House of Commons with any want of due respect. On the contrary, there was nothing said, so far as I am aware, in the whole course of the proceedings, which was not of a very proper character. We spoke of another House with the regard and respect which are always due from one House of Parliament to the other. So far as we are concerned, no charge can be made on that ground; and, indeed, not merely in manner but in substance, we were very careful to treat with great respect that about which the House of Commons cared.
Your Lordships are aware that there was a series of Amendments by which the House of Commons laid a good deal of store, which they inserted during the passage of the Bill through that House. Such things as the extension of the time over which the Bill should run, the enlarging of its scope so that it applies to a larger class of houses than it did when it was originally introduced, the stipulation that adequate repairs should accompany any rise in the rent, the increased retrospective action of the Bill, the refusal of the clause in the original Bill under which, in certain circumstances, the County Court Judge could permit an increase of rent—all these Amendments which were put in the Bill in another place your Lordships' House respected. In no case, although I must confess I had some hesitation in respect to one of them, did your Lordships attempt to alter the decision of the House of Commons. But, notwithstanding that attitude on the part of your Lordships' House, every single one of the Amendments inserted here was rejected in another place.
I have made it my business to make myself acquainted with the reasons put forward in another place for the attitude which was adopted. There are very few reasons. They are lamentably absent from the discussion. There are the reasons, the technical reasons, which are upon your Lordships' Table, but which I think you will not find to be very enlightening. But, broadly speaking, there are very few reasons. Indeed in respect to one of them,

1063
a privileged Amendment, which was held to be a violation of the privileges of the House of Commons, we have not had the advantage of knowing anything of the reasons of the House of Commons, because it appears to be the rule in another place in regard to this class of privileged Amendments, which are "waivable," that if it is the intention of the Minister not to "waive" he need not give any reasons at all for disagreeing with the Amendment. He need only say, "I move to disagree." That appears to be the rule in the other House of Parliament. I cannot say that I admire the intelligence of that rule, and I could not help congratulating myself that the Assembly to which I have the honour to belong is not bound too closely by rules, if rules lead to so very unintelligent a result. The upshot is that the Amendment which was passed by your Lordships to help the particular class of occupier which the Bill is intended to help, and without which the Bill is probably technically unworkable, however well it can be made to work by a little pushing and shoving on the part of local authorities, has been rejected by the House of Commons upon the ground of privilege (which they might have waived) without any reason whatever being given, either on the Blue Paper which is before your Lordships or in the debate in another place, why this very singular course of action should be adopted.
I pass to the other Amendments. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with details upon them. It would not be correct. We shall have an opportunity of dealing with them in detail in a moment. I should just like to say, broadly, that the House of Commons have rejected not only the Amendments in favour of the landlords which we inserted. And when I say "landlords" I mean, of course, that very poor and humble class of landlord whose only offence is that they are called landlords, and nothing else, and being called landlords they come under the same condemnation as your Lordships do, but in no other respects—perhaps we may express it with regret—do they resemble our position. All the Amendments in their favour have been rejected, and not only have all the Amendments in respect of those who receive rents been rejected, but all the Amendments which we inserted in the case of those who pay rents have been rejected also. The whole of the Amendments which your Lordships inserted in order to protect those who held by a sub-letting agreement a
1064
furnished or an unfurnished house have been rejected, practically without any reason; and of course the privilege Amendment, which I have already mentioned, by which the rating authority would not have been allowed to raise the rates in respect of an increase of rents permitted under the Bill (thereby by raising the rates increasing the rent) has also been rejected.
Your Lordships are therefore placed in a very singular position. I cannot understand what principle has governed the House of Commons in their action. They seem to have selected one class of persons in the country, neither the highest nor the lowest, and given them special privileges, and rejected any Amendment by which those privileges could be in any way diminished. They will not allow a fair rent in respect of repairs, and in order to make good the loss on the mortgage interest they will not allow a fair rent to be given to those wretched small landlords; on the other hand they will give no relief whatever to the still smaller persons who pay rent to those very privileged individuals who are the immediate occupiers. That is a proceeding so astonishing that without very strong argument I am sure it would be impossible for your Lordships to accept.
Therefore it becomes us to consider what we ought to do. This is a matter, of course, entirely in your Lordships' hands. I do not know that anything I have said will have much weight with your Lordships. I only offer an opinion, a very humble opinion, for your consideration. Let me say that it is not the practice of your Lordships' House, at least it never has been since I have had the honour of sitting here, to insist upon all your Amendments. That would be most unreasonable. The other House are the representatives of the people. They have recently been before their constituents, and I am quite sure none of us would desire to treat their decisions with anything except the most profound regard. I should not suggest that we ought to insist upon all the Amendments which we made. There are, in the first place, the Amendments which we inserted the object of which is to permit, as I have said, the raising of the rent in order to compensate for the increased charge on mortgage interest, and for the stipulation as to repairs. That is not, as the House of Commons have left the Bill, sufficient

1065
or anything like sufficient. These unfortunate people will be out of pocket altogether with the depreciated currency which we use. Many of them are very poor. I know this of my own experience. Many of these so-called landlords are widows and persons with small means who have invested their small savings in house property, and who really have lived upon the rents which they received from the property. The House, of Commons are determined that, so far as they are concerned, these unfortunate persons should be ruined.
I do not think that your Lordships would be wise to insist upon that Amendment, and I will explain why. In the first place the Amendment was passed in this House with a very small majority; in the second place, its bearing on the Bill is very complicated. The Bill itself is a very complicated one. It is one of those Bills which are drafted by reference, and are extremely difficult to understand—so difficult to understand that I am sorry to say the House of Commons has not understood it. If your Lordships will look at the Blue Paper you will find that they think that we provided in our Amendment that the rent should be raisable from the passing of the Act. Unless you read the Bill very carefully and the Amendments, the mistake is not unnatural; but, as a matter of fact, the first, increase of 10 per cent, cannot begin until what is called the extended period, which is six months after the declaration of peace. That complication is one reason why I think it would be unwise to insist upon the Amendment, because these things having to be justified in the country it is always difficult to justify what is difficult to explain.
Undoubtedly, upon this subject, of the raising of the rent from 10 per cent, to 25 per cent., very much uncertainty is felt in different parts of the country. One of the few Amendments brought forward in the House of Commons was an Amendment by an hon. gentleman who said that there were over a million persons out of employment, and that their feelings on the subject were very strong. He certainly was in a much better position to judge of that than I am, or any of your Lordships are, for he himself represents many of them. Those seem to me to be good reasons why your Lordships should not insist upon that particular Amendment. After all, the unemployment to which the
1066
hon. gentleman referred is part of the sequel of the war, and therefore to that extent no doubt this measure may be looked upon as a war measure, and one which ought to be treated in a special way. For that reason I venture to suggest that that Amendment, and the Amendment shortening the period by which the operation of the Bill would commence, should not be insisted upon.
But when I turn from those Amendments to the Amendments which provided that in the case of sub-letting the same principle should be applied in the rent which is paid by the sub-tenant to the tenant as is applied in the case of the rent paid by the tenant to the landlord, I confess that I do not see how it is possible for your Lordships to abandon the Amendments which you passed. They are obviously just. There can be no possible reason, as far as I can see, why a different treatment should be meted out to the subtenants from that given to the tenants. If it is difficult for the tenant to pay rent, then it is equally difficult for the subtenant, to do so; and if the tenants come to Parliament and ask for relief they have no right to use that relief in order to make money out of somebody else. That is precisely what they are doing; and it seems to me so outrageous a principle, and one so utterly contrary to the most elementary dictates of justice and equity that if your Lordships were to abandon these Amendments it would be really little use our sitting here at all.
I observe, in reading what passed in another place, a great desire on the part of hon. gentlemen sitting in different parts of the House to vindicate their democratic principles. I am a believer in Tory democracy. I have ventured to say in your Lordships' House—and your Lordships were, good enough to listen to me—how deeply I felt the obligation upon us to show the sympathy which we feel, and. which is a perfectly sincere sentiment on our part, with all the hopes and fears and interests of the wage-earning class. It is an old policy of the Party to which I belong. It is a policy in which I have been brought up, and one in which I believe. It is a policy founded upon justice—justice to all classes. I had the opportunity only last night of discussing with some friends why it was that the Army in the field had shown itself so much more disinterested than those who are

1067
engaged in industry at home, and we all agreed that the reason was that they found their motive in an ideal. Those who think that they can really earn the gratitude of the democracy by reducing everything to a cash basis, and who believe that they can hope to gain votes by letting off a man his rent and allowing him on the other hand to charge a high rent, to his neighbour, are misjudging the British working man, and are living in a fool's paradise if they think he honours or respects a policy of that kind. We have deep respect for the objects and susceptibilities of the wage-earning class, but we ought not, so long as we sit here, to lend ourselves to what is plainly unjust. In preventing injustice we fully believe that in the future we shall have the reward which we have earned from the people themselves.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, the Lord Chancellor, who was in charge of this Bill when it was last before your Lordships' House, will reply to any specific Motions that may be made in the course of the discussion which the noble Marquess has just opened. But, inasmuch as he commenced his observations with an appeal for some guidance to the House, I should perhaps hardly be fulfilling my duty did I not respond to such a request coming from him.
The noble Marquess, in the speech to which we have just listened, has defended the action which, largely upon his advice, the majority of your Lordships took upon a recent occasion. He has spoken with fairness and propriety, as it seemed to me, of the reserve which your Lordships exercised in not touching particular clauses or parts of the Bill with which you might not have been altogether in sympathy, and ho has further defended your action with regard to the particular Amendments which were introduced here into the Bill. He has justified them in each case, although I am interested to observe that he is prepared, for reasons which I will presently mention, to advise your Lordships to modify your attitude, in some particulars, and he concluded his remarks by a rather impassioned vindication of the traditional attitude of your Lordships' House towards the interests of the wage-earning class, an attitude of which, I may say with absolute sincerity, I am convinced that there is no more whole-hearted
1068
exponent in this House than the noble Marquess himself.
On the last occasion the noble Marquess defended with some vigour the right of your Lordships' House, as a Second Chamber, to revise. That is uncontested, and you are the judges of the limits within which you exercise that power. I would not presume to lay down any rules, dogmatic or otherwise, in that respect. We are not discussing to-day the wisdom of the action that you took last week; we are discussing to-day the proposition whether it is wise, in view of what has passed in another place, generally speaking, to persist in that attitude.
I do not think it is necessary for me to enter into the merits of the particular Amendments which are, in the main, the topics of difference between the two Houses. Good reasons, I think, were advanced in each case for the adoption of those Amendments in this House; it is certain that, if there had not been such reasons, they would not have been introduced. There was the Amendment substituting a fixed date for an uncertain date for the raising of rents under this Bill. There was the Amendment for dealing with the increase in rent after the passing of the Bill; and as regards that, the noble Marquess just now explained once again, with a great deal of perfectly legitimate warmth, that it is a monstrous thing to say that this particular Amendment was introduced out of regard for the interests of the landowners—assuming the landowners to be the class to whom so many of your Lordships belong. That would be a gross injustice. This was a provision introduced by you to protect an entirely different class of landowners—the small landowners; indeed, to call them landowners is in itself to provoke the very sort of confusion of which you have been the victims.
Then there is the Amendment directed against what, I think, has clearly been shown to be an abuse—I mean the Amendment, or Amendments, intended to prevent the tenant from practising extortion or evading the law by sub-letting houses or rooms at excessive rents. Upon that I understand the noble Marquess reserves his opinion, and we shall discuss the matter when we come to it in the course of this afternoon's procedure. There was one-other Amendment rejected in another place which was moved by the Lord Chancellor

1069
here. The noble Marquess, I think, alluded to that as a somewhat uncommon proceeding. I believe my noble friend on the Woolsack acted at the moment on good advice, as he believed, that the Amendment would lie acceptable to the Government in another place; and if any mistake was made upon that point, it certainly was not made by him.
With regard to the general attitude of the House with respect to these Amendments and the attitude of another place in rejecting them, I have been trying to make clear in my own mind what are the circumstances in which your Lordships' House as a Second Chamber is justified in holding out against such treatment as has been meted our to us in this case. Is this a case where we are entitled to resist the attitude of the House of Commons? The first case in which, I think, this House is not only justified, but perhaps more, than justified, in holding out is one in which the proposals which it has made are carried by very large majorities of your Lordships' House. The noble Marquess has just admitted himself that, in the case of the two principal Amendments, that did not occur. The figures were, in the one case, thirty-seven against thirty-four; in the other case, thirty-six against thirty. And the figures of the minority would, I think, have been somewhat swollen—the decision might, indeed, have been the other way—if some noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite (my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, for instance, who, I think, doubted the wisdom of the course which you were pursuing) had seen their way to support the Bill in the Division Lobby. But my inspection of the Division Lists shows me that only one, or, at most, two noble Lords on that Bench—Lord Buck-master, and, I think, Lord Denman—supported by their votes the attitude which, on this side, we Mere taking up.
The second case which would justify resistance would, I think, be this—that in the action which we were taking we should not be open to any suspicion either of infringing the privileges of the House of Commons or of acting in the interests of a particular class. To only one of these Amendments does my first observation apply. One Amendment, and one only, I think was rejected in the House of Commons without discussion because it was regarded as a breach of privilege. I need not farther refer to that. Then as
1070
regards the interests of a class, it does appear undoubtedly to be the case, if I may judge, from what I read in the Press, that, unfair as I think the charge is in this particular case, your Lordships are looked upon as having intervened in the interests of the class to which you belong. It is an unjust suspicion, I think, in this case; it is an unfounded suspicion; but it is one which exists, and one of which abundant use is being made in the Press of the country, as every one of your Lordships knows.
The third condition which would justify us in holding out would be that we should be backed by a large force of public opinion. Since the action of your Lordships' House last week—there has not been much time to read what has passed since the action of the House of Commons two days ago—I am bound to say I have observed very few signs of sympathy for the position which you took up with regard to this Bill.
My last condition justifying resistance would be that our protest should find considerable support in another place, and should be justified by success. Like the noble Marquess, I read the discussion which took place in the House of Commons on Tuesday. And although there were one or two valiant defenders of the line that you had adopted here, I am bound to say that there were also members of the Party to which the majority of us in this House belong win sharply criticised the action taken by noble Lords opposite. And, indeed, so strong and all but unanimous was the opinion of another place upon the matter that supporters of your Lordships' action did not venture in a single case to press the matter to a Division. I think I am right in saying that the rejection of your Lordships' Amendment was in every case carried nem. con. in the House of Commons. That may have been ill judged, it may have been uncalled for, but at the same time it is a fact that you cannot ignore. And these decisions of the House of Commons were arrived at in a House, be it remembered, the large majority of which belong at the present time to the political Party with which the majority of your Lordships are associated.
In these circumstances I do not think that this case falls within the category where the Leader of the House would be justified in asking your Lordships to persist.

1071
There are, there will be in the future, many cases in which you can exert your great authority with influence and with effect. Is this one of them? I doubt very much whether any one of your Lordships is convinced that that is the case. I was reading only just before I came down here a passage in the Daily News, in which, with reference to the debate that took place yesterday afternoon, very high praise was given to your Lordships. This was the remark that I read, greatly to my surprise, in that organ of public opinion—
"The country is finding in the House of Lords the only court to which it can look for protection of its interests or the decencies of public life."
This was very high praise from a most unexpected quarter; but I am not quite sure in my own mind whether it was not more inspired by dislike of His Majesty's present advisers than it was by enthusiasm for your Lordships' House. However that may be, I do not want to impair this unsolicited, but, as I think, well-deserved reputation, by advising your Lordships to take any step on this occasion which in the general interest would be unwise.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I desire to say only a very few words following what has fallen from the Leader of the House, especially as he was good enough to mention me as having advised a certain course in respect to some of the Amendments at an earlier stage. On that occasion, in relation to the two first Amendments moved by my noble friend behind me (Lord Salisbury) and by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, I expressed the opinion that those did not afford a favourable field for a collision with another place. It was almost certain to be said, as I thought, that if we pressed those Amendments on the attention of the House of Commons we did so to a considerable extent as interested persons. I stated my belief that such a charge against us would be in the main unfounded, because the class of property owner mainly affected by the Amendments is a far smaller owner than those represented in your Lordships' House. But still it would not be quite true to state—as I think the noble Earl opposite seemed disposed to state—that there would be no foundation for the charge; because, as a matter of fact, practically all those of us in your Lordships' House who are owners of property do own a certain amount of property of the kind
1072
in question, and if there were any idea of profiting by an Amendment of that kind we should as individuals possibly gain accordingly. I therefore thought that it would be unwise to press those particular Amendments, and consequently, as the noble Earl truly said, I did not support my noble friend behind me in putting them before your Lordships' House. I entirely also agree with him that on those Amendments now it would not be wise to insist.
Until we come to the consideration of the later Amendments I do not desire to discuss their substance, or to express any opinion as to whether it would be wise for your Lordships to insist upon them—those, I mean, on which the noble Marquess indicated his opinion that we ought to insist. But I can fairly say that, subject to anything that may be stated on their merits from the Benches opposite, they seemed to me to fall into an entirely different category; that they are quite clearly and on the face of them designed for the protection of a humble class of tenant; and there can be no question that any of your Lordships who favour them are actuated by the faintest tinge of self interest. I will not say any more on that subject at this moment.
The noble Earl the Leader of the House laid down a very careful series of rules which, as he conceived, might guide the conduct of your Lordships' House in such a case as this. For one thing he stated that a certain measure of support in the House of Commons ought to be forthcoming before we could think it right to insist on a particular Amendment. My impression, from having looked at the Report of another place, was that, as regards one or two of the Amendments, there was a distinct expression of opinion in that House that they ought to be accepted there. And it did also strike me—as I confess it has struck me on some former occasions when I have been sitting on the other side of the House—that the treatment by His Majesty's Government of the arguments advanced here was somewhat curt; that the opposing arguments were not developed to the extent which we might have been fairly entitled to claim, and that the whole matter was brushed aside somewhat roughly instead of receiving the degree of consideration which I think they might have had reason to expect. Nor do I think that the fact that the Amendments were not carried in this House by

1073
an overwhelming majority is one to which we need pay very great regard. It was not a very full House. The attendance here on the days on which we ordinarily sit is very largely composed of those who are accustomed, and indeed (if one likes to put it so) obliged, to support His Majesty's Government in such a case. Therefore the degree of independent opinion which was manifested by your Lordships on that occasion was, I think, far larger than the mere figures would give one reason to suppose.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, after what has fallen from the noble Marquess who has just sat down, I really hope we may appeal to the noble Earl the Leader of the House to reconsider his attitude with regard to some of the later Amendments to which allusion has been made. Taking the noble Earl's own definition of the conditions under which this House has a right to insist on Amendments—in the first place I think he was not able to be present; we know of his very engrossing duties elsewhere during the. greater part of those discussions—if he had been present I am sure he would have been deeply impressed not merely with the absence of any argument, on the part of the Government opposed to the views we put forward on behalf of the smaller tenants, but by the acceptance by the noble and learned Lord of the principle and the fact that he merely suggested to us that the Government draftsman would be prepared to put into a form more acceptable to the Government the views which he, felt were acceptable to the whole House. Therefore the first question on which the noble Earl puts stress—namely, that the Amendments should have been supported by a large majority here, is even more enforced in the case of Amendments which were unanimously accepted by the House as a whole.
That is not the only point. The noble Earl talked of a large force of public opinion outside. I can only judge from the post-bag of which I am now the victim since moving certain Amendments. I have not received one line of opposition; but I have received scores of cases of the most telling hardship. Only this morning I received, from a man living in my own neighbourhood, a request to me as a landlord, "Will you not set right this anomaly? Here I am with employment assured me in the neighbourhood in which I have
1074
lived all my life, but I am unable to find a house. I have a large family, and you have a house which you have let to someone at £13 a year, who has sub-let it to a sergeant in the Canadian Infantry for £65 a year, because it has a little furniture in it." What is there of democratic principle in allowing a man, whose rent it had never occurred to me to raise, to make 500 per cent, out of the house at the expense of some of those whom we are specially bound to consider, because of the circumstances in which they are serving this country. I only suggest that if such cases, which cannot be answered, could have been put before the House of Commons, or put forward by the Government, we should have been in a different position. What chance had we of influencing public opinion in another place? The Bill was taken here one night and discussed, and early the following afternoon the House of Commons were forced to deal with it. In the ordinary condition of things there would have been some communication with members who desired to be seized of our Amendments, but we left ourselves in the hands of the Government, and the Government took no steps.
I really feel that if attempts are made to prejudice this House by the imputation that we have some ulterior motives in such action, then it is our duty to show that it is not so. I also feel that if on subjects on which we have special knowledge and information, and upon which no member of the Government is able to show there is any flaw in the arguments we advance, and if on those subjects we put Amendments in the Bill and are then asked to withdraw them, when the question is not argued or discussed in the House of Commons, we may just, as well abrogate all right to consider and make Amendments in Bills which come before us. I urge the noble Earl to think twice before he asks us to reject our Amendments en bloc, as the Government have done in the House of Commons. If I wished to say anything contentious I should say that it is a challenge to this House to prove that it has still got some influence on legislation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is undoubtedly true, as the noble Lord who has just sat down has observed, that very powerful arguments were used by your Lordships in the course of the debate in Committee and on the later stages of the Bill, and it is certainly true, and

1075
the noble Lord is quite entitled to point it out, that in reply to many of the hard case cited I was not able to give a satisfactory reply. In fact, the noble Marquess somewhat mercilessly, and more than once, commented on that circumstance, and the only defence possible to make in relation to some of those hard cases was that the apprehensions entertained were well-founded; that the Bill was admittedly a necessary Bill; and that it was extremely hard to suggest a way in which the objects of the Bill could be attained while, at the same time avoiding the mischiefs indicated. It is quite true that on more than one occasion I placed the draftsman of the Government at the disposal of noble Lords opposite—an unusual course, which I adopted for the reason that very meritorious cases were on more than one occasion made out. On only one of those occasions did I definitely indicate that I was prepared to accept an Amendment. In the other cases, to one of which the noble Lord has just called attention, I made it quite plain that the difficulty was a very great one to so amend the Bill as to meet the case, and I could not give any satisfaction that the only method by which it could be attempted, an exceedingly cumbrous one, would be acceptable in another place.
I cannot help thinking that some of the later Amendments might have had a more favourable reception elsewhere had it not been for the persistence in the first two. The reasons for the rejection by the House of Commons of the first and second Amendments, and particularly of the. first Amendment, can be defended very much more easily than the reasons given for disagreement with some of the later Amendments.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The first Amendment the Commons disagree to "because it is inexpedient to derogate from the rights already conferred on tenants by the Act of 1915." It is true, and I ventured to point it out in the debate, that to accept this Amendment did in fact derogate from the Parliamentary bargain to which your Lordships were parties, and which was contained in the principal Act, that these tenants should have immunity from an increase of rent till peace was signed and for six months afterwards. Therefore I ventured to think at the time that it was not an Amendment which it would be right to press.
1076
The second Amendment is one which, as I can understand, excited at any rate in some quarters of the House of Commons resentment. I agree with all that was said as to much ignorance and malice being shown in discussing the part which your Lordships played. As was pointed out, it should have been understood that the class of landlords affected by this Bill has very little representation in your Lordships' House. I ventured to point out, however, that your Lordships were dealing with a subject which was extremely difficult, and that it was very hard to balance the disadvantages which different persons must suffer. I pointed out that there had been an acrimonious debate in the House of Commons as to whether 10 per cent, increase should be allowed, and that there was a considerable party in the House of Commons who thought that the increase should only be 5 per cent., and that an important and by no means brief discussion took part upon whether it should be 10 or 5 per cent. Certainly it is, I think, a striking circumstance that only one or possibly two members in the whole of the House of Commons, when this Amendment was impeached there, rose to defend the course which your Lordships had adopted in this House.
The next Amendment is of a different class. It is one in respect of which a great deal can be said for your Lordships' view, and I am bound to say quite candidly that when I apply my mind to the explanation of the Commons disagreement to this Amendment I am unable to follow it. The Commons disagree "because it is inexpedient to make substantial retrospective amendments to the principal Act." It is right that upon such matters I should be candid with your Lordships, and I think there has been some misunderstanding on the part of those who drafted the reason for disagreement in this case. I say nothing about the next case because it is concluded by the objection taken, but I ought to add a word about subjection (4), which is struck out, and 6(1).
On that point I start by saying that of all the difficulties of this Bill in my judgment the most serious is that of sub-letting. I think your Lordships called attention to omissions from the Act which have not received the attention to which they were entitled. The difficulty of the task is immense. I attempted several methods

1077
myself of dealing with it, and thought of various ways in which the Bill might be amended in order to give effect to our Lordships' wishes. I failed to do so, and then the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, with great ingenuity, put down an Amendment which I thought was more promising than any solution which had occurred to me to that time. Thereupon, I told your Lordships that I had come to this conclusion, and we invited discussion between the noble Viscount and the Government draftsman in order to see whether their united ingenuity and technical skill could frame a suitable Amendment. That was the history of Clause 6 (1). I thought it was hopeful, but I always had my doubts about it, because, for one reason, it was necessary to fix an abstract standard of "normal profit." The Commons disagreed with the Amendment on the ground that it is inexpedient to extend the principal Act to furnished houses. It is arguable in my humble judgment if it could be done. If it cannot be done it is obviously inexpedient.
The second part of the reason is "because of the practical difficulty of ascertaining the 'normal profit' in the County Court." I think there is great, difficulty in determining the "normal profit," find I am bound to say it is undoubtedly true that it might throw very considerable additional work on the County Courts. If it were left to me I would have taken the risk of this course. If I may respectfully say so, I think it would be most unwise to choose a quarrel on a draft with which none of us pretended to be content. The last Amendment is that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, with which I confess I lave great sympathy, and I so said in the course of the debate. That was an Amendment to deal with a case of dwelling-houses let at a progressive rent, payable under a tenancy agreement with a maximum rent, providing that the maximum rent in such a case should be the standard rent. The Commons disagreed to that Amendment on the ground that it is inexpedient to extend the Bill to cover cases not contemplated by the principal Act.
Here again I am bound to tell your Lordships, quite candidly, that in. my humble judgment this is a case contemplated by the principal Act, and therefore the objection taken, the ground on which disagreement is founded, is not, I think, one that
1078
can be defended. But another objection was taken, as I understand, though it has not been inserted in the Tabled list of objections. It was suggested that a case might frequently occur in which a house was let at a rent rising possibly £5 or £10 a year for a period of ten years, and it, was pointed out that, if one took such a case, one easily might have a period that was the relevant one in the middle of such a lease. It very often happens, when a lease is granted at a progressive rent, that there is reason to anticipate that; the character of the neighbourhood will improve, and, in view of that improvement, the tenant is willing to pay a rent which rises perhaps by £20 or £30 a year.
Supposing a relevant period to occur in which one had to determine the standard rent before the full improvement in the character of the neighbourhood had taken place, you might find that the landlord, would be able to add 10 per cent, to the rent of the ultimate year. Such was the view taken by those, who had technical knowledge of the subject, as I am informed. I have gone into these matters with a little more detail than I should have done because other noble Lords who preceded me have spoken of individual Amendments. I would venture to reinforce, if I may, what has been said by the noble Earl who leads the House. Is it really worth while, when once the Amendment which deals with the amount of rent has gone in the House of Commons—from which up to the present we have met with no support at all—is it worth while to carry this ground of controversy further? I would most respectfully submit to your Lordships that we should be well advised in this case, having made our protest and exhibited many admirable, unanswerable and, in some cases, unanswered arguments, to take the view that we should act more wisely by not persisting.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I suppose we are going to give up these Amendments and acquiesce in the action of the Commons because, we do not dare to stand by our own convictions. I must say that the reasons given seem to me, without, disrespect to the House of Commons, absolutely childish. We read in regard to the first Amendment that it is inexpedient to derogate from the rights already conferred on tenants by the Act of 1915.

1079
There is a contract between two parties, and the House of Commons passes a Bill that is binding on behalf of the tenant and worthless as regards the landlord. We are also told that it is inexpedient to make substantial retrospective amendments to the principal Act.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We are now on the Amendments themselves. I beg to move that your Lordships do not insist on the first Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the Amendment in Clause 1, page 1, lines 10 and 11.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move that your Lordships do not insist upon your next Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the Amendment in Clause 1, page 1, lines 18 and 19.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I move, for the purposes of discussion, that your Lordships do not insist on the Amendment in Clause 4, page 4, line 2. I wish merely to accept the guidance of the judgment of the House upon this point. I have made it clear to those responsible in another place that it is really not accurate to say that this Amendment makes a substantial, or, indeed, any retrospective, amendment to the Act, and I think I succeeded in convincing them that my view on the paint is well founded. If your Lordships think it worth while, I have reason to suppose that this Amendment would be assented to. I know that Lord Balfour of Burleigh has a special knowledge of this subject and has paid great attention to it, and that it is an Amendment to which he attaches considerable value. Perhaps one of your Lordships would move appropriately.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg to move that the Lords insist upon the said Amendment. I understand from the noble and learned Lord that he has some reason to believe, that it will not be unacceptable to the Government.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the Amendment in Clause 4, page 4, line 2.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to ask a question of the Government on the next Amendment—the new clause after Clause 4; and to put myself in order I will move, pro forma, that this House doth insist upon the said Amendment. I do not intend to persist in that Motion. The difficulty in which your Lordships are in is this, that we have not the remotest idea why the House of Commons dislikes this Amendment. What happened in the House of Commons was this. An attempt was made to waive the question of privilege, which Mr. Speaker ruled it was perfectly possible to do, but he explained (and I do not make the least reflection on his ruling which was no doubt perfectly right) that it was impossible to waive the question of privilege unless the Minister who moved it was prepared to move also that the House of Commons agree with the said Amendment. As the Minister was not prepared to move that Mr. Speaker would not allow any discussion upon it at all. We are therefore absolutely in the dark as to why the Commons disagreed with this Amendment. It is all the more puzzling because it is entirely in conformity with the whole policy of the Bill, and is designed to help the special privileged class, which all the efforts of the House of Commons were directed to help. As I have explained to your Lordships, if an assessment is raised and the rates are raised then, by a section in the principal Act, the amount of the increase can be transferred to the rent, and therefore it involves the raising of the rent to the occupier. Yet the House of Commons objected to it. It is due to nothing except this old rusty question of privilege. Of all, I must not say exactly what I think, but of all unintelligent reasons for rejecting a good piece of legislation designed to help the Government, and to help this Bill, this old rusty and creaking privilege is the most absurd, and I cannot understand how any intelligent, body of men, let alone the great assembly for which I have the most profound respect, can consent to be bound by anything so futile as a regulation of that description. I have no right, of course, to make any observation except perhaps to express a pious opinion (it may be the noble Lord will hardly think it is pious) as to the rules of the House of Commons, and I ask if the Government can enlighten us why the Government reject this Amendment.
Moved, That the House doth insist on the said Amendment.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, perhaps I might add something to what has fallen from the noble Marquess regarding this particular question, I have always understood that the House of Commons took an entirely different view of possible interference of your Lordships' House on matters of rating as compared with any interference with questions of taxation, and yet when Mr. Speaker declared this to be a question of privilege he spoke on it with a final judgment, which seemed to imply that it was a kind of matter which we had no right whatever to touch, I should be glad if the Lord Chancellor would tell me whether he agrees with the view that a line, if not a clear and distinct line, can be drawn in the matter of the privileges of another place between questions of taxation and questions of rating.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should like to point out to the noble and learned Lord, and also to remind your Lordships, that the case is even worse than as put by my noble friend the. Leader of the Opposition. There is an Act on the Statute Book which is called the Parliament Act, and Section 1, subsection (2), of that Act is devoted to defining a Money Bill, which this House is precluded by Statute as well as by custom from dealing with. But at the end of that subsection I find these words—
"In this subsection the expressions taxation, public money, and loan, respectively, do not include any taxation, money, or loan raised by local authorities or bodies for local purposes."
Therefore rating was deliberately excluded in the Parliament Act. from this definition of a Money Bill which this House may not touch. It is perfectly true that a later section of the Parliament Act says—
"Nothing in this Act shall diminish or qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons."
What could be the use of putting in that very special subsection (2) of Section 1 if it did not mean that the House of Commons was not usually going to insist on its privilege in the matter of rating. If my noble friend would answer and enlighten us on this subject we should be glad.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Several noble Lords have asked me a series of-conundrums at somewhat short notice on an extremely complex and difficult question. I confess that so much has happened since the Parliament Act was passed that; I have even forgotten that there was a statutory definition of such a point, and while I should like time to prepare a complete and considered view on the question. I know enough to be sure of this, as indeed all your Lordships do, that long before the statutory disqualification of this House contained in the Parliament Act was passed the claim of the House of Commons to impose considerable disqualification upon this House in the matter of Money Bills was acquiesced in. What is important to notice is, if my recollection is not at fault, that the. House of Commons has been in the habit of insisting that their rights in relation to rating matters were of the same class as their rights in relation to ordinary Money Bills. I do not think the right was ever given up by the House of Commons of the claim that such Amendments were privileged, and that they were entitled to resist them.
In dealing with the particular point mentioned by the noble Marquess I can tell your Lordships exactly how this matter arose. I sent over to those who were responsible for the Bill in another place an intimation that it seemed to me that the arguments which were urged in favour of
this clause were rather strong, and I stated that they should be considered on their merits. I know that they had been so considered, but I did not hear the result of the consideration, because the time was so short, and I could not possibly have seen those who were acting in another place. The Minister in charge, Mr. Fisher, had intended to state to the House of Commons, I understand, the reasons why the Government were unable to accept it, but when he got up Mr. Speaker said, "You cannot do so unless you are prepared to accept the Amendments." The Government were not prepared to accept them, and that is why the reasons remain unknown to this day, so far as the House is concerned.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to add one word on the question of privilege. It was decided long ago in the case of private Bills, which often confer rating rights, that such Bills might be commenced in this House, and they often

1083
are commenced in this House, and there is no breach of the privileges of the House of Commons in that respect. I believe that generally the privilege of the House of Commons has been limited to matters of Imperial taxation, and has not been pressed as regards rating questions. It is a matter which one does not go into without looking into the historical associations connected with it, but it has been specifically decided—I can say that with certainty—that all private Bills stand on the same footing, though rating proposals can in the first place be inserted in this House without in any way affecting the privileges of the House of Commons.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: According to precedent, I now have the honour to move that in not insisting upon this Amendment the Lords make no admission in respect of any deduction which might be drawn from the Reason offered by the Commons, and do not consent that this Reason should bereafter be drawn into a precedent.
Moved to resolve, That in not insisting on this Amendment the Lords make no admission in respect of any deduction which might be drawn from the Reason offered by the Commons, and do not consent that this Reason should hereafter be drawn into a precedent.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I move that your Lordships insist on the next Amendment—Clause 5, page 4, line 22. No argument of any sort or kind has been adduced in either House of Parliament why a tenant, who, because he has had the great advantage for four years of the concession of a certain fixed rent—fixed at a time when the present abnormal circumstances did not exist—should continue to take advantage of this abnormal situation and derive an enormous rent and profit for himself out of sub-tenants. As the matter is left, it has to a large extent vitiated the whole intention of the Act of Parliament. The Commons give us no reason whatever for their objection, and so far as I can see no reason was advanced. The sole suggestion has been that because
1084
in the original Act the question of subletting was not dealt with we should not now deal with it, although it is recognised as an evil. That certainly seems to be the negation of all that the Houses of Parliament have been accustomed to act upon. I think that not only are we on very strong grounds in insisting on this Amendment, but I have the strongest reason for hoping that if we send it down again our Amendment will be made part of the Act.
Moved, That this House doth insist on the said Amendment.—(Viscount Midlelon.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with regard to the statements of the noble Viscount that he has strong reasons for thinking that if this Amendment is sent back it will be adopted, I can only say that I discussed the matter with those who are concerned, and I urged all the considerations which have been urged by the noble Marquess, and endeavoured as far as I could to persuade those with whom I was discussing the matter and who are directly concerned in the responsibility for the Bill to adopt the Amendment. But I confess that I have not the same strong reasons as the noble Viscount for thinking that if it is sent back the Amendment will be accepted. Nobody could be more ready than I myself am to assist the object which the noble Lord has in view, but it is well to consider—and we have an illustration of this in the language of subsection (4)—the difficulties of drafting Amendments which would effect the purpose desired. Those difficulties are further shown by the fact that there is this loophole even in the sub-clause which was drafted by so many experienced draftsmen. If I thought that this Amendment would be accepted in another place I should most strongly urge your Lordships to accept the view of the noble Lord. But I do not think it will be so accepted, and I am bound to point that out. The noble Lord says that this evil of sub-letting has gone on for four and a half years, yet in the House of Commons where we would think that Members would be hearing constantly from their constituents that they were suffering from this cause not a single member got up to protest when this Amendment was advocated. If your Lordships have deliberately reached the conclusion that it is worth while challenging an issue upon this point, it is useless my saying anything further, for those that hold that view will naturally

1085
illustrate it in the Division Lobby. While I sympathise with them, I do not think that this is a favourable occasion or a favourable issue for such a challenge.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the last words of the noble and learned Lord impel me to say one word on this question. The issue appears to me to be a perfectly fair one to return to the House of Commons, even though it may not be a favourable one in the sense that in the long run we shall be able to make it part of the Bill. Bat it appears to me that this is just one of the occasions in which your Lordships may properly press your view on another place, because there is nothing to make us believe or suppose that this particular point has been seriously considered by those in another place, all the more for the reason which the noble and learned Lord advanced that no member in another place rose to explain that he had received protests from his constituents on this particular case. That may well be so, because the people who suffer from this kind of grievance are not in a position to protest in a great number of cases, whilst those who profit by it probably are, and therefore they naturally remain silent. I think therefore it will be worth your Lordships' while to remit this matter once more to the House of Commons in order that they may have an opportunity of seriously considering whether it does not represent common fairness and justice.
LORD BUCKMASTER: If it be that your Lordships think that this is a clause upon which it is important and desirable to insist let us, at least, make the issue plain. Do not let there be any possibility of a misunderstanding as to what it is this House is desiring to do. As I understand this Amendment, what the House desires is to protect against the extortion in the way of excessive rent which is only frequently exacted against people who take small portions of houses. It is to protect one of the most unprotected and inarticulate classes in the Kingdom, and it is not to put one single farthing of money into the pockets of landlords. I think it is desirable that that should be stated, because one of the unfortunate things that happens when Amendments of this kind go down to another place is that there is nobody to state in the other place what were the views which induced this House to take the course they did. And, although
1086
I do not suppose for a moment that anything one says will be reported, at least it should be clear from the OFFICIAL REPORT that, in supporting this Amendment against the House of Commons, we are supporting the people who need protection, and they are doing all in their power to oppress them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: By your Lordships' leave, may I say this? Our discussions to-night have been of the most amicable character, and I rise now in the hope that I may be able to suggest one of those arrangements to which in another place I was very well accustomed. The case made by the noble Lord really, of course, deals not only or indeed principally with the class of case referred to in the sub-paragraph now under discussion. Far the most important case is that which he depicted so vividly in which a householder puts a bed and a few chairs into a, room and lets it for the rent of the w/hole house. The noble Lord will do me this justice, that I did all I could to help this Bill in its passage through your Lordships' House. I have heard that there is at least a very great prospect that I shall obtain for him the very important concession he desires, but those who are prepared to assent to that feel great difficulty about this subsection, and I hope that, on the understanding that he will be fully met on Clause 6 (1), the noble Lord will agree to his part of the compromise and consent to the omission of this subsection.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think there has been any case made out against this proposal made by my noble friend. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, has just stated exactly what the issue is. It is an issue about which there cannot be the remotest doubt. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack moved this Amendment which we are now proposing to insist upon, and it was moved for one reason, if for no other, that when the principal Act was passed it was supposed to have been covered, and the then Lord Chancellor (I think I am stating accurately), who now sits on this bench, was understood to say in Parliament that it was covered. Now that doubts have arisen as to whether it was covered or not, and the present Lord Chancellor moves to put it absolutely right and make this protection assured, then we are asked to abandon this Amendment. I cannot think that your Lord-

1087
ships would be wise to abandon it. I think it is just, and it would almost be a breach of faith with the Parliament which passed the principal Act three years ago if your Lordships did not insist upon this Amendment.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: It has been said that this Amendment found no support in the House of Commons. I find that it was only spoken to by four Members in the House of Commons. One of them was the Minister in charge of the Bill, who deprecated agreement with the Amendment. Of the other three, two of the hon. Members who spoke strongly supported the Amendment, one of them going into particulars, and giving examples—most conspicuously the example of a householder at a rent of 8s. who converted himself into a landlord at a rent of 30 s. a week.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I think, puts members of the House into some difficulty. He charms us so sweetly by the appeal he makes for reasonableness, as he puts it or as it would appear to me in this matter, in asking us to give up this Amendment in order that some other Amendment may be obtained. But is not that a very difficult
alternative to put before us? We are asked in effect not to insist upon a clause against extortioners in the hope that we may be successful under some other clause against extortioners. It is an extraordinarily difficult question of conscience which the noble and learned Lord has put to members of this House, and I should be very glad if we could really have some further guidance as to what good reason there is why, if this clause is explained and understood in another place, it cannot be given effect to.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I understood that the only question open to discussion when Amendments were going backwards and forwards between the two Houses was the Amendment still subsisting. It seems to me that, if in another place some one has something up his sleeve to make this clause better, we had better insist upon our Amendment, and let them submit their Amendment to our Amendment.
On Question, whether this House should agree with the Commons in the said Amendment?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Stafford, E.

Gisborough, L.

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

Grimthorpe, L.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Hyrton, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Killanin, L.

Bradford, E.

Cave, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Milner, V.

Newton, L.

Chichester, E.

Peel, V.

Ranksborough, L.

Eldon, E.

Wimborne, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Howe, E.

Saltoun, L.

Jersey, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Shandon, L.

Lucan, E.

Blythswood, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Dinevor, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Ernle, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Harris, L.

Northumberland, D.

Hindlip, L.

Rutland, D.

Aberdare, L.

Lambourne, L.

Somerset, D.

Atkinson, L.

Lawrence, L.

Avebury, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Bath, M.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Crewe, M.

Buckmaster, L.

Parmoor, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Burgh, L.

Phillimore, L.

Salisbury, M.

Burnham, L.

Redesdale, L.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Brassey, E.

Clinton, L.

Roundway, L.

Fortescue, E.

Coleridge, L.

Rowallan, L.

Leicester, E.

D'Abernon, L.

Sandys, L.

Russell, E.

Denman, L.

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

Sandwich, E.

Ebury, L.

Selborne, E.

Erskine, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

Finlay, L.

Sudeley, L.

Forteviot, L.

Sydenham, L.

Churchill, V.

Gainford, L.

Weardale, L.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment insisted upon accordingly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Your Lordships have just refused to accept the very humble advice which I ventured to give. Notwithstanding that, I will heap fire on your Lordships' heads by moving that your Lordships do insist on this next Amendment (After Clause 5, insert the following new clause: 6 (1)).
Moved, That this House doth insist upon' the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move that your Lordships do rot insist on the next Amendment—the last on the Paper.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the observations made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack at an earlier stage of the debate this afternoon show that the House of Commons have completely failed to understand what was the real purpose of this Amendment and how it would operate. It may be that I did not make myself very plain on the former occasion, but the reason was that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack most courteously accepted my Amendment while I was in the middle of explaining its terms and provisions. The result was that what was only half said was quite enough for representatives of the Government in this House, but there was apparently nothing to be said in another place. Let me repeat what the position is upon this Amendment in order that the whole matter may be made plain.
There are a number of bodies—it is not unfair to call them semi-philanthropic bodies—which lay out sites near towns. The Hampstead Garden Suburb is one. Their object is as far as possible to beautify the neighbourhood of great cities, to prevent over-crowding, to secure pleasant and decent houses at a reasonable rent. They are not out to make all they can out of the and that they hold; they are not out to exact the highest rent they can secure from the tenants to whom they let. What they are out for is to perform an extremely
1090
valuable public service—namely, to extend buildings as far as possible and to secure at the same time that this extension shall not be associated with the hideous, soul-destroying, dreary rows of houses that have too often disfigured the extensions of our great cities. Now, as part of their policy they have been in the habit of letting these houses on terms which provide that the rent shall increase for the first two or three years, or it may be increased after the lapse of two or three years; and the amount by which it increases is, say, £5 or £10 on a £50 or £60 rent. If this Bill passes as it is drawn, the result will be that if for any reason one of these tenancy agreements came to an end before the real rent had been reached, they would be unable to let it at the rent which had actually been agreed between them and the tenant as the real rent of the place. I would beg your Lordships to understand that the earlier rents are reductions from the rack rent made in consideration of the uncompleted condition of the suburb into which the tenant is introduced. It may be that his garden is unmade, or that the house requires something doing to it. There are concessions made to the tenant off the agreed fixed rent in order that he may have some compensation for the disadvantages attendant upon entering a new house and a new neighbourhood.
It is suggested by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that in another place they were frightened at the prospect of a rent that increased £5 at a time for a period of many years. I cannot understand how it can possibly affect the matter. One has to remember that this Act applies only where the property is in hand, and therefore the tenancy must have been broken by some means before you can bring this Act into operation; otherwise the normal course of the lease and tenancy will go on. The case that I am suggesting to your Lordships is one where the low rent was existing in 1914, the house being then, let. The higher rent was reached say in 1915, and the lease came to an end in 1917. At that time you would have reached the full rent under the agreement, and this Bill says you must not increase the rent beyond the standard rent, which means the rent at which the house was let on August 3, 1914. In other words, you must not increase the rent more than 10 per cent, above, not the rent which the man is paying when the tenancy ends, but the rent at the notional antecedent date,

1091
which may be so much lower than the actual rent he was paying when the tenancy ended that the 10 per cent, you are allowed to add will not bring it up to that figure. That is the position, and it does appear to me that it is most unfair, and although I am not anxious to challenge controversy with another place needlessly, I should like to know what possible relevance to such arguments as I have been placing before your Lordships, the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, as to why another place disagreed with this Amendment, can possibly have.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble and learned friend is quite right when he reminds your Lordships that he and I in another capacity are accustomed to doing with other people that which I did when I stopped him when arguing his case at an earlier stage. I was interested by the case he made with reference to garden cities. I thought the case was fairly made and ought to be dealt with. I am not at all sure whether he appreciated or answered the objection taken, not I think to that part of his argument which depends upon the class of case he put forward, but to a wholly different class of case. Take the class of case where a house is let upon a progressive rent, the reason for fixing a progressive rent being that both parties are in agreement that property and Tents in the neighbourhood will go up. Supposing, for instance, tramways are constructed and property in the neighbourhood does not appreciate. For the moment the standard period is, of course, August, 1914, and in relation to the standard rent at that date an increase of 10 per cent, is permitted. Supposing that the rent of the last year is to be taken in such a case. Then an increase which has by no means taken place in fact will be taken as the standard rent. I am not prepared, however, to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division on this matter, and if my noble and learned friend will move to insist upon the Amendment. I will accept it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I beg to move that your Lordships insist upon your Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the said Amendment.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
A Committee appointed to prepare Reasons for the Lords insisting on certain of their Amendments and for disagreeing to the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments: Report from the Committee of the Reasons to be offered to the Commons, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to return the Bill with the Reasons.

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS rose to call attention to various communications to the Press on the subject of the administration of the Metropolitan Police Force; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is now some weeks since I put this Notice on the Paper, which I did in consultation with some of my friends. Even then I did so with some hesitation, and I have been in some hesitation since, as to whether I should bring it forward for discussion, because it is not always wise when matters of some delicacy are under discussion in private to arouse a public discussion. But certain communications which have appeared in the Press quite recently convinced me that it was justifiable for me to bring this subject before Parliament. The peace and the safety of the public are so dependent upon the Police that it is quite natural that we should take a deep interest in that body, and that we should be anxious if we have any reason to apprehend that there is any possibility of disorganisation being introduced into it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
LORD HARRIS: I hope very much that the Government may be able to-night to reassure us upon this point. There certainly are disturbing features in some of the communications to which I am going to call attention. I shall confine myself strictly to those matters which we know of, which have appeared in the public Press, and I shall do my very best to avoid any expression or any reference which might cause irritation to any one concerned among those who apparently are in dispute about matters of very vital importance.
After the lamentable abstention from their duty of last year of the Metropolitan Constabulary—a calamity which I am

1093
afraid I must say has severely shaken the confidence of the public in the stability of the force—a Representative Board was formed, representative of several ranks in the Police. The object in view was to give an opportunity to all ranks of representing their grievances to the Chief Commissioner, and I must say here that I cannot conceive it possible that a force with such high traditions, with such a reputation, which had won not merely the confidence of the inhabitants of the, metropolis but was the admiration of the world and the pride of the metropolis—I cannot believe that such a force could haw got into such a state as it was last year, and, if these statements are correct, which I hops they are not, into such a state as it is now, unless there had been very serious grievances to be remedied. This Representative Board was agreed to by the authorities with this object. Apparently this Board has not given entire satisfaction to everybody, and it is now proposed to form three different Representative Boards, representing each of the different grades or ranks in the service; and in connection with the subject, there appeared on March 24 a statement issued by the National Union of police and Prison Officers, which concluded with these words—
"The public must not lose sight of the fact that if the Force is to have the Representative Board made for them in this manner—"
the preceding sentences had referred to the way in which the new boards were be formed—
"the present irritation will be intensified."
This is a rather ominous expression. It-alleges that there exists irritation and that unless care is taken it may increase. That is my justification, I think, for bringing the matter under discussion now.
I have been, and I should imagine most people who have read these communications to the Press have been, much puzzled as to these manifestoes, as they have been termed, by the Union of Police and Prison Officers. They are constantly appearing. Sometimes they have adopted a tone which I venture to submit is very much to be deprecated. I cannot make out to whom they are. addressed. Are they official? Are they addressed or sent to the Home Office or to the Chief Commissioner? They do not appear to be so. They may be addressed merely to the public, but I should like information upon that. They
1094
do not appear to be addressed to the authorities. Yet, in one case, on March 8, official notice was taken of one of these communications, and quite appropriately, I daresay, although an official order has been emulated to the Police that the Cabinet has decided that recognition should net be given to the Union of Police and Prison Officers. I submit, therefore, that it is legitimate to ask what are the relations if any of the authorities with this Union and what is the objection to the scheme of a Representative Board which was established by which is now going to be substituted, so I gather, by a scheme with three Representative Boards.
On March 8 there appeared a statement which is described as from New Scotland Yard, and in that state-merit reference is made to a communication of the National Union of Police and Prison Officers, so that I in that case at any rate recognition was given to the Union. in that communication, which is very long—I do not for a moment propose to read it—the Commissioner stated that certain communications he Lad made had been misrepresented. As I have already said, I can conceive that before the war there were grievance existing in the Force. I think that is highly possible. I can also conceive that the intention to remedy them was prevented by the war. I can also conceive that dining the war the Metropolitan Constabulary were specially hardly tried in many respects, and I daresay the fact these grievances which existed before the war had not- been Up was extremely irritating to them. But now a change has been indicated and some very valuable concessions have been made, to the Force. For instance, ns regards their emoluments pay and allowances of several kinds, a Committee, appointed by the Home Secretary, with Lord Desborough as chairman, is going into the whole subject.
As regards other matters in which they may have grievances of various kinds they have now got either one board or three representative boards, constantly sitting and passing resolutions up to the Chief Commissioner, and it has been conceded that prompt personal attention should be given to these representations by the. Chief Commissioner himself. Surely these are very valuable concessions to the Force, which should satisfy than as a body that attention being given to such

1095
cases as they may be able to represent. In fact, it is only in the matter of discipline that there is any reservation, and I am tempted to express the opinion that in the matter of discipline, that reservation has been wisely made. I should like to read an extract from the Metropolitan Police Orders of a date which I do not recall but quite recently, referring to the substitution of three boards for one. The Chief Commissioner, I take it, gives this as one of his reasons for preferring the three boards which are representative of different ranks to one board representative of all ranks—
"In the opinion of the Commissioner, judging from his experience during the last six months, it is impossible that the discipline necessary to the efficiency of the Force can be maintained if the interests of superior officers are placed in the hands of the lower ranks; or if, in discussions which affect the Force as a whole, officers place themselves on the same level as those who are under their orders. A matter like this cannot be treated in the same way as if officers and men were engaged in sport, where, for the moment, the question of rank is waived, and all take their Stand on their proficiency in the game."
These seem to me to be very appropriate words, and to express a justifiable opinion on the vital subject of discipline.
In the command of such bodies as the Navy and Army, seized with the duty of protecting the country from invasion, and in the case of a body such as the Police seized with the duty of protecting the civil community from depradations and violence, where strict obedience to orders has always been regarded as essential, and essential not merely for the security of the body to be protected but also for the cohesion and the safety from attack of the protecting body itself, discipline is always and always must be under the control of the commander of the unit, however small or large that unit is. Are we to understand that the undermining of this exercise of authority has been aimed at? If so, is it aimed at by the representative board or boards; and is it that which has caused the existing dissatisfaction with the system of one board and the necessity of resorting to three boards.
As I have already said, on March 8 there appeared in the Press a communication from the Chief Commissioner referring to some statements of his which, I gather, he considered had been distorted in a statement issued by the Union of Police and Prison Officers, and referred to on February 22, in a Resolution No. 147, issued by the executive com-
1096
mittee of the Representative Board, the tone of which seems to me likely to cause offence, and certainly reads like a refusal to accept the statement of the Chief Commissioner as truthful. This is one of those statements which I have referred to as much to be deprecated. In the end this particular dispute between the Representative Board, or its executive committee, and the Chief Commissioner has gone up to the Secretary of the Home Department, but what the position is at the present moment I do not know, and I do not think we have had any information in the public Press. Apparently with it is involved this other question of the establishment of the new three boards in lieu of the old one board. I ask my noble friend whether any Papers can be presented which would be explanatory of the causes which have led to this change of system, and what right the board, or boards, desire to have added to those which have been given to them.
I draw a distinction between the objects which the Representative Boards aim at and those which the Union of Police and Prison Officers may aim at, because the Representative Boards are recognised whereas the Union is not. I assume, of course, that the Union does aim at recognition. They have issued statements, one of which I have referred to, upon which it is possible to place an ominous construction and which ought to be deprecated. I wish to be absolutely just in referring to any communication from the Union. This week there has been sitting in London a conference of delegates, called by the National Union, and The Times of the 25th instant states—
"The agenda for the conference including the full text of the constitution and the draft rules for the union, together with a series of amendments of which notice has been given, are published in the current issue of the Police and Police Officers Magazine."
On a recent date, the 25th instant, this appeared in the Press—
"The first four objects of the Union are worth quoting:

"(a) To use every legitimate and reasonable effort to maintain a just, impartial, and efficient public service.

"(b)To promote and encourage at all times the due observance of the regulations and discipline of the services.

(c) "To rigidly maintain a true sense of the obligation to the public to permanently guard against any possibility of members withholding their services as a means of obtaining

1097
redress and to have all differences between the authorities and members arranged or decided by amicable or conciliatory means.

"(d)To establish harmonious co-operation between members and the governing authorities."

THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Are those the Articles of Association?
LORD HARRIS: I can only give you them as I get them. It is the misfortune under which we rest that we are entirely dependent for our information upon these matters upon the Press. We have no other information, and this is evidently a Press description of something which occurred. I will read the commencement of the paragraph; I take it that this is not a communication from the Union, but a Press explanation—
"The agenda for the conference, including the full text of the constitution and the draft rules for the union, together with a series of amendments of which notice has been given, are published in the current issue of The Police and Prison Officers Magazine. The first four objects of the Union are worth quoting."
And those are what I have read.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Thank you.
LORD HARRIS: They seem to be laudable objects, qualified to satisfy one as to the intentions of the Union to do all in its power to maintain the discipline of the Force. I am bound to add this, that on the 13th—I do not know whether it was in consequence of, but it was following the announcement of the War Cabinet that recognition was not to be given to the Union—the National Union, in a long manifesto, of which I will quote the concluding words, said—
"The Police Force have not, nor have they had since the commencement of this crisis—"
There again is an ominous word. According to them there is a "crisis" existing—
"any intention of striking, and they ask the public to assist them in this intention by seeing that they get a full and impartial inquiry into the whole matter which is in dispute between the Chief Commissioner and the Representative Boards."
I felt Bound to quote this statement of the Union as regards their intentions and the existing position from their point of view. But in the same column I have quoted, giving the first four objects of the Union. I find this, which is stated to have appeared in the
1098
Union Magazine of January 23, and is attributed to a constable, who is described as the secretary of the Metropolitan Representative Board. These words are attributed to him—
"There is one point that must not be lost sight of, and that is that every member of the Board must be a Union member and that only Union members' complaints be considered by the Board."
If that means anything it means that any policeman who is not- a member of the Union, or any number of policemen who have grievances and are not members of the Union, shall not have those grievances taken up by the Representative Board because they are not members of the Union. It seems to me that that is entirely inconsistent and absolutely conflicts with one of the four objects which is to have; all differences between the authorities and the members arranged by conciliation. It has a strongly suspicious resemblance to that practice of tyrannical exclusion from the benefits of Unionism which is brought to bear by members of Unions of many kinds upon those members of the community who are not themselves members of the Union, and of the refusal to them of the right of enjoying liberty of action. Again I must quote, I am sorry to say, something that appeared on the 10th. This is a statement by the Union and it concludes thus—
"When will the Government realise that to serve the best interests of the country it is necessary to remove and not create friction in a body of men like the Metropolitan Police who have in their keeping the safety of the lives and property of the citizens of the great Metropolis. It is well to point out that in the. event of extreme measures being necessary the whole of the Police Force of the United Kingdom would be involved."
It is quite possible to construe that as a threat of a strike. It is a very incautious statement and is liable to mislead and also to excite the members of the Force to whom it was addressed. There are other somewhat similar expressions, and they inevitably lead one to the suspicion that efforts are being made in some quarters to undermine the disciplinary system of the Force and the control of Authority
I venture very temperately to offer my humble advice in attempting to dissuade the members of the Force from listening to any such insidious temptation. They have been granted ample opportunities of presenting their grievances. I am sure that they cannot dispute—for I have seen

1099
The Police Orders for the last five months—that in many instances these are being looked into sympathetically. The whole matter of pay and allowances is being gone into by a competent Committee at which they are being heard. They have also like every citizen the opportunity of presenting their grievances through any Member of Parliament either in this House or another place, and I ventured to suggest to them that if they desire to reinstate themselves in the confidence of the public, and to regain the admiration of the world, and to hold fast by those high traditions which were to their honour and of which they must have been very proud, they will take warning in time of the danger of attempting to tamper with the delicate matter of discipline.
I will read to your Lordships the form of declaration which a constable makes on joining the Forces. The general declaration reads as follows—
"I, being appointed a constable of the Police. Force of the Metropolitan Police District, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lord the King in the office of constable, and will act as a constable for preserving the peace"
That is not an attestation, it is a declaration, but I submit that it is as valid as an oath. These are men of experience and position and education, and, having solemnly made that declaration, if they contemplated joining anyother community of men it is their bounden duty before joining such a community to take care that none of its rules run counter to the declaration that they have freely made.
Let me ask them to look round the world. There is plenty of opportunity for giving consideration to various forms of government just now. I ask them to consider whether under any form that has suddenly come to the surface there is any real abstention from an insistence upon the principle of discipline. I have submitted that, however small the unit be or however large, in the case of certain forces, which have to be maintained for the protection of a country or its civil population, the control of the officer of the unit is inevitable and must be insisted upon. I would ask them to consider what has happened in Russia where control was withdrawn in the case of the death penalty in the Army. What followed? The murder of officers without court-martial, and it has gone on to wholesale murder. I do not suggest for a moment that there is anything
1100
comparable between the character of the Metropolitan Police and of the Russian Army as it was, or that under any circumstances the British character is capable of the enormities which have been committed in Russia and other countries, but I submit that in this matter of discipline a lesson is afforded which our constabulary may well study if there is any suggestion made to them that the rules of any community which they should join should come before the declaration which they have solemnly made of their duty to their Sovereign and the public.
In bringing this matter, which I think is a serious one, before your Lordships, I have taken care to avoid any expressions or descriptions which are calculated to irritate any parties in the disputes or arguments that are going on. But, having regard to the statements, some of them very conflicting, which have appeared in the Press, I feel that I was justified—and I hope your Lordships will support me—in bringing this matter forward. I beg to move.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I should like to draw attention to one aspect of this matter which has, perhaps, not received sufficient attention. In the present situation in regard to the relation of the Police authorities and the Force, the noble Lord who has just sat down has dealt so completely with that that no further reference to it is necessary. I should like to say at once, as regards the present situation, that the stand which the authorities have taken up in their refusal to recognise the Police Union is one which I am sure will meet with the whole-hearted support of your Lordships' House, and, I believe, of the vast majority of the general public. But I think it is a little unfortunate that the events which have led up to the present situation are more or less clouded in obscurity. It is a pity that the Government have not taken steps to inform the country of the reasons for the course they have taken. Their failure to do so has, I believe, led to the conclusion that in some respects that policy has net been as consistent and as logical as it might have been.
The first point to which I should like to draw attention is the origin of this trouble—the strike that occurred at the end of last August. The circumstances attending the outbreak of that strike were somewhat remarkable. In the first place the Com-

1101
missioner of Police was in Ireland at the time, and I believe the Home Secretary was also. There appears, so far as Press statements can be relied upon, to have been no widespread discontent or dissatisfaction; at least there was no outward sign of it in the Police Force before the strike. The strike notice was only given on Wednesday, August 28, and the notice expired, the men were due to come out on strike, on the evening of the next day—on Thursday. Thus the authorities were only given a little more than twenty-four hours to prepare for this emergency. Moreover, that notice came not as a collective representation on the part of the Police, it came from the Police Union, which the authorities had up to that moment, and have up to; the present time, refused to recognise. The Commissioner also stated that the first collective representation he had received from the Police was on the Friday, the day when the strike actually occurred.
The first impression given by these circumstances was that the strike was brought about almost deliberately, in such a way that no arrangement could possibly be come to by the authorities at a time when the Home Secretary and the Commissioner were away, and also—what is even more remarkable—at a time when the authorities were actually doing their utmost to meet the men's demands; because a scheme had been prepared by which the pay was to be gradually increased, and the scheme was even to go farther in some respects than the men's demands in that a pension for widows was also provided. It would appear at first, sight that this strike was deliberately brought about in order to forestall the: scheme which would have met the men's demands, and was intended to precipitate a strike at all costs, and to bring about a situation under which an arrangement would prove to be impossible. I do not say that that is the correct conclusion—very likely it is not—but that is, I think, the natural inference that anyone would draw from reading the, accounts which have appeared in the Press. It seems to me either that that is the conclusion, or else the inference is that the Police authorities were extraordinarily and culpably out of touch with the feelings and sentiments of the men.
As far as the strike goes, there is no reflection whatever on the Government. But we now come to certain steps which the Government took in order to deal with
1102
this situation. The first step was the personal intervention of the Prime Minister, and this, I think, emphasizes the force of certain remarks made by the noble Vis-count, Lord Midleten yesterday in regard to the unfortunate consequences of the intervention of Ministers in settling these questions of vital importance. The noble Viscount referred to the necessity of the resumption of Cabinet Government, which has practically ceased to exist. The Police deputation was received by the Prime Minister, and the first point to be noted is that the Prime Minister had announced that he would not recognise the Union, but the deputation which was invited to appear before him consisted of the representatives of the Union. The explanation given of this apparent inconsistency by the Home Secretary, Sir George Cave, was that the Prime Minister received them, not as trade unionists, but as policemen. There may be a distinction, but I think it is almost a distinction without a difference; at any rate, it is such a nice distinction that I am perfectly certain that there are very few people in this country who can possibly understand it.
I need not go into the details of the way in which the Prime Minister satisfied the men's demands. He satisfied their demands as regards pay and the reinstatement of the constable whom they wished to have reinstated. With regard to the recognition of the Union, the Prime Minister said it was impossible in war time to sanction a union, as that would be recognising a principle which had reduced the army of Russia to a state of complete demoralisation and disintegration. I think few people would be disposed to quarrel with that statement, but it is not quite evident what he meant by the words "in war time" There might perhaps be some logic—I think it would be very unsound—if you were talking of a military force, that some relaxation of discipline might be permitted in peace time but could not be permitted in war time; but I cannot see how there could be any logic whatever in making such a statement to a Police Force. The functions of the Police Force are precisely the same in war time as they are in peace time.
I would not wish to press this point too far, because I quite realise that in the course of a more or less informal interview with this deputation the Prime Minister might have used words which he may have

1103
attached no particular meaning to; but it does show the evil of this way of settling these very important questions. Such a question as this should have been settled after a Cabinet meeting, after the most mature consideration, and the declaration of the Government's policy finally given to this deputation should have been most carefully worded so that all possibility of mistake might have been avoided. We all recognise the Prime Minister's qualities. He is peculiarly well fitted to deal with this situation. He has an extraordinary charm of manner, he is very eloquent, and he has a wonderful faculty for hitting the nail on the head. That may be all very well when you are dealing with matters which require tact only, but these are matters of very important policy, which cannot be decided in an informal and more or less haphazard manner. The Prime Minister at any rate made it quite clear that they could not recognise the principle of a union. That was at the end of August or the beginning of September, 1918.
The next thing that happened was that at the end of February of this year the Government issued an invitation to an Industrial Conference to the representatives of various trades unions representing the industries of the country, and they included the Police Union among them. It seems very extraordinary that they should refuse to recognise a certain body of men as representing the Police in August and in the following February invite them to attend this Conference. The Conference was attended by the Prime Minister. We are given an account in the Press of how he listened with considerable amusement to a speech which was delivered by Mr. Marston, the President of this trade union. Mr. Lloyd George seemed really to have treated the incident in a peculiarly light-hearted manner and not to have realised the very serious consequences of the course which was being pursued.
Those are, I think, the main criticisms which can be brought against the Government; but there are one or two minor points on which further information is desirable. One of the demands made by the Police was for the reinstatement of an ex-constable. I do not know how to pronounce his name, but it is spelt, T-h-i-e-l, and appears to have a somewhat foreign ring. When the Prime Minister settled the question at the beginning of
1104
September last it was decided to reinstate this police-constable. Since then he has been doing his utmost to undermine the discipline of the Police Force, and I think it would be interesting to your Lordships to know what the present position of this constable is, because if he is still in the Police Force that position is to say the least a very anomalous one.
Lord Harris has referred to the representative boards which are now the channels of communication between the Police Force, and the authorities. As he said so much on that question I do not think it is necessary for me to add anything; but I believe your Lordships would like to know the reason for the formation of those boards. I do not know that there is any exact analogy between a police force and a military force—I am not well enough acquainted with the interior economy and administration of the Police to know; but if there is not an exact analogy between them the analogy is at any rate a very close one. I fully appreciate that these representative boards are not allowed to deal with questions of discipline, but, even with regard to other questions such as pay and pensions, allowing such a principle as this must tend to undermine altogether the authority of the police officers. The officers as channels of communication with the Commissioner are completely eliminated. All I can say is that a principle such as that introduced into a military force would lead to complete disorganisation and demoralisation, and no battalion or regiment could exist for a moment where it was recognised.
In these few criticisms which I have made I should like to assure the House that I have not made them in any spirit of trying to find fault with the Government. We all recognise the difficult and delicate situation with which His Majesty's Government have to deal; and, as I have said, with regard to their present attitude I am sure they have the support of your; Lordships' House. I can only hope that these criticisms will prove to be un-founded. If they are unfounded I do not see that it will be my fault but rather the fault of the Government which has neglected to explain its policy to the country. We have ahead of us a very serious situation to face. We live in a time of great unrest. We do not know in the least what the outcome of the present state of affairs around us may be.

1105
The time may come when the Government may have to make a stand. I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, speaking on the question of Industrial Unrest, who said that he hoped that the Government would go to the furthermost limits of concession, but, having reached those limits, that they would stand firm and that nothing should induce them to concede a further point. If we should over have to come to that situation it will be absolutely essential that the Government should have the support and sympathy of the country, and it is necessary that in this case, and in all such cases, the policy of the Government should be explained. If the Government has made a mistake it is far better for them to say so. There is nothing which does more to discredit Governments then the air of infallibility which they are so apt to assume. In conclusion, I hope the Government will give us a complete and adequate answer to the various criticisms that have been made.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, I fully appreciate the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in asking this Question to say nothing which could accentuate the difficulty of the situation to which he referred. I hope I may be successful in satisfying him on the majority of the points upon which he touched, and also that I may be able to enlighten to a certain degree the obscurity to which the noble Duke has referred.
I would say first that the "manifestos" to which Lord Harris referred are communicated to the Press by the Union and are not addressed to the Home Office or to the Commissioner, and that no official notice is taken of them. It may be convenient if I here remind your Lordships that the Union is a union of Police and Prison officials throughout the country, whereas the Metropolitan Police Representative Board is a board freely elected to represent only the Police Force in the Metropolitan area. The resolution to which the Commissioner referred in his General Order of March 8, which appeared in the Press, was not a resolution passed by the Union, it was one appended by the Metropolitan Police Representative Board to their draft constitution which they had submitted to the Commissioner. The resolution ran as follows—
"In submitting a copy of the above reconstruction of the Metropolitan Police Representa-
1106
tive Board for the information of the Commissioner, this Executive Committee resolves that the Metropolitan Police Representative Board is regarded purely as a temporary instrument of representation of the Metropolitan Police-pending the early recognition of the National Union of Police and Prison Officers, and this Executive Committee are convinced that if the Commissioner would recommend this cause for adoption by the Home Office his action would be keenly appreciated by the whole of the Metropolitan Police"
The Commissioner pointed out that there could be no question of basing proposals for the welfare of the Metropolitan Police on the recognition of the union. The union had not been recognised by the Government, and the organisation of the Representative Board for the coming year must be based on that fact. The Government decided in August last that the union could not be recognised as a body entitled to make representations to the authorities with regard to matters affecting the Police, but at the same time the men were to be permitted to join the union, "so long as the union did not claim or attempt to interfere with Police regulations or discipline or to induce members of the Force to withhold their services" This condition was agreed to by a deputation of members of the Police to the late Home Secretary. The Government have, recently confirmed their decision not to recognise the union. But when this decision of August last was come to it was felt that the Police should have better means of collectively representing their grievances to the authorities than had existed in the past, and accordingly a Representative Board was set up to represent the members of the Force in matters connected with their conditions of service and general welfare, other than questions of discipline. I would ask your Lordships to note that the question of discipline is absolute excluded from the-purview of the Board.
The Board was to be elected by ballot, and they in turn were to elect a committee of not more than twelve members who should hold office for a year and then-retire, but who should be eligible for reelection. The Committee elected last autumn has sat almost continuously for six months and the members of it have been withdrawn from their police duties for approximately two days in every three. The committee have passed a large number of resolutions, many of which have been; couched in peremptory terms, and on February 21 they forwarded to the Com-

1107
missioner a resolution in which the committee "emphatically declined to accept a statement made by the Commissioner;" and with reference to an attempt by the Commissioner to remove a misunderstanding by a conversation with the secretary of the committee the resolution "requested that in future all comments intended to be conveyed to the Executive Committee or the board should be reduced to writing" The Commissioner thereupon announced in General Orders that he would not receive as delegates from the committee any of the men who were parties to the drafting of that resolution, although he would be willing to receive such a deputation provided that none of the members who took part in drafting the Resolution which I have quoted should form part of the deputation.
The term of the present Representative Board expires at the end of this month, and It became necessary to arrange for the election of a new Board. Judging from his experience during the last six months the Commissioner had come to the conclusion that it was impossible that the discipline necessary to the efficiency of the Force could be maintained if the interests of superior officers were placed in the hands of the lower ranks, or if in discussions which affect the Force as a whole officers were placed on the same level as those who were under their orders. The Commissioner therefore decided that instead of having one Representative Board for the whole Force there should be separate Boards representing the Inspectors, the Sergeants, and the Constables. This will explain to the noble Lord the origin of the three Boards instead of one. The existing Representative Board took exception to this change, and the result has been a partial boycott of the elections of the new Board and only the Inspectors' Board has been constituted. The existing Representative Board had submitted a counter-draft of what they thought should be the constitution and scope of a Representative Board. They claimed that the Board should have (1) jurisdiction in all matters affecting the welfare of the Force or any member—that is to say, without any exclusion from their purview of questions of discipline; (2) they were to have access to records, documents, and books, or any written matter whatsoever connected with any subject of their inquiry, which might be a matter or question of discipline; (3) the Executive Committee
1108
of the Board was to have power to cause the attendance before them of any member of the Metropolitan Police Force, which, of course, would have included power to summon the Commissioner before them. It was to this proposed constitution that they appended the resolution which I have already mentioned, and to which the Commissioner referred in General Orders of March 8. It will be seen that the scheme was so framed as in effect to throw the entire administration and working of the Force into the hands of the Executive Committee, and that while responsibility for the Force rested on the Commissioner's shoulders the power in all matters that might come before the Representative Board, including questions of discipline, would pass into the hands of the Board or their Executive Committee.
The attitude of Mr. Marston. Mr. Thiel, and Mr. Zollner, the chief leaders of the Union, with regard to both the Representative. Board and the question of the recognition of the Union, may be gathered from recent issues of the Police and Prison Officers Magazine, which is the organ of the Union. Thus, in the issue of January 23, Constable Patterson, the Secretary of the Metropolitan Representative Board, wrote—
"There is one point which must not be lost sight of, and that is that every member of the Board must be a Union member and that only Union members' complaints be considered by the Board;"
while in the issue of February 6, Mr. Zollner, who is described as the Union Organiser for the City Police, wrote—
"We, as a body of men, are determined to have recognition, and we are also determined that the Union shall have a say in matters of discipline."
This shows the length to which they are desirous of going, and that it is their extreme aim in the direction of recognition and self-government, rather than lack of consideration on the part of the authorities, that has caused the friction to which the noble Lord refers.
The noble Lord said, and said truly, that it was difficult to realise how a Force with such traditions could have got into such a state unless, in fact, it had been treated with want of consideration; and I fancy that the noble Duke rather inferred the same thing. May I suggest that this comment is based upon a misapprehension as to the history of the Police Strike which occurred in August last, and perhaps it

1109
would be as well to remind your Lordships of the circumstances in which the strike occurred. At the time the Homo Office issued the following statement—
"It has been generally assumed and repeatedly stated that the strike of the Metropolitan Police had been preceded by many applications from the men for an increase in pay which the Commisisioner of Police and the Home Office has refused to entertain. This is not the ease. The following are the facts. In December 1917 the war bonus was raised from 8s to 12 s. per week, and the allowance for each child was raised from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. This increase was accepted by the. Police as entirely satisfactory, as appeals from a Setter addressed by the editor of the Police Review to all members of Parliament in which the following passage occurs: 'On behalf of the Metropolitan Police Force we can testify to the general feeling of satisfaction which this substantial rise in their wages has given to the men, and, perhaps, even more so to the wives.' It was assumed that no further increase would be asked for immediately, and, as a matter of fret, from that time until August 28 no application for an increase of the Police pay was received either by the Commissioner or the Home Office, though in July one or two Question asked in Parliament indicated that a further increase was desired. In the meantime, however, applications for approval of an increase of pensionable pay had been received from the police authorities of Lancashire, the West Riding and other counties, and when the Home Secretary, on his return from The Hague at the beginning of July, after hearing a deputation from the police authorities, approved the increase, it was decided in principal that an increase of pay should be granted to the Metropolitan Police at an early date. The Commissioner of Police proposed that the grant of this increase should be accompanied by a scheme for the payment of pensions to widows of police officers and pensioners, and this proposal, which involved actuarial calculations, was referred to two well known actuaries. Mr. F. B. Wyatt and Sir Gerald Ryan. Their report had not been received when the strike occurred—"
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What date was this?
THE EARL OF JERSEY: Late in August. The statement proceeds—
"As regards the recognition of the Police Union, the position was as follows. Ever since the formation of the Union every Home Secretary, with the full concurrence of the Commissioner of Police, had refused to recognise it. In June, 1917, the reasons for this refusal were fully set out in a letter addressed by the Commissioner of Police to Mr. Wardle, M.P., with whom he had discussed the matter. No reply had been received to that letter, and the Home Secretary, in replying to Questions in Parliament, had adhered to his decision against recognition. On August 28, 1918—"
I would ask the noble Duke to take special notice of this point—
"a letter was received from the Executive Committee of the National Union of Police and Prison Officers demanding (among other things) that the
1110
war bonus of 12 s. weekly be immediately increased to £1 per week and be converted into permanent wages and be made pensionable, that a war bonus calculated on a basis of 12½ per cent, on all wages and allowances be granted in addition to the above demand, and that there should be complete official recognition of the Union and its duly authorised officials. The letter concluded with an intimation that non-compliance with the above demands by 12 o'clock midnight, August 29, 1918, would necessitate the suspension of Clauses (a), (b), and (c) of the Union Rule 2. The rules referred to are as follow—

"(a)To use every legitimate and reasonable effort to maintain a just, impartial, and efficient public service.

"(b)To promote and encourage at all times the due observance of the regulations and discipline of the Services.

"(c)To rigidly maintain a true sense of obligation to the public, by permanently guarding against any possibility of members withholding their services as a means of obtaining redress, and to have all differences between authorities and members arranged or decided by amicable and conciliatory means."

Lord Harris has already quoted those rules and has rightly described them as very laudable objects, but may I point out that these laudable objects were to be suspended the very moment that they became inconvenient. The Home Office statement concluded—
"The letter did not contain, any statement that a strike would take place at the time mentioned, and the men were under a legal obligation to give a month's notice before withdrawing from duty. The strike broke out without further notice at midnight on August 29."
This will clearly show that it was not a strike to which the men were driven by any reluctance on the part of the authorities to entertain legitimate grievances but rather a strike probably against the better judgment of many members of the Force, sprung upon the authorities by those who were determined to secure at all costs, if they could, the recognition of the Union.
Lord Harris has referred to the Committee of which Lord Desborough is chairman, and this Committee is going fully into the question of Police pay, pensions, and conditions of service, and it is hoped that when their Report is received it will be possible to deal with the whole matter in a satisfactory way as regards not only the Metropolitan Police but also the Police Forces throughout the country. The object of the Representative Board as originally laid down was to bring to the notice of the Commissioner matters affecting the conditions of service and the

1111
welfare of the various ranks, other than questions of discipline, so that he might investigate them and as far as possible remedy them or bring them forward for consideration by the Home Secretary as police authority. The Commissioner has placed on record his appreciation of much of the work done by the Representative Board and its Executive Committee in bringing matters to his notice which required adjustment, and it is his considered opinion that the system of these Representative Boards is necessary to the wellbeing of any Police Force.
Many of the Police authorities throughout the country have adopted the suggestion of the Home Office and have constituted Representative Boards within their Forces. It is hoped that before long the system will become general throughout the country, and in this connection I am authorised to state that the Secretary of State is considering the advisability of bringing in a Bill to place these Representative Boards on a statutory basis. Many of your Lordships know the difficulty with which Standing Joint Committees are faced owing to the competition which prevails between different counties when the rates of pay of the Force are being constantly varied. While there are great difficulties in the way of instituting a uniform scale throughout the country owing to the difference in local conditions, it is hoped that some scheme may be devised which will ensure an equitable arrangement and meet any reasonable differences in the matter of pay, pensions and conditions of service.
I will only say, in conclusion, that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, quoted the declaration which is made by a constable on his appointment. I entirely agree with all that he said in that connection, and I think we shall all agree that it is difficult to see how a man who has made such a declaration can faithfully observe it, and, at the same time, obey the orders issued by a Union which, in pursuance of its own ends, may be in direct conflict with the authorities whom that man is pledged to serve. I hope I have answered the noble Lord's Questions to a large extent to his satisfaction, and I venture to express the hope that he will not think it necessary to press his Motion.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I think very little remains to be said after the exhaustive statement of my noble
1112
friend who has spoken for the Government. I am sure we owe a debt of gratitude to the Home Office for taking the public so fully into its confidence, through the mouth of my noble friend. I venture to think that in this controversy, this lamentable controversy, between the Metropolitan Police Force and the Government, the Government cannot take the public too much into its confidence. I am perfectly certain that the less secrecy there is and the more publicity there is the more sure the Government may be of the approval of public opinion. I think the statement of my noble friend is a very grave statement. I think all your Lordships will have listened to parts of it with a feeling of intense regret and even of sorrow, for there was no Force serving His Majesty in any part of the United Kingdom or the Empire that had a larger share of our confidence and, indeed, affection than the Metropolitan Police Force, before the events of August last.
My noble friend has shown that the strike of August last was deliberately engineered and was doubly, trebly unjustifiable. It was trebly unjustifiable because there was no sufficient grievance even for a Force that was not under discipline; trebly, because it is quite incompatible with the obligation of a Police Force to strike; trebly, because this ultimatum to the public was given at a time when this country was still engaged in war. I cannot help thinking that the trouble which still confronts the Government is largely due to the manner in which that strike was dealt with last August. I have already said so in your Lordships' House, and I shall not repeat what I said. But nothing will change my conviction that that strike was not dealt with at the time with the necessary firmness and decision. The question is how to deal with the situation with which we are now confronted. I hope my noble friend's statement will be read throughout the length and breadth of the country tomorrow.
That statement proves that those who are responsible for the policy of the Police Union are deliberately endeavouring to obtain a share in the control, the command, and the discipline of the Police Force. There can be no other conclusion from the quotations he read to us. The Government are bound to resist that claim to the very end and at any cost. I do not doubt

1113
for one moment that that is their intention, but it is vital to the well-being of the nation, the safety of the metropolis and the very existence of the Police Force. I know of no argument, usually used for urging the policy and the wisdom of giving those employed in industry a share in the management of that industry, which applies to the case of the Police Force. The Police Force is not an army, it is perfectly true; but a school is not an army and yet a school requires discipline, and a Police Force requires discipline. It is only begging the question, only endeavouring to lead to a false trail, for the officials of the Union to declare, as they do whenever insistence is laid on the matter of discipline, that it is an attempt to militarise the Force. It is nothing of the sort. Take discipline away from that Force, as you most certainly would by sharing the command with Union officials appointed otherwise than by the officers of the Crown, and you destroy the discipline; and, the discipline destroyed, the Police Force is destroyed.
This debate will have served, I think, a most useful public purpose. First of all, it will, for the first time, give a consecutive story of the Police strike of last year. It told us what we did not know before—that, in order to strike, the Police Union had to suspend the first four rules of its own constitution. In the second place, it has given us a very full account of the story since that strike. Further, it has exposed to the whole public gaze the real objects of the leaders of the Police Union. I think His Majesty's Government will reap, as their reward for this publicity, the general assurance from public opinion—as I am able to give them an assurance on behalf of my friends in this House—that, so long as the Government maintain their present policy of endeavouring, in the first place, to remove all legitimate complaints as to the conditions under which the Police serve, and to secure for them the best possible conditions of pay and service, while, at the same time, maintaining the discipline of the Force without hesitation or indecision and continuing to refuse this demand for recognition of the Union—so long as they maintain that policy, they will have not only the support of your Lordships' House but that of the whole public opinion of the nation, to which in the last event they must always appeal, and which will always in the end decide the question.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to ask the noble Earl who represents the Home Office whether he can give a specific reply to the question of the noble Duke, as to how it came about, having regard to the settled policy of the Government not to recognise the Union, that the Union officials, or rather representatives of the Union, were invited to the Industrial Conference.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My noble friend has not been warned of that question; but whatever the explanation may be, I think the noble Marquess can rest assured with the very clear announcement my noble friend has made as to the attitude of the Secretary of State and the Police authorities towards the recognition of this society as a whole.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

EASTER TRAVELLING FACILITIES.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to ask His Majesty's Government how many special trains have been run in connection with horse racing since the 1st of February, and what train mileage, this represents; and whether in view of this fact the Government still refuse to grant facilities for travel to the working part of the population at the Easter holidays.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the very interesting and serious discussion to which we have just been listening has pushed my humble Question to rather a late hour, but I think your Lordships will see that it is a matter not altogether without importance. The particular point that I want to call attention to is this. I wish to ask what facilities for travelling will be granted to the poorer portion of the population at the Easter holidays. In connection with that I have inquired, and am inquiring, how many special trains have been run in connection with racing. Your Lordships may think that the two questions are not particularly intimately connected, but in fact they are rather intimately connected. The public notice that locomotives and carriages, officials and coal, are all available to run special trains for what I may call luxury or pleasure purposes, and they then see a statement like that which appears in the Press this morning, made by Sir Albert Stanley to a deputation in connection with this matter, in which he deals with the shortage of locomotives and

1115
railway stock and the difficulties of giving additional facilities at Easter. He ends, I am glad to see, by saying that some additional facilities will be given.
I think that the sensitive part of the public which we have been discussing on various occasions of late, whose condition is much too vividly present to our minds—I mean the labouring portion of the population, which is in a state of somewhat nervous unrest—is apt to note these two facts in a somewhat simple manner. What they say is this—"We find that accommodation is available; coaches are available, officials found, and even coal can be burnt for this mere useless purpose of luxury, and then we art told that we cannot have accommodation for excursion trains at Easter." I should not myself, not, I think, would any member of your Lordships' House, find it a particularly entertaining thing to do to get up early in the morning to go down in a crowded uncomfortable, slow train to Margate, eat shrimps on the beach all day, and then come back in an equally crowded train at night; but this process affords, I suppose, a change of scene and a glimpse of romance in the somewhat drab life of the working population, and it is much appreciated and much enjoyed. There is a very strong feeling that they do want, after all the anxiety and tenseness which we have all been through, as much of this relaxation as can reasonably be afforded when these important statutory holidays come round.
I am satisfied that it is of importance, of real importance, from the point of view of avoiding the kind of comment to which I have drawn attention that, having provided services of a luxury character, we should at least provide equally good, or better, services for the purposes of the recreation of the population. It is to give the Government an opportunity of making a statement upon these contrasted points, and assuring this House—and, what is much more important, the great public outside—that the matter is present to their minds, and that they are not unmindful of their obligation to the working classes in this matter, that I have put down the Question which stands in my name.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: May I assure the noble Earl at once that it is not in the least the desire of the Government, or of the Board of Trade in particular, that any distinction should be made between the different classes, as he seems to think might
1116
possibly be insinuated by what has happened. In the first place I should like to inform him that since February 1 the principal railway companies concerned in Great Britain have run 193 trains in connection with race meetings, representing a total mileage of 6,442. All passengers travelling to race meetings, I need hardly remind your Lordships, pay the present full ordinary fare—that is to say, what was the full fare plus the 50 per cent, which was added. No distinction has been made in any way, and I would like to remind your Lordships of what has taken place in this matter.
Early in the war it was found necessary to suspend entirely the arrangements which had previously existed for the grant of cheap tickets at week-ends, holiday-times, &c., and later, owing to the continued depiction of the railway companies' staff and rolling stock during the war, it was found necessary to increase passenger fares by 50 per cent. There have been numerous resolutions, chiefly from watering places and labour bodies, urging that cheap facilities should be given during the coming Easter holidays, and several Questions on the subject have been asked in the House of Commons. The Board have consulted the Railway Executive Committee in the matter, and the Committee have informed them that while they are considering the question whether, and to what extent, it may be possible to give cheap travelling facilities this year, such facilities could not be allowed at Easter. The replies given to the Parliamentary Questions have been to this effect. It has also been explained that while, as already stated, it will not be possible to give cheap travelling facilities at Easter, the railway companies will endeavour to meet the holiday-makers by an argumented train service.
In addition, to the serious financial loss at which the railways are run just now (of which a full explanation has been given in Parliament) the difficulties of the companies in regard to shortage of men and rolling stock are still sufficiently acute to make if desirable that an excessive amount of traffic should not be encouraged. For rolling stock we are no better off now than before. Some 700 locomotives were sent abroad. and it is true that sixteen came back, but they came back for repair. A consideiable percentage of the locomotives here now are standing idle, labour and material for repair being inadequate.

1117
The transport position in France is no better than it was, and our own lines of communication are longer than they were. The Board of Trade will improve the railway service when possible, and they greatly regret that they cannot give such Easter facilities as they would like. May I remind your Lordships that this country alone has maintained its transport system intact, and we hope, to see at an early date more normal conditions reached.
May I add that, in view of the present conditions obtaining on the railways, no reduction of fans can be made during the forthcoming Easter holidays. The railway companies will endeavour to meet the requirements of the holiday-makers by augmenting their ordinary services as far as practicable, and special trains will be run for this propose. There will be no differentiation in any way, and no desire to grant greater facilities to race-goers than to worker. The Government, and the Board of Trade in particular, are concerned in seeing that the workers get their full share of all that can be given in railway facilities, and we greatly regret that, while special trains can be arranged, it is impossible to go further under present conditions and grant a reduction of fares, which would involve an enormous increase in railway travelling—a far greater increase than that which has been made.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord will notice that I did not say a word about fares.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: No; but I thought the noble Earl would like to hear a statement on that point.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of March 26]

MANSFIELD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESinformed the House that the opposition to the Bill
1118
was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 27th of February last and the 6th instant, discharged, and Bill committed.

SUNDERLAND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the Standard Life Assurance Company—Was presented by the Lord Stanmore, read la; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, section 7), deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.