Sitting of 7 May 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
South Shields Gas Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Lancashire and Yorkshire and London and North-Western Railway Companies Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 4th June.
Gas and Water Provisional Orders Bill,
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Elstree and Boreham Wood Gas and Tonbridge Water," presented by Mr. Bridgeman, and read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
Cork Harbour Bill,
Reported from the Joint Committee on Dock and Harbour Bills [Parties do not proceed].
Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.
Ordered, That so much of Standing Order 91 as fixes Five as the quorum of the Select Committee on Standing Orders be read and suspended.
Ordered, That, for the remainder of the Session, Three be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Vaughan-Davies.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the proposals of
    878
    the Government of India to carry out the recommendations of the Public Services Commission have yet been received; and what action is to be taken in the matter?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): Proposals that have been received and carried into effect are increased pay for the Indian police according to a time-scale and increased pay for the Indian Medical Service. Proposals that have been received and are under consideration are the reorganisation of the Indian Forest Service and the Finance Department, and interim proposals as to certain officers in the Indian Educational Service. On other matters the proposals of the Government of India have still to be received.
    Colonel YATE: Have the proposals with regard to the increase of pay and pensions of the Indian Services yet been received?
    Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. and gallant Friend will probably see what has happened with regard to the Indian police and Indian medical services. The other proposals are not wholly the same as the general proposals, but are founded upon them. I shall be happy to confer with my hon. and gallant Friend about the details.

    TRAVELLING FACILITIES.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the many articles in the Indian Press complaining of the grant of A 2 priority certificates by the Government of India to Indian members of political deputations to visit England in connection with the proposed Montagu-Chelmsford reform scheme, thereby depriving many sick men, women, and children of passages home before the monsoon breaks; and what steps have been taken to provide extra passenger accommodation for the latter?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India in now giving facilities to representatives of different political parties in India to visit this country this year in connection with the scheme of Indian constitutional reforms are discharging a definite obligation which they undertook for good reasons last year, when the War was still on. The number of persons in each delegation is kept within very close limits, and I feel sure that the Government of India, in making good their promise, are not neglectful of the claims of other classes of the community. As demobilisationhas

    879
    been temporarily suspended in India some additional shipping accommodation for civilian passengers will probably be available.
    Colonel YATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the last mail steamer six British ladies and children had to be put down in the hold below the water-line to make room—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must give notice of that question.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    OFFICERS (PAY AND PENSION).
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make known or, if not, when he will be in a position to make known the decision of the Admiralty with regard to the pay and pension of the officers of the Royal Navy?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): The Committee on Officers' Pay hope to render their Report not later than the close of this week, and it will be dealt with by the Admiralty as speedily as possible; but I am, naturally, not yet in a position to say when the decisions of His Majesty' Government upon it can be announced.

    SPECIAL ENTRY CADETS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what is the constitution of the Interview Committee for the selection of candidates for admission to the examination of special entry cadets; what steps have been taken to include members who could counterbalance any possible social bias against admission of candidates from the lower deck; has this method of entry for lower-deck candidates been inserted in the King's Regulations or promulgated to the Fleet in monthly Orders so as to make it widely known to possible candidates; is this method of special entry to be continued after this year; and, if not, is any alternative method being arranged to permit of the entry of lower-deck candidates?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The Committee referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend consists of a Senior
    880
    Flag Officer, a Captain, R.N., and a civilian, who is on the First Lord's Staff. There is no social bias against admission of candidates from the lower deck. The "special entry" examinations were not originally intended as a special avenue of promotion from the lower deck. This system of entry will be continued, and in addition, the Admiralty is considering the institution of special facilities to enable bluejacket boys and young sailors to train for commissions.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of putting officers who were themselves promoted from the lower deck on the Inspection Committee when lower deck candidates come before them?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That shall be put to the naval authorities.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will say what is the total number of candidates who have been interviewed by the Interview Committee for admission to the examination of special entry cadets since the institution of this method of entry in 1913, and up till the entry in February, 1919; how many of these candidates came from the old public schools; how many from grammar schools; how many from elementary council schools under the direct administration of the Board of Education; and how many of these candidates were from the lower deck of the Navy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of special entry candidates interviewed from 1913 to February, 1919, is 1,072, and is made up as follows: From the bigger public schools, 408; from the lesser public schools and grammar schools, 631; from council schools, 12; and from the lower deck, 21.

    H.M.S. "THE MARY ROSE."
    Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Albert Edward French, No. 234666, who was killed on His Majesty's torpedo-boat "The Mary Rose," was recommended for a decoration, or would have received one had he survived; if so, will it be granted to his widow; and, if not, will the Admiralty take steps to secure that awards that would have been made had the man survived should be granted to their widows or next-of-kin?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The conduct of all the officers and men of His Majesty's ship

    881
    "The Mary Rose" throughout the action with German light cruisers on the 17th October, 1917, was considered to have been in accordance with the highest traditions of the Service.
    As I stated in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport on the 12th March, and as I have stated on other occasions, the only award for gallantry in action which can be made posthumously is the Victoria Cross, and the action of Able Seaman French in laying and firing a torpedo as the German light cruisers passed is not considered to reach the high standard for which the Victoria Cross is awarded.
    Mr. HOHLER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring the Regulations of the Admiralty into accord in regard to this matter with those of the Army?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As far as I know, they are.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not the case that there is a great deal of difference between them?
    Mr. MACNAMARA: As regards posthumous honours, the only one in both Services, I thought, is the V.C. But I will inquire further on the point.

    STATE MANUFACTORIES.
    Mr. KENNEDY JONESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state the number of the State manufactories started since the War now occupied or retained by his Department; whether he will indicate in each case the nature of the work which is now being carried on in these manufactories; and if he will inform the House how many factories have been disposed of since the Armistice to private interests?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We have started three factories; one for the manufacture of cordite; one mainly engaged upon the out-turn of projectiles, and the third a gun factory. We retain these three. The last of the three—the gun factory—is not now manufacturing guns, but is being retained temporarily for storage purposes. I ought perhaps to add that in addition an experimental depot was started for work common to both naval and military services. It also is being temporarily used for storage purposes.
    Sir C. HENRY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state if the Ministry of Supply will have the disposal of these factories?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think so. The two factories will still continue to do work for us. And I imagine will still remain with us.
    Mr. JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the factories are likely to be suspended and not used for storage purposes?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend will realise that we have a lot of valuable stores that easily deteriorate. These buildings cannot be given up for the moment, but will be turned over to peace work as soon as possible.

    MIDSHIPMEN (EXAMINATIONS).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now give information as to the system of entry and training by which boys in the training ships and afloat are to be given the opportunity of passing examinations for midshipmen sufficiently early in life to enable them to reach the highest rank, and can he state when the next examination and subsequent examinations will be held, so that the lower deck throughout the Navy may be aware of the fact?
    Dr. MACNAMARMA: A few boys and young seamen, who appeared to have a reasonable chance of success, have been given special educational facilities and allowed to compete at the examinations for "special entry" cadets. The institution of special facilities to enable boy bluejackets to train for commissions in the Navy is now being considered. The next "special entry" examination will be held in June, 1919, and dates of further examinations will be promulgated in due course. I may add that at present the principal avenue of promotion from the lower deck to commissioned rank is through the rank of mate, and that a large number of such promotions have been made.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Can the right hon Gentleman say if the special facilities given to these boys include adequate pay for educational purposes?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The pay is not based on a system of that kind, as I think he will gather from an earlier answer which I have given. So far as I remember, they do not receive a special rate.
    Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the

    883
    circulation of information about this examination in Admiralty Monthly Orders to the Fleet?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Not until the thing has been put upon a proper systematic basis; otherwise hopes might be raised which would not be realised.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman put before the Admiralty that this matter has been under consideration for a very long time, and may we hope for results soon?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It was before the Board last week, and will be before the Board again to-morrow.

    WAR LOSSES.
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is now in a position to issue a detailed statement giving full particulars in each case of the loss of all ships of the Royal Navy as far as is known during the War, whether due to enemy action or to other causes?
    Mr. LONG: A complete statement will be issued shortly.

    JERRAM COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now give a date when the decision of the War Cabinet and the recommendations of the Jerram Committee will be circulated?
    Mr. LONG: It had been intended to hold a Cabinet to-day to settle some proposals which have a bearing on the public service generally. Unfortunately the great pressure of business in Paris has detained the Leader of the House there; he returns to-morrow. The Cabinet will meet the following day and an announcement will be made.

    WAR DECORATIONS.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked if those officers and men of the Royal Navy who were actually under fire at sea in 1914 will be entitled to wear a rosette on their 1914 ribands, as has been promised to the Army?
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked whether, in view of the fact that it has been decided to issue a special decoration to all pre-war members of the Terri-
    884
    trial Army who volunteered to serve overseas during the War, it is intended to issue a similar decoration to the pre-war Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think my hon. and gallant Friends—if I am to gather from the answer given by the Secretary of State yesterday—are a little in advance of the facts when they assumed that the matter has been decided. As yesterday's answer shows, it is under consideration by the Army Council, and we shall confer with them upon the matter.
    Rear-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: Will those medals be given to the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That point will have to be considered.

    OBSOLETE WARSHIPS (DISPOSAL).
    Viscount CURZONasked what ships of all classes belonging to the Royal Navy have either been disposed of since the Armistice or are to be disposed of in the near future; and if the method of disposal can be stated?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: With regard to the first part of the question, one vessel only (a light cruiser) has been sold, and that in India, since the Armistice, though arrangements are now proceeding for the sale at home of a further eleven vessels of different classes. In addition to these, it is hoped, in the near future, to dispose of some 150 vessels of various classes, but some little time must necessarily elapse before they can be cleared for sale by the removal of guns, etc. The methods of disposal, namely, sale by competitive tender or otherwise, will be decided as the ships become available for disposal.
    Viscount CURZON: Can we have a definite statement as to which ships are affected by the answer?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will let my hon. and gallant Friend see the list.
    Lieutenant-Colonel D. WHITE: Are any conditions laid down to prevent these vessels being employed as warships?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes; there are very carefully drawn provisions to guard against that. The ships are all obsolete, and those which are of any potential fighting value are sold to be broken up under bond. The provisions are very stringent and detailed.

    MIDSHIPMEN (PAYMENTS' PAYMENTS).
    Lieutenant-Colonel RAWasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider the desirability of refunding the payments made by parents of midshipmen during the early years of the War when these junior officers were engaged on active service against the enemy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty had from the beginning of the War, discretionary power to waive the payment of private allowance to midshipmen in any case in which it would have been a hardship to the parent had the obligation been insisted upon. Subsequently, the entire remission of private allowances during the period of the War, as from the 1st July, 1917, was enacted. I am afraid we cannot undertake to make the refund of payments as suggested.

    NAVAL WRITERS (CIVILIANS).
    Mr. HOHLERasked how many writers have been released within the last six weeks and how many civilians employed to discharge their duties; and will he inquire as to whether captain paymasters and other officers in this Department are putting difficulties in the way of the employment of civilians?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of Writers who have been released within the last six months is 361. I am unable to give the actual number of civilian substitutes, but a few have already been utilised, and the entry of such substitutes for a considerable proportion of writers awaiting demobilisation is now in progress. As regards the last part of my hon. and learned Friend's question, I am assured that every encouragement is being given for the entry of civilians when such entry will expedite demobilisation, and that no difficulties are being placed in the way of their employment
    Mr. HOHLER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that schoolmasters, bank clerks, and others are employed, and I am informed that they are doing really nominal work? I am credibly informed that abstraction is put in their way by the paymasters.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is the time for asking questions, and not for giving information.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House
    886
    whether it is the intention of the Government to release all writers as soon as possible?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly, but these are the pivotal men of our scheme of demobilisation. We have endeavoured to relieve the situation by taking on civilians as far as possible.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (CHARGEMEN).
    Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked why in the proposals for reconstruction of staffs in the professional departments of the Royal dockyards by Admiralty Order D9941/19/5102 the chargemen of trades were omitted, seeing that such chargemen are directly in touch with the administration of the dockyards; and will, the advisability of the chargemen mentioned being including in the above Order be considered?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty Order referred to in my hon. Friend's, question was a letter of inquiry to the superintendents of the dockyards as to the post-war requirements in respect of the complements of officers, clerical staffs, and drawing office staffs, the information being required for consideration at the Admiralty. It was not considered necessary to obtain similar information concerning chargemen, whose numbers are not determined according to any fixed, complement.
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked whether, having regard to the fact that the six days' additional leave granted to Civil servants were given for war services, chargemen of trades in the dockyard with less than three years' service in this rank may receive a proportionate part of the leave as granted to temporary employés entitled to leave?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Chargemen of trades are not entitled to benefit by the grant of the additional week's leave unless they have served as such for a period of three years; the suggestion contained in my hon. Friend's question has, however, been taken note of, and we will consider whether it can be adopted. But I can at the moment give no undertaking.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are not chargemen Civil servants?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I expect that the great bulk of them are on the establishment.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Why is there to be a difference made between one set of Civil servants and another?
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked when the chargemen of trades may expect a reply to the interview with him on the 30th May, 1918, with reference to their petition of November, 1917?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A letter was sent to the Secretary of the United Government Workers' Federation on 20th August dealing with matters raised at the interview of 31st May, including those relating to chargemen. If the interview of 31st May is not the one referred to by my hon. Friend I shall be pleased to hear from him and will then look further into the matter.

  PEACE CELEBRATIONS.

    NAVAL MARCH THROUGH LONDON.
    Mr. GILBERTasked if the Government has come to any decision yet as regards a public march through London of naval forces on the same lines as those recently held of the Dominion troops; and if he can state when such a march will take place and what provision will be made for Members of this House to view the same?
    Mr. LONG: As stated yesterday, it is intended that such a march shall take place as part of the Peace celebrations. Proper arrangements to enable Members to witness the various functions included in the Peace celebrations in London will presumably be made, as on former occasions of national rejoicings.

    DECORATION OF STREETS AND BUILDINGS.
    Major BARNESasked the Prime Minister if any preparations are being made for the celebration of Peace; if so, whether they involve any decoration of the streets and buildings of the capital; if so, to which Government Departments the task has been deputed; and if it is the intention to seek the advice and assistance of bodies such as the Royal Academy, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Society of Painters, the London Society, and the Arts Association, in carrying out such decoration?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The whole question of Peace celebrations, including decoration of streets and build-
    888
    ings, is being considered by a War Cabinet Committee. No work in this connection has yet been deputed to a Government Department. It is the intention of the Committee to seek the co-operation of such bodies as the Royal Academy. I may add that the Royal Academy has already offered its advice and assistance which have been gladly accepted.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    WIDOWS AND DEPENDANTS (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. HOHLERasked whether the compensation payable to widows and dependants under the provisions of the injuries, etc., in the war compensation scheme is less than the compensation payable under the pensions warrants to sailors and soldiers; and, if so, will he take steps to increase the former?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As suggested by my hon. Friend, the compensation allowable to widows and dependants under the Injuries in War Compensation Scheme, which is on a civilian basis, is less beneficial than the scale applicable to the cases of sailors and soldiers by the Ministry of Pensions. Improvements in the rates of compensation payable under the scheme have recently been approved, but there is no intention of assimilating the two scales.
    Mr. HOHLER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of some of those who have lost their lives their widows have only received 15s., and will he take steps to rectify this?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Widows and orphans are now on the basis of the Service scale, but I could not say off-hand whether those mentioned come into that category.
    Mr. HOHLER: I have raised the point before with my right hon. Friend, and all I can get is 15s., which is quite inadequate. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into it?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will.

    CONVOY DUTY.
    Major Sir B. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that just before the Armistice two of His Majesty's ships were on convoy duty at

    889
    Sierra Leone to some thirty merchantmen and that the men of His Majesty's ships had to coal these merchantmen as no native labour was available owing to sickness; that the men of the Royal Navy so coaling were paid half the local rate and received 9d. for ten hours' work in addition to their pay; if it is the custom for His Majesty's ships to coal merchantmen on convoy, or if this is an isolated instance; and if fair remuneration can be granted to these men?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir; the facts are as stated in the earlier parts of the question. The occasion was an isolated instance due to the failure of local labour consequent on the severe epidemic of influenza. In accordance with King's Regulations, ordinary seamen can be paid extra pay at the rate of 9d. per diem, and able seamen 1s. per diem for this work. This was paid to the men at the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief, but in the special circumstances approval was given to pay the men 6d. per ton handled in addition.

    OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY.
    Lieut-Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that Article 516 of the Pay Warrant, which enacts that an officer who, having retired with retired pay or gratuity, is re-employed, shall not be entitled to any increase of retired pay or gratuity in respect of the period of re-employment, inflicts great injustice on retired officers who, on the outbreak of war, gave up good civil positions in order to serve the country, he will cancel Article 516 and allow the services in the late War of such officers to count for increase of pension?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I regret that I am unable to adopt this suggestion. My Noble Friend is no doubt aware that officers on retired pay continued to draw it in addition to their full pay on return to the Army.

    GUNNER CARLESS, ROYAL NAVY.
    Mr. JOHN DAVISONasked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mrs. Carless, 31, Tasker Street, Was all, mother of Gunner John Henry Carless, V.C., Royal Navy, who was mortally wounded in the Bight of Heligoland; whether he is aware that, owing to the self-sacrifice of
    890
    the mother in allowing her son to retain 5s. per week for six weeks prior to his death, which he had previously allotted to her, she had been deprived of a pension on the ground that, technically, she was not dependent upon him; and whether he will take immediate steps to remedy this?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): I am glad to inform the hon. Member that the cancellation of the allotment of 5s. a week by her son does not affect Mrs. Carless' eligibility for a flat rate pension of 5s. a week for life, which has been granted with effect from the 6th November, 1918, the earliest date from which this pension is payable.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    ROYAL DOCKYARD APPRENTICES.
    Mr. HOHLERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he has taken any further steps to obtain the release of dockyard apprentices from the Army; and, if not, will he assign reasons, seeing that they were retained in the dockyard to a late period on the ground that their work was of greater national importance?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am advised that the demobilisation of men in the Army is dependent on whether or not a man is eligible under existing Regulations, and that the War Office can make no exception in favour of students or apprentices. I regret, therefore, that I can add nothing to the various answers which have been given from time to time to this effect by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.
    Mr. HOHLER: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it was that advantage was not taken of the contract of the slip discharge, of which all these men could take advantage and be got rid of at once?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That question should be put to the Secretary of State and not to me.
    Mr. HOHLER: Secretary of State for what?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Secretary of State for War.

    SOLDIERS FOR AGRICULTURAL WORK.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the orders de-

    891
    ferring the withdrawal of men from the agricultural companies for fourteen days covers both the Labour companies and the attached men; and, if not, considering that these attached men are key men in agriculture, will he have them so included?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The orders postponing the withdrawal of men from agricultural companies for fourteen days cover both the men in agricultural companies and men attached to them.
    Colonel MILDMAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of his decision that all but 10 per cent. of soldiers attached to agricultural companies, and who are engaged on agricultural work, must be withdrawn from agriculture, he will consider the possibility of extending the period of a fortnight within which they must report at their centre, seeing that, in the case of the highly skilled agricultural labourers concerned, every additional week during which their services will be available on the land will contribute materially to efficient cultivation now so very backward owing to weather conditions?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: A fortnight's notice will be given to farmers before the withdrawal of men attached to agricultural companies. The withdrawal of men belonging to agricultural companies will not commence until the 28th May.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Who will select the 10 per cent. of the men to be retained?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: A subsequent question on the Paper deals with that.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir JOHN HOPEasked the Secretary of State for War who will select the 10 per cent. of soldiers in or attached to agricultural companies who are to be allowed to remain on the land; and whether he has allotted a quota to be retained in each county, or in each parish, or on each farm?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This answers the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton. The 10 per cent. of soldiers allowed to remain on the land will be selected by war agricultural executive committees in England and Wales and by Sub-Commissioners in Scotland. The assessment is made in each agricultural area.

    MILITARY MACHINERY.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that paragraph 3 (c) of Army Order 55, of 1919, presses very harshly upon men who joined the Service in 1914 and 1915; whether under these Regulations many men are retained for the machinery of demobilisation whose positions could easily be filled by other soldiers; and whether, under the circumstances, he will amend the Order in such a way as will make it incumbent upon the military authorities to release such men, replacing them by soldiers who were brought in under the Military Service Acts?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Men who are eligible for demobilisation, but who are temporarily retained as part of the military machinery of demobilisation, are being released as rapidly as their services can be spared or they can be replaced. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Moss Side on the 1st instant, to the effect that senior officers have been appointed to inspect unit registers with a view to ensuring that no officer or man who is eligible for demobilisation is being retained without good and sufficient cause.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I personally brought before the War Office by letter many cases in which men are practically doing no work at all and yet have been returned to their units and cannot be demobilised because it is stated that other men cannot be found to take their place? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the matter his personal attention?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I will. But may I point out that demobilisation is going on at the rate of nearly 10,000 a day.
    Sir F. HALL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in many of these cases the men can be replaced by those who joined in 1917 and 1918?
    An HON. MEMBER: These are men who are eligible for demobilisation whom it is desired to keep till April, 1920. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into those cases if I send particulars?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: By law these men can be retained until 30th April, 1920, under an Army Order, which I have

    893
    explained to the House, to which we are adhering. But those men who are not retainable are being demobilised as quickly as possible.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: What is being done to find substitutes for these men.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There are men in the Army in India and Egypt—
    Mr. DEVLIN: And in Ireland.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: And in Ireland. But there are no two places where military forces are more needed at the present time than India and Egypt, and over two-thirds of the forces there are men who ought to be relieved. We are endeavouring with the utmost speed to form units to send out to relieve them.
    Sir C. HENRY: Are the men in France in the retainable category?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, a lot of them.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. SPEAKER: There are many more questions on the Paper, and we must get on with them.

    ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that Driver Fred Thorns, No. 99044, 10th Division, Royal Field Artillery, Egyptian Expeditionary Force, who joined the Force in September, 1914, and has not been home since September, 1915, he will make special inquiry why this soldier has not been demobilised?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Driver Thoms is not registered by the War Office either as pivotal or for special release. If his length of servce is as stated by my Noble Friend he is eligible for demobilisation unless he is serving under pre-war conditions of service and his term of Colour service is not completed. If he is eligible he will be released as soon as circumstances permit. I would refer my Noble Friend to the answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Moss Side on the 1st instant, regarding the appointment of senior officers to inspect unit registers with a view to ensuring that no officer or man who is eligible for demobilisation is being retained without good and sufficient cause. I do not, therefore, propose to take any special action in this case.

    LONG-SERVICE MEN (EGYPT AND PALESTINE).
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for War what steps it is proposed to take with reference to the demobilisation of long-service men in Egypt and Palestine, particularly in the case of signallers in the Royal Engineers?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The demobilisation of all men in Egypt and Palestine who are eligible under current instructions, is proceeding as rapidly as circumstances permit, but I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that personnel of the Royal Engineers, though eligible for demobilisation; are liable to be temporarily retained as part of the military machinery of demobilisation. Men thus retained are being released as soon as their services can be spared or they can be replaced. Senior officers have been appointed to inspect unit registers with a view to ensuring that no officer or man who is eligible for demobilisation is retained without good and sufficient cause.
    Sir NORTON GRIFFITHS: With reference to the Royal Engineers, will that cover field companies whose detention is necessary for the purpose of demobilisation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (EMPLOYMENT OF YOUNG GIRLS).
  Major CAYZERasked the Minister of Labour whether widows and discharged and demobilised soldiers and sailors are being discharged from the dockyard at Portsmouth whilst young single girls are being retained there; and, if so, what steps will be taken to see that these girls, with practically no dependants, are not kept in employment at the dockyard to the detriment of widows with children and wounded and demobilised men?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have been asked to reply to my hon. Friend's question. Demobilised sailors and soldiers are not being discharged from Portsmouth Dockyard, as suggested in the first part of the question. Owing to the changed conditions, it has been necessary to dispense with the services of nearly all the women who were engaged for manual work in

  895
  place of men during the War; and it is the case that the women discharged include some widows and dependants of men who have lost their lives whilst serving in the forces, preference having been given to such in engaging women for employment during the War. As regards the second part of the question, it is generally the case (in accordance with Admiralty instructions) that the women with no dependants are the first to be discharged.
  Viscount CURZON: Does that apply to all the dockyards or to Portsmouth only?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I think I may safely say that it applies to all the dockyards. At any rate, the Regulations which I have quoted do apply generally.

  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
  Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Minister of Labour whether it is permissible to obtain from those who have the administering of the unemployment donation, a list of the names and addresses of those persons who are in receipt of this donation?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Robert Horne): It would be quite impracticable, even if it were desirable, to supply to members of the public a list of the persons in receipt of out-of-work donation. The Exchanges are, however, at all times prepared to furnish particulars of any workpeople on their registers who appear to be suitable for any vacancy notified to them. If any member of the public has grounds for suspecting that donation is being improperly drawn in any specific case I should be glad if particulars could be furnished to the Department, whereupon investigation will at once be made.
  Sir C. HENRY: Would my right hon. Friend consider whether it would not be desirable that anyone who considers that the unemployment donation is being wrongly distributed should be able to apply direct to the office where it is granted?
  Sir R. HORNE: If any member of the public who has any information will supply it, we will investigate it. On the other hand, it would be quite impracticable to publish a full list in order that
  896
  people might go through it fishing for people whom they thought were abusing the scheme.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BURTON-ON-TRENT.
    Mr. JOHN DAVISONasked the Minister of Labour the total number of men and women at present employed at the national machine gun factory, Burton-on-Trent; the number of unemployed persons now on the register in that town; and whether he will consider the possibility of utilising both the factory and the numbers of the unemployed for the repair of motor vehicles now lying at Kempton Park and other depots?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to answer this question. The factory in question is one of a number held under instructions of the War Cabinet as a reserve unit for munitions production. The number at present employed in the factory is 189 men and sixty-two women. The Ministry of Labour have informed me that 581 men and 381 women are on the unemployed register at Burton. This Return, which is classified into various trades and occupations, shows that the labour is almost entirely of a class that could not be employed on the repair of motor vehicles.

    NEWHAVEN.
    Mr. DAVISONasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received any representations from the Newhaven Trades Council with regard to the conditions prevailing there, which will become worse, as a consequence of the withdrawal from the port of all traffic in Government stores; and whether, in view of the unemployment thereby involved, he will receive a deputation from the trades council to discuss the measures to be taken to deal with the situation?
    Sir R. HORNE: The situation at Newhaven has for some time past been engaging my attention. It is obvious that the termination of war traffic must seriously affect the port, and I would suggest to my hon. Friend that if the trades councils have proposals to make it would be convenient if they would in the first instance discuss them with the local employment committee, associated with the Newhaven Exchange, who have been considering the whole question.

  RUSSIA.

    BUSINESS MEN.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if business men are now permitted to proceed to the parts of Russia under the Soviet Government for business purposes; and, if not, when permission will be granted?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the negative; as regards the latter part, it is not at present possible to give any undertaking as to when facilities can again be afforded.
    Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that neutral business men are going, freely to Russia and gaining contracts?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: No; I am not aware of that fact.

    VOLUNTARY ENLISTMENT.
    Captain COOTEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give the figures of the total and daily rate of voluntary enlistment, exclusive of volunteers for Russia?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The total number of enlistments to the 3rd May, including enlistments on normal engagements and for two, three and four years from the 15th January, and re-enlistments from 3rd January, 1919, is 88,622, the daily average being approximately 864.

    SOCIAL REVOLUTION.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to suppress the social revolution in Russia, as in Hungary, by force of arms, if the supply of money and munitions to counter revolutionaries fails to achieve the object?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: In so far as my hon. and gallant Friend is alluding to the Russian Soviet Government, I must refer him to the statement made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on 16th April explaining the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards that Government.

  BRITISH AMBASSADOR, WASHINGTON.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARTHUR MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Earl of Reading has vacated his appointment as His Majesty's Ambassador to the United States of America; and, if so, whether he will announce the name of Lord Reading's successor?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second, I am not at present able to make any announcement.
  Lieutenant-Colonel MURRAY: Does not the great success of Lord Reading's Ambassadorship make it important that this post should be filled as soon as possible, and having regard to the importance of the matter from the point of view of British interests and Anglo-American relations, will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that it will be dealt with at an early date?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that this question is receiving earnest attention.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the post of British Consul-General is also vacant?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, I am aware of that fact.

  MESOPOTAMIA.
  Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have it in contemplation to create a new Department of the Foreign Office to deal exclusively with affairs in Mesopotamia; if so, how soon the new Department will be in operation, and whether it will be represented by a separate Minister in this House?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: In view of the fact that the future status of Mesopotamia has not yet been decided by the Peace Conference, it would be premature to consider the formation of a new Department to deal exclusively with the affairs of that country.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: If a new Department is created to deal with Mesopotamia, will it be taken out of the hands of the Foreign Office?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I hope so.

  COLONIAL CIVIL SERVANTS.
  Mr. GIDEON MURRAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the hardship accruing to Colonial Civil servants by reason of the Colonial Office Regulation which provides that any official promoted or transferred from one Colony to another to a post of £500 per annum or over must pay his own passage and expenses; and whether he will consider the desirability of abolishing this anomaly, which not infrequently compels higher paid officials to decline transfer or promotion to posts for which they are eminently fitted?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieutenant-Colonel Amery): Colonial Regulation No. 121, to which my hon. Friend no doubt refers, concedes the grant of free passages for himself and his family to an officer transferred to an appointment carrying a salary not exceeding £500. I have no reason to believe that cases of the kind mentioned are frequent, but I will give the matter further consideration.

  WEST INDIAN COLONIES.
  Mr. G. MURRAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the movement on foot in the West Indies to promote the federation of those Colonies; and whether he is prepared to take any active steps to further that project in the event of proposals being submitted to him by any unofficial conference that might be held in the West Indies to consider this subject?
  Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the Secretary of State is, of course, ready to give careful consideration to proposals accepted by any conference which may appear to express the general body of public opinion in the West Indian Colonies.
  Mr. MURRAY: Has my hon. and gallant Friend been in communication with any of the Governors of the West Indian Colonies with regard to this matter?
  Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: I should like to have notice of that question.

  RELEASED BRITISH PRISONERS (TURKEY)
  Mr. OMANasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he can now authorise the immediate repayment to officers recently prisoners in Turkey of necessary expenses incurred by them over and above the total of the allowance made by the Turkish Government and through the Netherlands Minister at Constantinople; and (2) with reference to War Office Letter, No. M. 10579, of 15th February last, what provision has been made for the compensation of British officer prisoners in Turkey for the unreal rate of exchange imposed by the Turkish Government on money remitted from home to them as, owing to the question being still unsettled, Indian Army officers are finding difficulty in formulating their claims for excessivs expenditure while in captivity?
  Mr. FORSTER: I will reply to these questions together. I understand my hon. Friend to ask whether any regulation or fixed rate of exchange has been laid down in advance as a basis for the formulation of claims. This cannot be done; but officers who desire to make claims under this head for the consideration of the War Office should give particulars of dates and amounts of remittances and of the amounts of Turkish currency received by them in exchange.

  WAR DECORATIONS.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the representations recently made by Sir Charles Townshend regarding the question of awards fur the defence of Kut have now been considered; and, if so, what steps it is proposed to take to give due recognition to that defence?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand that the India Office are in correspondence with the Government of India on this matter, and

  901
  pending the receipt and consideration of the Government of India's reply it is not possible to make any statement.

  SIR DAVID BEATTY.

    STATEMENT BY MR. LONG.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether Admiral of the Fleet, Sir David Beatty, was offered and accepted the post of First Sea Lord last December; whether he is now in the Riviera and has gone there because he is not employed even in an indirect advisory capacity; whether Sir David Beatty has been consulted on Naval policy since the Armistice as Sir Douglas Haig has been consulted on military policy; and whether he can state when Sir David Beatty will take up the post of First Sea Lord?
    Mr. LONG: The Prime Minister has requested me to reply to this question, and I am glad to have the opportunity of correcting some misapprehensions which appear to have arisen.
    It is not the case that Sir David Beatty was offered the post of First Sea Lord. Sir David Beatty was told unofficially, by my predecessor, that he hoped he would come as First Sea Lord when the post became vacant. When I assumed office I confirmed this statement, and I adhere to it now. On no occasion has any date been mentioned or any definite official offer been made.
    Sir David Beatty is now enjoying his well earned rest in the Mediterranean. He has been consulted on Naval policy since the Armistice, and he was also invited on relinquishing the command of the Grand Fleet, to preside over an important inquiry bearing on future Naval policy, having regard to experiences gained in the War; but for personal reasons he asked to be excused from undertaking this work.
    No immediate change in the office of First Sea Lord is contemplated, and I take this opportunity of stating that Admiral Sir Rosslyn Wemyss enjoys the complete confidence of His Majesty's Government.

  CONSULAR SERVICE.
  Lieutenant-Colonel ASSHETON POWNALLasked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to publish
  902
  the Report on the Consular Service submitted to the Government and to announce the decisions of the Government with regard thereto?
  Mr. SHORTT: I cannot add anything to the reply given on the 30th April last.

  MILITARY OFFENDERS (PEACE REMISSIONS).
  Colonel WILLIAM THORNEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have come to any definite decision with regard to reviewing all cases of British soldiers serving sentences for offences against military discipline committed during the War, with a view of granting a free pardon or a reduction of sentence when peace is ratified; and whether he will take action in the matter?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The whole question is receiving careful consideration, and I hope to be in a position to make a statement shortly.

  OPIUM CONVENTION.
  Sir JAMES AGG-GARDNERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the incorporation of the effectuation of the Opium Convention in the covenant of the League of Nations, and the amendment of pharmacy law, which must follow the enforcement of the Convention, he is proposing to introduce legislation for that purpose this Session?
  Mr. SHORTT: Instructions have already been given for the preparation of a Bill on the subject, but I cannot say at present whether it will be possible to pass it into law this Session.

  ALIENS IN PUBLIC POSITIONS.
  Colonel Sir HENRY NORRISasked the Prime Minister whether the Government is prepared at an early date to introduce legislation making it impossible in future for persons of alien birth to become Members of the House of Lords, Members of the House of Commons, members of His Majesty's Privy Council, members of municipal, county, borough, or other local councils, and boards of

  903
  guardians, or to hold appointments in His Majesty's Civil Service or other Government service?
  Mr. SHORTT: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer to a similar question given by the Leader of the House on the 24th October last.

  CANADIAN REPRESENTATION, WASHINGTON.
  Lieutenant-Colonel ARTHUR MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether any communication has yet been received from the Canadian Government with reference to the announcement made in the Dominion House of Commons by the President of the Privy Council to the effect that a permanent Canadian representative at Washington is shortly to be appointed?
  Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: No, Sir.
  Lieutenant-Colonel MURRAY: Is the House to understand that this proposed change is being made without any consultation between the Governments?
  Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: I do not think the House should understand that; but undoubtedly when the matter is further advanced the Government will be consulted.
  Lieutenant-Colonel MURRAY: Then what is the reason for the announcement in the Canadian House of Commons?

  CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND.
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Lord Privy Seal the cause of the continued absence from Parliament of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and when he proposes to resume his Parliamentary duties?
  Mr. SHORTT: My right hon Friend the Chief Secretary is detained in Ireland on urgent matters of administration. He hopes to be in the House next week.
  Captain REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the crisis that has arisen in connection with the Proportional Representation Bill owing to the continued absence of the Chief Secretary?
  Mr. SHORTT: I understand that Bill is going through very smoothly.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard it as a smooth passage that after nine sittings the Committee has only reached the first part of line 1, Clause 1?

  FORESTRY BILL.
  Lieutenant-Colonel MURRAYasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can hold out any hopes of the Forestry Bill being introduced at an early date?
  Mr. SHORTT: I am not in a position to make any statement.
  Lieutenant-Colonel MURRAY: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement? Is he aware that this is one of the most important items of the Government Reconstruction programme.
  Mr. SHORTT: I fully appreciate its importance, and the Government will act as soon as possible.

  WAR OFFICE STAFF.
  Lieutenant-Colonel ASSHETON POWNALLasked the Secretary of State for War if he can state how many officers were serving in the War Office at the outbreak of war, how many on 11th November, 1918, and how many now?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The figures to the nearest dates available are:

  1st August, 1914

  222

  1st November, 1918

  1,690

  1st April, 1919

  1,165

  PALESTINE FORCE.

    MARRIED OFFICERS AND MEN.
    Sir WATSON CHEYNEasked the Secretary for War what arrangements are being made for the accommodation of married officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of regiments which are being sent to Palestine next autumn?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject at present. Perhaps my hon. Friend will repeat his question in a week or two.

  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that C. J. Llewellyn, a conscientious objector of forty-three years of age, who was arrested in October, 1918, was re-court-martialled on 18th April and returned to prison to serve a second sentence of one year's hard labour a fortnight after his statement that conscientious objectors who had been sentenced to imprisonment would be discharged from the Army; and whether, in view of this man's age, he will see that his discharge from the Army is immediately completed, and will remit the remainder of his sentence?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: As the regimental number and unit of the soldier concerned is not mentioned, I have been unable to refer to his records, but if the facts are as stated, discharge from the Army will be carried out forthwith, in consequence of his being committed to prison, and C. J. Llewellyn will be discharged from prison as soon as he has completed twenty months in the aggregate (or on the termination of his present sentence, less remissions for good conduct, whichever be the sooner), as explained in my reply of the 1st May to a question by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland.
  Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases these men are being treated with more leniency than many men who joined the service in 1914?

  MILITARY CHURCH PARADES.
  Major GLYNasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the opinion of the Army Council, the time has arrived for reconsidering the terms of paragraph 113 of the King's Regulations and Orders for the Army with a view to the abolition of compulsory attendance of soldiers at church parades, which are now made the object of a dress inspection; and whether he will consider the possibility of the Army Chaplains' Department issuing such instructions to Army chaplains regarding the holding of church services that every opportunity will be given to men to attend voluntarily?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not considered desirable to amend the King's Regulations as regards compulsory attendance at church parades. The question of shorten-
  906
  ing the preliminary inspection has been raised and this matter is at present under consideration.

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND).

    MARRIED SOLDIERS.
    Sir J. HOPEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the present housing difficulties in Scotland, he will allow married soldiers in or attached to agricultural companies, whose families are living in houses belonging to farms, to remain on the land, and so avoid putting farmers in the dilemma of either having to give notice to the families of soldiers or leaving their land short of labour at an important season for agriculture?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no objection provided such men are considered as indispensable by War Agricultural Executive Committees, or, in the case of Scotland, by Sub-Commissioners, and provided they come within the 10 per cent. allotted, which must not be exceeded.
    Sir J. HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing the 10 per cent. to be exceeded in special cases of hardship, so as to avoid the wives of soldiers being turned out of their houses?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, we reached an agreement with the Board of Agriculture on the basis of 10 per cent., which was understood to be satisfactory to the interests affected—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—or, at any rate, as little unsatisfactory as is inevitable.

  QUEEN'S OWN YORKSHIRE DRAGOONS YEOMANRY.
  Colonel STEPHENSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a large number of officers and other ranks of the 1/1st Queen's Own Yorkshire Dragoons Yeomanry, who joined prior to 1916, and in some cases in 1914, are still serving with the 2nd Corps in the Army of Occupation; and whether he can state when they may expect to be demobilised?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Moss Side on the 1st instant, regarding the appointment of senior officers to inspect unit registers, with a view to ensur-

  907
  ing that no officer or man who is eligible for demobilisation is retained without good and sufficient cause.

  QUEEN MARY'S AUXILIARY ARMY CORPS.
  Sir J. HOPEasked the Secretary of State for War when the contract of service of members of Queen Mary's Auxiliary Army Corps who enlisted for the duration of the War terminates?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The date will be that of the termination of the War, as fixed by Order in Council under the Termination of the Present War (Definition) Act, 1918.
  Sir J. HOPEasked the Secretary of State for War whether members of Queen Mary's Auxiliary Army Corps will be given an opportunity of service with the Army of Occupation in Germany; and, if so, on what terms?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The matter is under consideration, and I cannot make any statement at present.

  COMMANDEERED BUILDINGS (KINGSWAY).
  Mr. HIGHAMasked the First Commissioner of Works if it is intended to house a French Commission in one of the commandeered buildings in Kingsway; if it is so intended, will he explain the reason why this Commission should be housed in premises held on a long lease by a British firm; and under what part of the Defence of the Realm Act he is permitted to commandeer business premises for a civil Commission from another country?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, this Commission, which is mainly naval and military, forms part of the Commission Internationale de Ravitaillement, now being concentrated in various requisitioned buildings in Kingsway. As regards the last part, the premises in question were requisitioned by the War Office under the general powers of the Defenc of the Realm Act.
  Sir NORTON GRIFFITHS: With a view to meeting the general convenience of the public, would the First Commissioner of Works consider the advisability of erecting huts in such places as the site in Hyde Park behind the Magazine, which was occupied until recently by the Royal Engineers for experimental purposes? That is a large vacant site not accessible to the public.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is offering suggestions, not asking questions.

  HUTMENTS FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICES.
  Mr. ALFRED SHORTasked the First Commissioner of Works how many huts have been erected in and around London since the signing of the Armistice; the area covered by them; which staffs have been moved into them, which commandeered premises have been thereby vacated; and the total number of staffs removed to such huts?
  Sir A. MOND: Three schemes of hutting have been undertaken since the Armistice, covering an area of about 175,000 square feet; all are being occupied as and when completed by staffs of the Ministry of Pensions appointed since the Armistice; about 1,320 staff are already in occupation, and at least 1,000 more will be installed when the whole are completed. The staffs being additional, no requisitioned premises have been vacated, but further requisitioning has been avoided to the extent indicated.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    PIGS.
    Captain Sir BEVILLE STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether members of pig clubs in rural districts, started during the War at the suggestion of the Board of Agriculture, are now being told by the local sanitary authorities that they must dispose of their pigs at once; whether, in view of the loss which this will inflict upon members of the working clauses who have pigs but who cannot fatten them until some months have elapsed, he can say what the wishes of the Board are in the matter; and what steps the Board propose to take in order to make such wishes known to the public and particularly to the rural and urban sanitary authorities?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The Board have had their attention called to one ease in which it is stated that the local authorities are requiring members of a pig club to get rid of their pigs, and they are causing an inquiry to be made into the circumstances thereof. I shall be glad to institute inquiries into any other case which may be known to my hon. Friend. The Board will, if necessary, co-operate with my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board to secure the continuance of the practice of keeping pigs by members of pig clubs and the rural population generally.
    Sir B. STANIER: Could the hon. Gentleman make a general request to the authorities that this might continued?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is the practice now, but if there are any special cases where the practice is not being carried out, we will inquire into them.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the pigs are not killed while the inquiries are being made?

    FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (RAILWAY RATES).
    Mr. A. SHORTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether foreign agricultural produce is carried on our railways at cheaper rates than home produce; and, if so, in view of the settlement of soldiers upon the land, and the proposed development of British agriculture, he will approach the President of the Board of Trade with a view to securing a revision of these charges, which are a handicap upon British industry?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Board have no evidence to show that railway companies give any preferential treatment to foreign agricultural produce as compared with home produce. If notice is given me of any railway rate which appears to prejudice British agriculturists in favour of foreign producers, I will investigate it.

    MEAT.
    Mr. HIGHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade why Canada, the senior overseas Dominion, does not appear to be represented on the Committee which he has appointed to consider and report on the means of securing suffi-
    910
    cient meat supplies for the United Kingdom at reasonable prices; and whether this House will have an opportunity of considering and discussing any recommendations made by the Committee in view of the growing resentment against Government by Order in Council?
    The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Sir A. Geddes): This Committee consists only of representatives of the Departments of His Majesty's Government (including the Colonial Office) interested in the matter, and they will obtain information as to the views of Canada and other Dominions by calling witnesses. I am unable to say what action will be taken on their Report until I have received it, but I have little doubt that the House will have an opportunity of discussing it should they so desire.
    Mr. HIGHAM: No Canadian is represented on that Committee or in the office referred to.
    Sir A. GEDDES: My hon. Friend surely did not listen to the answer I gave. This is a Committee formed of representatives of British Government Departments to consider British policy.
    Mr. HIGHAM: There is a New Zealand representative on that Committee and I submit that there should be a Canadian representative as well.

    RETAIL BUSINESSES.
    Mr. LORT-WILLIAMSasked the Food Controller whether he is aware that there is considerable delay in dealing with applications for permission to open retail businesses for the supply of food; and whether he will take steps to expedite the granting of such applications?
    Sir R. HORNE: I have been asked to reply to this question. In considering applications for the opening of a new food business, inquiries must be made not only as to whether the proposed business would be likely to affect detrimentally any recently discharged or serving soldier, but whether, in the opinion of the Ministry of Food, the business is required in the public interests, having regard to the schemes for distribution of food. In certain cases these inquiries necessarily occupy some little time, but every effort is made to carry the matter through as expeditiously as possible.
    Mr. LORT-WILLIAMSasked the Food Controller whether he is aware that a licence was granted on the 11th February, 1919, to Francis Apicello, a man of Italian extraction who has done no war service, to open a shop for the sale of light refreshments at 28, Tower Bridge Road; whether he undertook not to grant such permits without the approval of a local food control committee; whether such approval was given in this case; and whether he is aware that Mr. Apicello very heavily competes with the shop opened by Mr. Thomas Woolsgrove, a discharged soldier, of 48, Tower Bridge Road, for which a permit for the sale of light refreshments was granted on the 12th February, 1919?
    Sir R. HORNE: My hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am making inquiry as to the facts of the case, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.

  PENNAL WOODS.
  Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether a new petrol locomotive has been bought and sent to Pennal Woods and, if so, at what cost; whether the tramway, bridges, etc., are unsuitable for the locomotive; whether he will give the name of the person responsible for this transaction; (2) how many horses have been purchased for use at Pennal Woods and the price paid for them; whether any horses are also hired and, if so, from whom and at what cost; and whether the price paid for their hire is exclusive of grooming and feeding?
  Sir A. GEDDES: I have to-day received a letter addressed to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary by the hon. Member and propose to investigate the matter further.

  COTTON GOODS (BRITISH MARKETS).
  Mr. JESSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that during the War certain British markets for cotton goods were captured by Japan, China, and India; that the cotton manufacturers of these countries were assisted in their enterprise by our lack of shipping and the German U-boat campaign; that the wages paid for this class of Asiatic
  912
  labour is less than 1s. 6d. per day; and, in the interests of the thousands of cotton operatives now unemployed in the cotton industry of this country, does he propose to take any steps to regain those markets for British labour and British enterprise?
  Sir A. GEDDES: The suggestion made in the first part of the question is, in my opinion, an overstatement of the facts, but inroads have certainly been made into British markets for cotton goods as the result of war conditions, including lack of shipping and the German submarine campaign. It is the case that the wages paid to Asiatic operatives are less than the wages paid in this country, but, of course, other factors have to be taken into account, such as the relative number of operatives who have to be employed in this country and in Asiatic countries for a given piece of work. In reply to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Macclesfield Division on the 5th May.

  ELECTRICAL FITTINGS.
  Mr. JESSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fact that English markets are at present being flooded with cheap electrical fittings from Japan, and that these articles are being sold at a price which makes it impossible for British labour and British enterprise to compete against them, and, having regard to the necessity for the immediate revival of industry in this country, he will state what proposals, if any, he proposes to take to safeguard the interests of British labour and British capital in the electrical fittings industry of this country?
  Sir A. GEDDES: The matter will shortly be considered by the Imports Consultative Council, who, I understand, have set up a special sub-committee to deal with this class of articles. I am awaiting the Council's recommendations on the subject.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: What publicity is given to the decision of this Council?
  Sir A. GEDDES: They are published in the Press, they are published officially in the "Gazette," and the trades concerned have information as to what the decisions are. There have been a great many published already.
  Captain BENN: But are the reasons for these decisions adverse to the consumers made public in any form?
  Sir A. GEDDES: No. There is no publication of the evidence on which the decisions of the Council are based, but before the Consultative Council those interested have the opportunity of stating their case and those immediately interested—the trade generally—know.
  Captain BENN: But not the consumer?
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government is now in a position, to announce its permanent policy in regard to these matters?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.

  RAILWAY SUPERANNUATION FUNDS.
  Major BARNESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any knowledge whether the superannuated railway clerks and other servants of the railway companies are likely to receive any increases in their annuities?
  Sir A. GEDDES: The Board of Trade have no control over the distribution of railway superannuation funds, and I am afraid I am not in a position to say whether any of those funds are likely to increase their benefits.

  COAL AND LIGHT RATIONING ORDER.
  Major G. PALMERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to modify the Coal and Light Rationing Order; and, if so, to what extent?
  Sir A. GEDDES: It is hoped that it may be possible to relax the administration of the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1918, from 30th June next. The matter is now under consideration, but the decision must depend upon the extent to which the output of coal may be increased in the interval. Although supplies of coal for household purposes are now somewhat in excess of actual consumption, in consequence of the warmer weather, the first task will be to secure reserves sufficient to guarantee the future distribution.

  CROSS-CHANNEL TRAFFIC (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can do anything to relieve the present congestion of cross-Channel traffic between Ireland and Great Britain by arranging with the Ministry of Shipping and with the War Office for the provision of more passenger boats between Kingstown or Dublin and Holyhead especially; whether he is aware that, owing to the mail boat between Kingstown and Holyhead being crowded with military personnel, a large number of civilians arriving at Kingstown and Holyhead piers are prevented from embarking and that no arrangements are made for the accommodation of these civilian passengers who are left on the quayside; whether more passengers are allowed to leave Euston by the mail trains than can possibly find accommodation on the mail boat; and whether he will take immediate stops to deal with the congestion of cross-Channel passenger traffic?
  Sir A. GEDDES: I am making inquiries into this matter, and will let my hon. and gallant Friend know the result.
  Captain REDMOND: When the right hon. Gentleman is making inquiry will he see if this congestion referred to in the question can be mitigated in any way by expediting the cross-Channel traffic between Fishguard and Rosslare?
  Sir A. GEDDES: All the relevant facts will be taken into consideration.
  Mr. MOLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman also inquire into the fact of there being only three sailings weekly between Liverpool and Belfast?
  Sir A. GEDDES: That is another relevant fact.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE (PAY).
  Lieutenant-Colonel MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether any new rates of pay for the Royal Air Force are contemplated; whether the question has yet received Treasury or Government approval; and whether it can be anticipated when the new rates of pay will be published?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (General Seely): Revised rates of pay for officers and men of the Royal Air

  915
  Force are being considered. Until the detailed rates have been considered by the Government in conjunction with those for the other Services, no definite date for their publication can be stated, but I am aware of the importance of an early settlement.

  CONTROLLER OF CIVIL AVIATION.
  Lieutenant-Colonel MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether his proposals for the staff of the Controller of Civil Aviation have in any way been subject to revision from the Treasury; whether he will publish what his original proposals were; and what section of the staff has been omitted on account of Treasury pressure?
  General SEELY: It would be contrary to precedent and to the public interest to make communications necessarily passing between the Treasury and other Government Departments with regard to expenditure the subject of discussion in the House.

  TIMBER FOR AEROPLANES.
  Mr. REMERasked the Under Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether the present advisers as to the timber required on aeroplanes are the same officials who sanctioned the use of cypress during the War; why the many warnings of practical timber merchants as to the use of this wood were disregarded; and what was the cost of scrapping machines made of this wood after the use of cypress had been prohibited?
  General SEELY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Considerable changes in the personnel of the Technical Department have taken place owing to the return of officials to their civil occupations. As regards the second part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on this subject on the 1st instant. I am endeavouring to obtain details as to the cost of substitution of other woods for cypress in the machines concerned and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  POSTAL FACILITIES.
  Captain COOTEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of
  916
  the grave loss being occasioned to small traders in country districts by the inadequate postal facilities; whether he is aware that in many such districts the morning delivery is not until 10 or 11 a.m., and the last post out at 4 p.m.; and whether any scheme is in preparation for improving this state of affairs and, if so, what?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): Steps are being taken to review the cases in which it has been necessary to curtail postal facilities as the result of war conditions, and improvements will be introduced where the local circumstances permit.

  POSTCARDS (SALE IN LONDON).
  Colonel BURNasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the shortage of postcards for sale in London post offices; and will he see that a sufficient stock is kept?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am not aware that there is any shortage of postcards at any post office. If the hon. Member will give me particulars I will have inquiry made.
  Colonel BURN: Application was made at three post offices without success.

  TELEGRAMS TO PARIS.
  Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Postmaster-General if he can arrange for the carriage of telegrams to Paris by the ordinary daily train, by which they would reach Paris in ten hours and might be delivered at once without the delay of two three, and even four days which takes place now when they are telegraphed over by wire; and if they could be sent to Rome and other places by train at great saving of time?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Owing to interruptions on the cables and land-wires and to the shortness of staff and the great pressure of traffic it has been necessary to send a considerable number of telegrams between London and Paris in both directions by train, in order to obviate the greater delay which would arise if they were retained for transmission by wire. But several additional wires have recently, or will shortly, become available; and I

  917
  trust that it will soon no longer be necessary to send telegrams between this country and France otherwise than by telegraph, and that the present heavy delays will cease. The French lines have suffered more damage from storms than the English.
  Sir A. FELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman, aware that this has gone on for more than two years, and that frequently letters arrive from Paris before a telegram sent off at the same time?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: It has been going on more or less ever since the beginning of the War.

  EXPORT BUSINESS (PERMITS).
  Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of articles for the export of which permits are required and the number for which permits are not required, the total number of permits applied for and the total number granted since the Armistice, and the conditions attaching to the issue of such permits; and if, in view of the serious extent to which British trade is being forestalled and prejudiced as regards foreign markets by the great difficulty placed in the way of renewing export business now that peace has come, he will take an early opportunity of making a statement to the House on this vital question?
  Sir A. GEDDES: Export licences are at present required for the following articles:
  Arms and munitions, the more important foodstuffs, cattle-feeding stuffs, fertilisers, about a dozen raw materials, and a few scarce drugs and chemicals.
  The total number of applications for licences made since the Armistice is 250,188. The total number of licences issued is 258,081, the excess over the number of applications being due to many licences having been issued in respect of applications received before the Armistice. The size of the figure of licences applied for and granted is accounted for by the large number of articles for which a licence was required at the time of the Armistice. This number has since been drastically reduced. The only licences to the issue of which conditions are commonly attached are those permitting export to Scandinavia, Holland, Switzerland and Finland, in which cases consignment must be made to certain specified
  918
  bodies in those countries. As regards the last part of the question, His Majesty's Government have constantly in view the removal of restrictions on the export, trade, and the principles on which they are acting have been explained in recent Debates in the House.
  Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that permits for the exportation of goods such as groceries to France have been held up for a long time, which means that our merchants have lost the trade, and will he take such steps as he can to facilitate those operations?
  Sir A. GEDDES: I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that many groceries are foodstuffs.
  Captain W. BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the number of permits which have not been used because they arrived too late to be of any use to the exporter?
  Sir A. GEDDES: There is no information on that point available.

  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions what staff is employed by the Central Control Board, what, premises they occupy for offices, and what has been the annual cost of the Board each year since its establishment; and what is the estimated cost for the present year?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: In view of the fact that the reply is necessarily somewhat lengthy, I am arranging for a statement to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  The following is the answer referred to:
  The office of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) is situate at 134, Piccadilly, W. The total sums paid for the salaries and expenses of the Board since its establishment have been as follows:

  10 months to 31st March,

  1916

  £6,255

  11s.

  6d.

  Year ended 31st March, 1917

  14,894

  13s.

  3d.

  Year ended 31st March, 1918

  23,341

  14s.

  1d.

  Year ended 31st March, 1919

  20,521

  12s.

  9d.

  The above figures include all payments made by the Board for salaries, travelling and incidental expenses for all employés other than those employed in the Direct Control Areas (see Cd.9187). Details of the

  919
  staff and the estimated expenditure for the present financial year are shown in the Civil Service Estimates for 1919–20 (see H.C.P. 14 of 1919 Unclassified Services No. 13).

  OMNIBUS FARES (LONDON).
  Mr. HIGHAMasked the Home Secretary if he has commenced his inquiry into the reason of the increased omnibus fares in London; and, if so, will be state when he expects to be in a position to inform the House of the result of his investigations?
  Mr. SHORTT: Yes, Sir. I have obtained full details from the London General Omnibus Company, and I propose to submit them to an eminent accountant to report on the question whether the increase of fares is justified.

  LORD FRENCH'S ARTICLES.
  Sir D. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the interesting but controversial articles appearing in the "Daily Telegraph" and purporting to be written by Lord French, the Viceroy of Ireland; whether the publication of such articles is considered by the Government to be in consonance with the duties and responsibilities of that high office—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to ask any question respecting the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. If he has any criticism to make he must do it by putting a Motion down and raising it in the ordinary course of Debate.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Would it not be in order to raise a question touching Lord French's position as a Field-Marshal and therefore subject to the King's Regulations?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No. Lord French is Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and as such his salary comes upon the Consolidated Fund; that being so, he is among those who are excepted from criticism except in that special form. If the hon. Member puts a Motion down in that special form and raises it, then it can be discussed.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: We are always making some slight changes in the de-
  920
  velopment of our Rules and practices in the House, and I do not know whether the development of the Viceroy of Ireland into a British journalist would in any sense affect—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Those are statements which should not be made and which the right hon. Gentleman should not make, especially standing at that box, particularly after the statement which has just fallen from me from the Chair.

  PEACE TREATY (PUBLICATION).
  Mr. ALFRED DAVIESasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he means to tell the House that the leading features of the Peace Treaty will be made known in Paris this afternoon but that the British public will have to wait until to-morrow?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: May I ask the Home Secretary when he anticipates that the Leader of the House will be in his place, and will he give an undertaking that the question of the circulation of the full Peace terms to Members of Parliament will be considered?
  Mr. SHORTT: I understand the Leader of the House will be in his place either to-morrow or Friday.
  Lieutenant-Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is there any reason why news which will be the property of the world to-morrow should not be communicated to Members of the House to-day?
  Mr. DAVIES: May I have an answer to my question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Did the hon. Member give notice of it?
  Mr. DAVIES: I gave notice this morning to you, Sir—to your office.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Not to me. It is not my business to answer questions. To whom did the hon. Member give notice?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: May I ask the acting-Leader of the House whether he will not consider, with his colleagues, whether the Peace terms should be circulated officially to Members of Parliament, having regard to the fact that they have already been seen by hon. Members and I have at present a copy in my pocket?
  Mr. DAVIES: I will put my question on the Adjournment of the House to-night.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Arising out of the statement made by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, that he has received a very important document as a Member of Parliament which has not been supplied to the other Members of Parliament, I desire to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of privilege, how it is, when Members of Parliament are all equal, that a document of this importance should be supplied to one Member and not supplied to other Members?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know how the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy received the document. I do not think he received it as a Member of this House, but probably as a member of the Press.
  Mr. JOHN JONES: Perhaps Lord Northcliffe can tell us how he got it.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Member is not here as a member of the Press, but he is here as a Member of the House of Commons. He rose in his place as a Member of this House, and stated that he had been supplied with a copy of a certain document.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I shall be glad to show the document to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. DEVLIN: The House of Commons counts for nothing.

  NORTH RUSSIA (MILITARY OPERATIONS).
  Major BORWICKasked the Secretary of State for War if it is a fact that Captain H. Grenville Moss, Royal Army Medical Corps (Territorial Force), who had declined to volunteer for service in North Russia, had now been, ordered to proceed to Blackpool, preparatory to sailing for that country; whether he is aware that this officer has served in His Majesty's Forces since the first day of the War; whether, in view of this officer's service throughout the whole of the War and of the assurances given to the House that none but volunteers would be sent to Russia, he will give intructions that the orders for this officer to proceed to Russia should be cancelled?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Captain H. Grenville Moss, Royal Army Medical Corps (Territorial Force) did decline to volunteer for service in North Russia. He was put under orders on 17th April to command a sanitary section proceeding to North
  922
  Russia. In consequence of his appeal he was notified on 26th April that his orders were in abeyance, but that he might be required later. Endeavours were made to find a substitute, but without success, and he was, therefore, again placed under orders on 30th April. It is realised that he has served since August, 1914, and as an officer since June, 1915, but, although he is eligible for demobilisation, his age is under thirty-one and his business is being, carried on by his brother. Many officers, with greater claims to release on the grounds of personal hardship are being, necessarily retained. Further, he is not a medical man, and his claim from the civil community point of view is not an urgent one. He has shown special capabilities in sanitary work, for which urgent duty he is now required and for which no volunteers are available. I am certainly not prepared in any way to relax the claims which may be made upon a person holding the King's commission in regard to a duty of real emergency connected with the rescue and extrication of a British force from a position of danger. Men have volunteered in plenty, and I am very much surprised that any officer who knows he is required should endeavour to raise objections.
  Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a soldier who enlisted in 1914, is in France for fifteen months, is now stationed in North Russia, and is at present on leave in this country, has to return to Russia, or whether he can be demobilised in this country?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I only received notice of this question a few minutes ago and I should like to have the usual opportunity of consulting the Department upon the rules referring to this case.
  Captain W. BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman adhere to his pledge, twice repeated in this House, that none but volunteers should be sent to north Russia?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: All the men who are being sent to extricate our force are volunteers who have volunteered, and there are plenty of volunteers. There are some men from north Russia who have been given leave in this country on the assumption that they will return there, and I am not prepared at this moment to give a special instruction in the case of any individual man. In regard to officers, the conditions on which an officer has the

  923
  honour to hold the King's commission is different from the conditions governing the attestation of a private soldier.

  HOUSING (IRELAND) BILL.
  Mr. DEVLIN: When will the Housing (Ireland) Bill be introduced?
  Mr. SHORTT: I am not able to say.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the English Housing Bill and the Scottish Housing Bill have passed both their First and Second Readings, and that these Bills are now before Committee, the English Bill having made considerable progress. Can the right hon. Gentleman give some explanation why the Housing Bill for Ireland has never even been submitted nor a day announced for the introduction of it?
  Mr. SHORTT: We hope to be able to introduce it on Wednesday or Thursday of next week.

  NOTICES OF MOTION.
    Mr. GRANT: On this day four weeks to call attention to the present rate of public expenditure, and move a Resolution.
    LEAVE (OVERSEAS SOLDIERS).
    Major BARNES: On this day four weeks to call attention to the unsatisfactory method of granting leave to soldiers overseas, and to move a Resolution.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: To call attention to the increasing patronage in the hands of Ministers, and move a Resolution.

  DOCK AND HARBOUR BILLS.
  Special Report from the Joint Committee on Dock and Harbour Bills brought up, and read;
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 90.]

  STATEMENT OF RATES BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee E.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 91.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 91.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

  1. "That, in the case of the Manchester Corporation Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  2. "That, in the case of the City and South London Railway, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  3. "That, in the case of the Was all Corporation, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  4. "That, in the case of the Leicester Corporation, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  5. "That, in the case of the Rotherham Corporation. Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  6. "That, in the cast; of the Cannock Urban District Council, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for a Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."

  Resolutions agreed to.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Public Health (Medical Treatment of Children) (Ireland) Bill, without Amendment.

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  WAYS AND MEANS.— [30th April.]
  Resolution reported.

  TEA (CUSTOMS).
  1. "That on and after the second day of June, nineteen hundred and nineteen, in lieu of the existing duty of Customs the following duties of Customs shall, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty, be charged upon all tea imported into Great Britain or Ireland, that is to say:—

  s.

  d.

  upon all tea shown to be the growth of a British Possession

  the pound

  0

  10

  upon all other tea

  the pound

  1

  0

  And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
  Mr. T. SHAW: I beg to move to leave out the words
  "upon all tea shown to be the growth of a British possession—the pound, ten pence."
  I have always understood that Imperial Preference was for the purpose of helping our Colonies, Dominions, and Protectorates, if help were needed, but in the case of tea, surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot claim that any preference is needed. In 1913, 87 per cent. of our total supplies of tea came from our own Colonies, Dominions, or Dependencies. There is absolutely no evidence produced to the House that India or Ceylon, who supply us with tea, have any necessity for a preference of this kind. The only country that can be injured in connection with this preference is China. China supplies us with pretty well all the tea we import from countries outside our own Dominions. If China is injured by the preference, China has a direct method of reprisal that can injure Lancashire—and Lancashire is in the Empire—far more than we have the power to injure China. Whilst we imported tea to the value of £608,000 from China in 1913, China imported from us in cotton goods, manufactured piece goods, and yarns, no less than £9,500,000 worth in the same year. Therefore, we are going to give a preference against a country on one article when we are exporting in a normal year to the same country from one county alone, to all intents and purposes, roughly fifteen times as much as we import from her. I put it to the House as a sensible proposition that it is inadvisable to give a preference to people who do not need it
  956
  against a neutral country which can injure our trade far more than there is any benefit that can be derived from the preference.
  4.0 P.M.
  To whom is the preference to go? India of course has borne her part in the War, and one can understand the natural feeling that India should have a preference. But take again the county of Lancashire. Is the House aware that we are being asked to give a preference to a country which during the War has actually put a protective tariff against our goods in spite of the deliberately expressed idea that controversial politics should not enter into the Coalition Government? When the righthon. Gentleman who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer and who is proposing this preferential duty for India was Secretary of State for India he broke the understanding that controversial measures should not form part of the political life of the country, and he himself imposed a protective tariff in India against Lancashire goods, although at that time the Indian manufacturers were making fabulous profits, and, in spite of protests, we were faced with the fait accompli and had either to raise a disturbance about the matter in time of War or to sink our feelings and let the thing go.
  This is what the peculiar commercial fiscal policy of the present Government is leading us to. India has no necessity whatever for these taxes. We can only gain from it a confusion of feeling in other countries. There is nothing financial that India can gain except at the expense of China. There is nothing that China can lose as a result of this tariff that will not return on us with tenfold force. I ask as a purely business proposal, apart altogether from views about Free Trade and tariffs, that a common-sense view be taken of the matter and careful attention given as to whether we are going to be losers or gainers by this policy. We look on the introduction of this policy as a very great mistake. It cannot end at tea; it cannot end in preference for the Colonies. Let China retort with a protective duty which defeats us from having our favourite nation rights, and we are in a tariff war with China at once. In my opinion that is the true intention of this proposal, and it is not the intention to help India because India needs help. The true intention of this

  957
  proposal is to bring about a tariff war, and, just at a time when in peace every effort is being made to get nations to live in perfect harmony, to get freedom of intercourse between nations and understandings whereby old tariff walls and the old discords will be broken down, just at this instant we have the beginnings of a policy in this country which is likely to lead no to peace in the world but to discontent, misapprehension, and misconstruction. I ask the house to decline to vote for the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as it now stands, and to accept the Amendment moved to delete the words I have already referred to.
  Mr. SHORT: In seconding the Amendment I shall not go into many details, and shall confine myself to matters of general interest and importance, but it does appear to me that it may be thought of the benches on this side that we are in some sense lacking appreciation of patriotism, or that we are not anxious to see the dependencies of our Empire well knit together. But what we are aiming at is to make the British Empire the centre and generator of what may be termed international good will, and this international good will, so essential and desirable, is not only generated by diplomacy but is dependent largely on the part played by commerce in international relations. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is going to interfere with that free and unfettered international trade, and to such an extent as not to facilitate or assist in the recovery of the normal state of commerce and to endanger that equipoise of trade which is necessary and essential. If the proposal is carried to its logical conclusion, if it is extended in all its ramifications to our commercial interests at home and abroad, it will not be a restraint upon the causes and the possibilities of war. There appears no indication that the proposal will increase the supply or cheapen the price of the commodity to the consumer. If experience is anything to go by, it is more likely to add to the present burdens on the poorer classes. The proposal, in my opinion, aims really at shifting the source of supply. If that is the aim and the policy of the country it will not go unnoticed by other countries who will simply retaliate in their spheres of commercial activity. We shall once again see, as the result of the application of this preference duty, a keen struggle
  958
  for world markets. There is always a possibility in such a struggle of our international relationships becoming estranged. I have no hesitation in asserting that on the rebound of this fiscal boomerang we as a country, and our commercial interests will materially suffer. It may be suggested that the imposition of this duty would not increase prices. In that very eminent paper, the "Manchester Guardian" of to-day, I find a letter which indicates a movement already following upon the proposal and the imposition of this duty on tea. The writer of the letter says:
  "I have just been approached by a tea agent who has advised me to buy tea at once as it is likely to get much dearer owing, he says, to the fact that now British-grown teas, being partially excluded from our markets by the preferential duty of 2d. per lb., cannot seriously compete in price with India and Ceylon tea. I am not surprised at this, the first result of the preference duties. It was only to be expected that practical advantage would at once be taken by the importer and merchant, while the consumer pays."
  It has already been pointed out that the 2d. will largely pass into the pockets of the merchants and the traders of this country and elsewhere.
  The introduction of the policy of Imperial Preference will lead largely to corruption. We shall see one interest seeking to gain some pecuniary advantage over another to the detriment of all concerned, and I understand the Committee which was set up in the course of the War on commercial and industrial policy after the War admitted this grave danger and warned the country and the Government against the adoption of proposals of this character. Further, I suggest that in the retaliation that is likely to follow the application of these duties, in view of the attempt that China in particular will make to secure control over the markets and to find a home for her manufactures and to secure some satisfaction of her own requirements in markets other than our own, the loss of trade following the imposition of this duty will have a serious consequence for the labouring classes of this country. Statistical evidence goes to prove that unemployment and industrial depression are more prolonged and more acute under a system of Protection than under a policy of Free Trade. I do not suggest that the Labour party stands for the policy of Free Trade as a recognised panacea to solve poverty and unemployment, but I maintain that a universal system of Free Trade contributes more largely

  959
  to our material success than the application and imposition of tariffs and of duties of the character under notice. I beg to second the Amendment.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): My colleague the Financial Secretary is detained in Committee upstairs, and, of course, I have only the right to speak once on the Motion, and if I speak now I exhaust that right except by the indulgence of the House. On the other hand, I do not want the hon. Members who have spoken briefly and to the point to think that on that account I am discourteous to them by not speaking now. I will, therefore, make my speech at once, without waiting for the Debate to develop. I was waiting to see whether anyone rose on the Front Opposition Bench opposite, but I gather that, though more than one of them had the same Amendment down on the Paper, they all preferred to defer their observations till I could make mine. I should have thought that one of them might have taken his courage in both his hands and spoken on this Amendment. It is directed against the policy of Preference in general and the policy of Preference on tea in particular. In so far as the Amendment is a general attack on Preference, it is, of course, a challenge to the declared policy of His Majesty's Government. His Majesty's Government accepted two years ago the principle that on duties now or hereafter existing a preference should be given on Imperial produce. That is the policy which we are pursuing. We initiate no new duties in order to create Preference, but where, for our own purposes, we find it necessary or in our interest to impose a customs duty, then there shall be a preference to the British Dominions. That was decided in 1917, and, therefore, a date which leaves, I think, the right hon. Gentleman on the bench opposite unaffected, but a date which has an interest for the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Amendment, because the Leader of the Labour party, who was the ex-chairman, and who had only temporarily given up the chairmanship in order to join His Majesty's Government, Mr. Arthur Henderson, who was a member of the Government at that time, concurred in the Resolution which was approved by the Imperial War Cabinet and by every member of the Home Government, and was passed by the Imperial War Conference with unanimity. After that solemn de-
  960
  claration to which we were parties, the proposal that we should go back on our word and withdraw from the principle of Imperial Preference, I can offer, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, nothing but the strongest resistance. Our existence is incompatible with the repudiation by the House of Commons of the policy to which we have assented for two years.
  Let me take this opportunity of saying how grateful I am to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir D. Maclean), personally, for the courtesy which he showed me on the first night of the Budget in waiving his right to prolong the discussion. I observed that in the short discussion which we have had on tea, any stick is good enough to beat this dog with, and the most inconsistent arguments come equally handy to the opponents of Preference. If the article be an article, like tea, of which the great bulk comes from our own Empire, they say that Preference is unnecessary, that it is useless. If the article be one, like coffee, of which little is produced at presentin the Dominions, they say, "What is the good of Preference for a two penny-halfpenny import?" Preference is of use in both cases. In the latter case it may lead to a vast extension of production within the Empire, and to great new trade developments. In the other case, which is the case immediately before us, the result will take effect in a different way. Here we are confronted with the case in which 90 per cent. of the tea consumed in this country is already the product of His Majesty's Possessions overseas, the great Empire of India and Ceylon. What is the result of reducing the duty on that proportion of the import by two pence. Remember that of the remaining part of the import a great deal, I cannot pretend to say how much, is a speciality—high-class China teas which are an article of luxury or taste as much as champagne, and for which a special demand will remain. But the effect of reducing the duty by two pence on the Empire product, when the Empire product makes up so large a part of the ordinary consumption of the country, must be to increase the consumption. Nobody will doubt that if you reduce the tea duty by two pence it increases the consumption of tea, and if you reduce the duty by two pence on 90 per cent. of the tea the result would be the same—an increase in the amount consumed. In the estimate of loss which I made I estimated to recoup part of the

  961
  definite loss on the fall of duty by increased consumption on the larger amount of Indian tea imported.
  The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) with a simplicity which will wear off when he has had a longer experience of, shall I say, public life, read to this House a letter from a tea merchant who urged his clients to buy tea in a hurry to avoid a rise in price, in consequence of the reduction in duty. His clients might be fools enough to be taken in by that, but it is a little bit of trade advertisement and nothing more. It is making an opportunity to try to get rid of a little stock. The effect will be shown either in an improved quality in the blended teas, which are sold or in a reduced price of the tea per lb. The effect in India and Ceylon will be shown by a reaction of the increased consumption here on the development and prosperity of the tea industry there. Instead of being, as the hon. Member endeavoured to show, of no use to that country and harmful to this, it will be a benefit to the consumer here and of great hope and promise to the producers there. The hon. Gentlemen are very much afraid of the effect that such an alteration of our duties may have on foreign countries. So alarmed was the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment that he could not refrain from pointing out that I had been Secretary of State for India at the time the Cotton Duties were last raised. Therefore my record was very black, and I was the subject of great suspicion whenever I approached questions of this kind. So deeply did he feel my iniquities that he forgot altogether the history of the Indian Import Duty. I did not introduce it. That was the work of a pure undiluted Liberal Government, who maintained for years that these, being revenue duties, raised no question of Protection, and in respect of certain of those duties, imposed no excise or an excise admittedly markedly lower than the duties themselves. The whole of my offence, such as it was, was to proceed upon the precedent of a Liberal Government, and India being a poor country, and having the necessity of raising increased revenue and proposing to raise part of it by increased Customs Duty, I as Secretary of State, with the approval of the Government at home, sanctioned the course which the Indian Government proposed to take.
  Mr. SHAW: This question had been before repeated governments, and the right hon. Gentleman was the first to introduce on cotton goods to India a duty without a countervailing Excise Duty, in India itself.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know how far I ought to pursue this. It is going a little wide of the Amendment, but I may say this that the Cotton Duty with its countervailing excise was part of the system of duties which I explained, which in other cases carried no countervailing excise. Cotton was put in a privileged position. I left the excise where it was, with the consent of the Government at home, and I sanctioned the proposal of the Indian Government. The hon. Member represents the Labour party on this matter. Does he for the Labour party say that he or his party are going to ignore absolutely Indian opinion on matters of this kind. I was not prepared to do so as Secretary of State. I am not prepared to do so now that I have ceased to hold that office. If the hon. Member and his party are going to take up that position they are going to incur very serious responsibility and raise very grave issues.
  The only other point raised by the hon. Members was the question of retaliation by foreign governments. The Mover in particular dwelt on the case of China. He was anxious lest we should lose the Chinese market owing to retaliatary action by the Chinese government. I venture to say that it would not occur to any foreign government to think that the internal arrangements of another nation or empire was their affair at all, if so many Members of the House of Commons and publicists outside did not studiously apply themselves to teaching foreign nations that it was. Now let me put the reverse case. Have we any right to complain because goods can pass from one province of the Chinese Empire to another without paying the charges which English goods must pay when they enter China? We have no right to complain. We have not thought of complaining, yet many parts of the British Empire are hardly more widely separated than many parts of the Chinese Empire, and the diversities of language and thought are as great as in the British Empire. What we choose to do within the British Empire is the concern of the British Empire. It gives no right

  963
  for any foreign nation to take offence. No foreign nation invites or would tolerate our interference in their internal Customs arrangements, and I see no reason, but for the suggestions coming from the hon. Gentleman, why any foreign nation should take any offence at our doing what other foreign nations have done for years without complaint from us or anybody else. If that be the issue, if a foreign nation chooses to raise that issue, and to say, when one portion of the British Empire treats another portion of the British Empire as kinsmen, as parts of one whole, as partners in one great commonwealth, that that is an offence to the foreign nation, then the whole British Empire would be ready to meet that and to stand shoulder 10 shoulder to combat it.
  It was raised by Germany when Canada gave us a preference. I am sorry to say we did not all stand shoulder to shoulder at that time, but Canada, standing alone, put that contention down and beat them. We are ready to face that again. This is a big question, and it has got to be discussed at some time, and while I do not wish to repeat myself on every Amendment on which it is raised, the one question is a question of principle. Are we entitled to treat different parts of the Empire as parts of one whole, and as distinct from nations outside the Empire not owning the sovereignty of the King? If we are so entitled, are we prepared to do it? For this Government there is but one answer. At Conference after Conference, first the Colonial Conference, then the Imperial Conference, this principle has been proposed and pressed upon our acceptance by all the self-governing Dominions. Sometimes the representative of one has been the protagonist, sometimes that of another, but they have always been agreed. They have never sought to interfere in our domestic affairs. They have never sought to dictate to us what Customs Duties we should have, or whether we should have any, but they have pleaded again and again that where Customs Duties did exist or were imposed, the principle of Imperial unity should be recognised by the establishment of Imperial Preference. At Conference after Conference the Ministers of the Home Government alone refrained from voting. At last, two years ago, the Home Government, in the midst of a great war and of the emotions stirred by that war, looking at the way in which the Empire had sprung together when the call to arms came, thinking of what a reality the
  964
  Imperial spirit had shown itself to be, and what a force in the world's history this Imperial kinship was, then, for the first time, British Ministers ranged themselves with the Ministers from overseas in the acceptance of the principle for which they had so long contended. I do not know whether the House will forgive me, but they know the emotion which this question stirs in me, and I hope they will forgive me for telling them that a little time ago, a year or two ago, a gentleman who was at one time a Member of this House wrote me a letter saying that he was at a certain meeting which my father addressed upon this subject in the year 1905, I think, or early in 1906, and that, going to stay at the same house with him after the meeting, he, in the course of conversation, said to my father, "The case you make seems to me so plain and so strong that I cannot understand how people fail to accept it." My father said, "They will accept it one day, but it may be at the cost of much blood and treasure." That day has come, Sir.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: If it might be permitted to so junior a Member to the right hon. Gentleman as myself to say so, I should like to say that we very much admire, and always have admired, the great courage and single-mindedness with which he has promoted the cause of Imperial Preference, and perhaps he will understand better than some of our own colleagues the feelings of those of us who sit here, a small minority, in defence of our principles. This Amendment is to reduce the Tea Duty from 1s. to 10d. throughout. At least, that would be the result of it with one consequential Amendment, and apart from the larger issues which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, there are reasons germane to the Amendment itself which should commend it, I think, to the favourable consideration of the House. The right hon. Gentleman says that he wishes to see, and believes, that the result of the Budget will be to reduce the price of tea. If the reduction of the duty from 1s. to 10d. in the case of 87 per cent. of the import will tend to reduce the price of tea, it is quite obvious that to take the 2d. off the China and Java tea will make certain of that reduction, so that we may say that the Amendment has as one of its objects a reduction in the price of tea, and those who know the conditions of the working classes and the cost of living at the present time and the very hard task that many families have in budgeting,

  965
  families belonging not to what I may call the aristocracy of labour, will see that to them this Amendment has some merit. As regards the second point, it is this. One of our most important foreign markets is China. The recent figures of trade are not available, because the publications have ceased during the War, but we may say that £10,000,000 a year of cotton goods go to China. I understand that it is a question of a treaty with China that we are to enjoy the Most-Favoured-Nation treatment in that country. It is perfectly obvious that if we deprive China of the consideration in respect of which we enjoy the Most-Favoured-Nation treatment they are perfectly entitled by treaty to deprive us of the most-favoured-nation treatment and to hand over their market, say, to America.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They are entitled to do nothing of the kind. Any Government may denounce a treaty, but there is no infringement of the treaty, in the proposed Preference, of the principle of the most-favoured-nation treatment; none whatever. Many of the Colonies have that, I think, already, and the United States have it. The United States have given a Preference to Cuba, which is no part of the United States, and is still contained in the privileges given under the Most-Favoured-Nation treatment.
  Captain BENN: Despite what the right hon. Gentleman says, there is a material point, and it is that China has here a large market for her tea, and we are going to deprive her of that market. That is the intention. The intention is to supplant China and Java tea in our market by tea grown in the British Empire, and, if that is not the intention, what is the good of the Preference? If you intend to deprive China of her market in tea, I say that she is entitled to say, "Very well, we prefer to give a Preference in our market for cotton goods to some other country than Lancashire."
  Sir E. CARSON: When Canada or any of the Colonies give us a Preference, does that affect the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause?
  Captain BENN: I am speaking about the most-favoured-nation treatment of other countries in British markets. If we say we will cut out China tea, it is obvious we are not giving China the most-favoured-nation treatment.
  Sir E. CARSON: Yes, we are.
  Captain BENN: It is plain that what China wants to send here is tea, and we are going to stop her sending tea.
  Captain STANLEY WILSON: If I want my China tea I shall still drink it.
  Captain BENN: The hon. and gallant Member has a pretty taste in beverages, and he will still drink tea, but there can be no question that, whether for good or for bad reasons, we are risking the China market for Lancashire goods by this Preference. The third reason in favour of the Amendment is this. We are the world market for tea. We import, I believe, or did import, according to the last figures from China, £600,000 worth of tea. A certain quantity of that goes to gentlemen like the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, who insists on drinking China tea, but it is a very small quantity. The great bulk of it—about five-sixths of the import, I believe—is redistributed by this country to other markets of the world. That employs labour and capital, and that is a British industry which will be utterly destroyed by the Preference now proposed to be given. Whereas the tea was sent here and distributed from here to the Continent, it will be very much simpler for the China or Java merchant to seek to get direct to his market instead of going through the entrepot, such as this country has hitherto provided.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Why does giving a Preference on Indian tea interfere with the entrepot trade in China tea? That entrepot trade is carried on in bond and is unaffected by the Customs.
  Captain BENN: Of course, I am well aware that in so far as the entrepot trade is carried on in bond it is unaffected, but I am informed—I am not a tea merchant myself—that the greater part of the trade is not carried on in bond. It is obvious that for an entrepot trade it is a great deal more convenient to have a free market.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If they do not keep the tea in bond, they have to pay the duty, and they still have to pay the duty under the Amendment which is now proposed.
  Captain BENN: Yes; but they are paying a duty at a higher rate than they are for the Indian tea. That is the point. I suppose that there are merits in the Preference case, but I do not understand how

  967
  on the one hand the right hon. Gentleman explains that in response to the demands of India we are going to preserve our market for Indian tea and exclude China tea, and then that he is not doing anything to interfere with the market for China tea and the basis of the entrepot trade. You cannot have it both ways, and you must decide on which horse you are going to ride. So much for the direct question of the duty on tea; but a much more important question is raised by what the righthon. Gentleman said as regards the whole question of Preference.
  Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss that now. The proper place to discuss that is on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
  Captain BENN: I shall, of course, follow your ruling, Sir, but I understood the right hon. Gentleman, in opening this Debate, dealt widely with the question of Preference and its advantages, and he illustrated it by the Import Duties in India on cotton goods.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That was drawn from him by the hon. Member behind the hon. and gallant Member (Air. Shaw), who rose andspecifically put it. He was therefore bound to answer it, but he did not initiate the Debate. The Debate was initiated from the Labour Benches.
  Captain BENN: In that case I think I have given, without touching the general question, which is highly debatable, and on which I should very much like to have the opportunity of saying something at the proper moment, three good reasons in favour of the Amendment, and I defer anything I have to say on the general subject of Preference to a more orderly and convenient occasion.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 63.

  Division No. 27.]

  AYES.

  [4.49 p.m.

  Adair, Rear-Admiral

  Chadwick, R. Burton

  Greame, Major P. Lloyd-

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm.,W.)

  Green, J. F. (Leicester)

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Allen, Major W. J. (Armagh, N.)

  Cheyne, Sir William Watson

  Gretton, Col. John

  Archdale, Edward M.

  Clough, R.

  Griggs, Sir Peter

  Astbury, Lt.-Com. F. W.

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Southend)

  Atkey, A. R.

  Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.

  Gwynne, R. S.

  Bagley, Captain E. A.

  Cohen, Major J. B. B.

  Hacking, Captain D. H.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.

  Hailwood, A.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

  Hall, R. Adml. Sir W. R. (Lpl.W. Derby)

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

  Hallas, E.

  Barrand, A. R.

  Cory, J. H. (Cardiff)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Courthope, Major George Loyd

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)

  Haslam, Lewis

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

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Henderson, Major V. L.

  Bentinck. Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish-

  Curzon, Commander Viscount

  Henry, Sir Charles S. (Salop)

  Betterton, H. B.

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Higham, C. F. (Islington, S.)

  Bird, Alfred

  Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)

  Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.

  Blades, Sir George R.

  Davies, T. (Cirencester)

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

  Blair, Major Reginald

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Hood, Joseph

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

  Hope, Harry (Stirling)

  Blane, T. A.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Berwick, Major G. O.

  Dean, Com. P. T.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

  Dennis, J. W.

  Hopkinson, Dr. E. (Clayton)

  Bowles, Col. H. F.

  Dockrell, Sir M.

  Horne, Edgar (Guildford)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.

  Donald, T.

  Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)

  Breese, Major C. E.

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Briggs, Harold

  Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

  Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Britton, G. B.

  Eyres-Monsell, Com.

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

  Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)

  Falcon, Captain M.

  Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

  Bruton, Sir J.

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Inskip, T. W. H.

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

  Fell, Sir Arthur

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

  Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.

  FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.

  Jameson, Major J. G.

  Burdon, Col. Rowland

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Jesson, C.

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

  Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

  Jodrell, N. P.

  Butcher, Sir J. G.

  Gardiner, J. (Perth)

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Campbell, J. G. D.

  Gardner, E. (Berks., Windsor)

  Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

  Campion, Col. W. R.

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

  Carr, W. T.

  Gilbert, James Danies

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Glyn, Major R.

  Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Cayzer, Major H. R.

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Kidd, James

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)

  Gould, J. C.

  King, Com. Douglas

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Knights, Capt. H.

  Parker, James

  Stewart, Gershom

  Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

  Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

  Parry, Major Thomas Henry

  Sugden, Lieut. W. H.

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)

  Pearco, Sir William

  Surtees, Brig.-Gen. H. C.

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Percy, Charles

  Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts.)

  Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green)

  Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)

  Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)

  Locker Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Pownall, Lt.-Col. Assheton

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

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Preston, W. R.

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W)

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Pulley, Charles Thornton

  Tickler, Thomas George

  Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancs., Lons.)

  Purchase, H. G.

  Townley, Maximillian G.

  Lynn, R. J.

  Rae, H. Norman

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Lyon, L.

  Raeburn, Sir William

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  M'Donald, D. H. (Bothwell, Lanark)

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Waddington, R.

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

  Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)

  Raw, Lt.-Col. Dr. N.

  Walton, J. (York, Don Valley)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Reid, D. D.

  Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Renwick, G.

  Wardle, George J.

  McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Waring, Major Walter

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

  Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

  Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

  Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Warren, Sir Alfred H.

  Marriott, John Arthur R.

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Watson, Captain John Bertrand

  Mason, Robert

  Rodger, A. K.

  Weston, Col. John W.

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Roundell, Lt.-Col. R. F.

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Mitchell, William Lane-

  Rowlands, James

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Moles, Thomas

  Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund

  Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

  Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

  Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.

  Samuel, A, M. (Farnham, Surrey)

  Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold' ness)

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

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

  Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, W.)

  Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

  Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)

  Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

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

  Seager, Sir William

  Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)

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

  Shaw, Capt. W. T. (For far)

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

  Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)

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

  Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Nall, Major Joseph

  Simm, Col. M. T.

  Yate, Col. Charles Edward

  Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

  Smithers, Alfred W.

  Yen, Sir Alfred William

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander

  Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

  Norton-Griffiths, Lt.-Col. Sir J.

  Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville

  Younger, Sir George

  Oman, C. W. C.

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Starkey, Capt. John Ralph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Pratt and Lieut.-Col. Gilmour.

  Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)

  Steel, Major S. Strang

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

  Stevens, Marshall

  NOES

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

  Redmond, Captain William A.

  Arnold, Sydney

  Grundy, T. W.

  Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Bell, James (Ormskirk)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)

  Hancock, John George

  Rose, Frank H.

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Harbison, T. J. S.

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Bramsdon, Sir T.

  Hartshorn, V.

  Sexton, James

  Briant, F.

  Hayday, A.

  Shaw, Tom (Preston)

  Bread, Thomas Tucker

  Hayward, Major Evan

  Short, A. (Wednesbury)

  Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

  Hinds, John

  Sitch, C. H.

  Cairns, John

  Hirst, G. H.

  Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

  Carter, W. (Mansfield)

  Hogge, J. M.

  Spencer, George A.

  Casey, T. W.

  Irving, Dan

  Swan, J. E. C.

  Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)

  Johnstone, J.

  Taylor, J. W. (Chester-le-Street)

  Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

  Jones, J. (Silvertown)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Tillett, Benjamin

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Kenworthy, Lieut-Commander

  Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lunn, William

  White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

  Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

  Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)

  Wood, Major M.

  Finney, Samuel

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Morgan, Major D Watts

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  O'Grady, James

  Tyson Wilson and Mr. Neil M'Lean.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Mr. ROSE: I beg to move, to leave out the word "ten" [ten pence"], and to insert instead thereof the word "three."
  5.0 P.M.
  I am not approaching this matter from a party point of view at all. I am aware that this Motion to reduce the Tea Tax is a sort of hardy annual, which has been introduced almost every year, certainly every year since the Labour party has
  970
  been an element in Parliamentary life. I am not very much concerned, at least so far as this Amendment extends, with the difference between Protection and Free Trade, Colonial Preference or any other sort of preference, except the preference for the very poor consumers, and I think we have always been—at least, to the best of my recollection—in favour of

  971
  reducing this tax as far as possible. We propose by this Amendment to reduce it very considerably; at all events, we propose to reduce it from 10d. to 3d. I am quite aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to raise the money. We may be met, indeed shall be met, by the suggestion that this is one of the prime sources of revenue, and one which he could by no possibility modify or depreciate. I am not at this juncture going to attempt to anticipate the arguments that will be put forward by my hon. Friends on these benches when they come to discuss some of the larger problems involved in the Budget Resolutions; but I think I am speaking in the name of all, or nearly all, of my colleagues here when I say that the principle that seems to us to be involved is a principle of differentiating or balancing—or finding a better balance—between direct and indirect taxation. We want indirect taxation brought down to its lowest possible limit, and the burdens of national upkeep thrown on the direct sources of taxation.
  The difference between Protection and Free Trade, or of any of the phases of either, are, speaking for myself, matters of comparatively small importance. I have never regarded either of them as a principle. I have never regarded them as embodying, or even inferring, a principle. Both seem to me to be expedients to be adopted or not to be adopted. There is nothing sacrosanct about either of them. Therefore it is not from that point of view that I am introducing this Amendment. It is because we believe there are ample sources of direct taxation open to the Chancellor, and that he ought not to impose greater taxes on articles which, in our opinion, are already over-taxed and which might be relieved in the interests of most of the poor people of this country. So far as the well-to-do are concerned I do not suppose it matters much, but we have to consider a vast number of people who have not profited by the War. Everybody has not made money out of the War. Some people have been bitterly impoverished by it. If any of the necessities of their life are taxed for the purpose of raising Revenue, much of which has gone, and is still going in profits, which, however legal they may be, are hopelessly immoral, it seems to me to be the wrong principle. It is against this principle of increasing indirect taxation, and on the
  972
  principle of throwing all the burdens we possibly can on the direct sources of taxation that I have introduced this Amendment on behalf of my hon. and right hon. colleagues.
  I quite realise the great difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One has to have regard, if I may be permitted a general remark, to the general slip-shod character of this Budget from beginning to end. It seems to us a very perfunctory expedient for getting over a difficult time somehow, anyhow! If I may be pardoned, such a vulgarity as alliteration, I would refer to the right hon. Gentleman as "the manipulator of mythical millions." I do feel, seeing he has an hereditary gift for magic, that he might have offered us something better than this. To pile taxes on any of the articles consumed by the poorest of our people seems to me to be not only perfunctory, but, I think, scarcely in accordance with what we have a right to expect from right hon. Gentlemen who are ruling us, the members of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. ARNOLD: As one who has consistently and persistently opposed the Tea Duty in time of war as well as in time of peace I desire to second this Amendment. In discussing it I should like to get down to the first principles of taxation and see how the Tea Duty stands in regard to them. All taxation should be equitable, economically sound, and productive. These are really the three governing principles of sound taxation. The Tea Duty is productive, but in so far as it is productive it is inequitable in its incidence, and economically unsound. It is inequitable in its incidence because everybody knows that indirect taxation of this kind imposes a much heavier burden upon the poor than it does upon the richer classes. But this Tea Duty is not only inequitable as between rich and poor, it is also inequitable in respect to its incidence between poor and poor, because the amount of the duty which a man pays depends not only upon his ability to bear it, but upon the size of his family. This is quite a wrong criterion on which to estimate the amount of taxation that one ought to pay. Further, the Tea Duty is economically unsound because it presses with peculiar severity on those who are near, or below, the level of subsistence.
  The simple truth is that tea is a necessity for the poorer classes. It is an academic and armchair view to say that

  973
  tea is a luxury. For the poorer classes tea is a necessity because at most meals there is nothing else cheaper that they can drink. To argue that tea is a luxury is opposed to the real facts of life as they are to-day. Anything that tends to increase the price of tea tends, in many cases, to reduce the miserable pittance of those who have already not got sufficient to live upon. A rough calculation shows that this duty, on its present level, is taking out of the pockets of the poorer classes of the country £11,000,000 per year. That means a great hardship on poor people who have to pay it. It does not really mean much in revenue to the Chancellor as things go today; £11,000,000 is, in fact, only about 1 per cent. of the total revenue which the Chancellor expects to obtain this year. It would be much better and much more in accordance with the principles of sound taxation to get this money by increasing the rates of Income Tax upon bigger incomes by a copper or two, and by some slight changes in the Super-tax scale. In this way the money would be got without any real hardship, and between the two methods this would be much better. If the Chancellor will not do what is really the only proper thing to do to solve our present difficulties, there are other alternatives; but, as between the two methods, this is the better—as between Income Tax and Tea Duty—because the Tea Duty does involve a very real hardship, and is enormous upon the poor at any time, especially at the present time, because of the very high prices.
  It is a great mistake to suppose, as so many people seem to do, that the rises which have taken place in wages have been generally commensurate with the rises in prices. That is a complete delusion. As a matter of fact, nothing could be more untrue of a large number of the poorer classes which, despite increased wages and so forth, are much worse off than before the War. Amongst these are old age pensioners—who number nearly 1,000,000—many industrial workers—particularly in the printing, building, and textile trades—agricultural labourers, many postal employés, and police employés, hundreds of thousands of clerks, and shop assistants, lodging-house keepers; many injured workers and the families of many of our men who are still fighting. There are tens of thousands of people, widows and spinsters, with small fixed incomes. Owing to the great rise in the cost of living many of these people have been driven near to,
  974
  or below, the level of subsistence, and the Tea Duty inflicts a great hardship upon them. It trenches upon the margin for bare necessities. It tends to reduce the efficiency of millions of the people. It does this at a critical time in our history, when it is most important in the national interest that the health and physique of the people should be maintained as far as possible. There is another vital objection to all taxation of this kind. It is this: in the case of direct taxation when the income falls the rate of taxation is reduced. If it falls below a certain level, the tax ceases altogether. That is not true of the Tea Duty. It goes on all the time. A man's income may fall well below the level of subsistence, but it makes no difference. There is no abatement; no remission of duty. The Tea Duty is always there whatever the man's wages fall to. It surely does not require much imagination to realise that the Tea Duty is a serious burden in the homes of tens of thousands of the poorer classes, and that it means that in innumerable cases the insufficient margin for buying nourishing food is being still further reduced.
  I expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he gets up to reply, will bring forward, as his counter argument, or as part of it, the bread subsidy. Ever since the bread subsidy has been in existence it has been used on these occasions to refute, or attempt to refute, the arguments that have been urged against the Tea Duty. I quite expect that this contention will be brought forward to-day. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman shall only use the bread subsidy on one condition. It is this, that he should undertake, when the bread subsidy ceases, to repeal the Tea Duty. Of course, he will not do anything of the kind! The point is this: The bread subsidy will be temporary, and the right hon. Gentleman wants the Tea Duty to be permanent. Apart from other things, it is part and parcel of his Preference proposals that the Tea Duty should be permanent. No doubt these arguments will be brought forward again. Personally, I should like to see the duty abolished altogether. That would have the double advantage of relieving the poorer classes still further from this tax and it would also destroy Preference so far as tea is concerned. This Amendment does go a long way in the direction of abolishing the Tea Duty, and therefore I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The House has already accepted and affirmed the principle that there should be a Preference in respect of this duty on teas produced in the British Empire. The effect of the acceptance of this Amendment would be that the Preference would be very largely increased, and instead of being 2d. in the £ would be 9d. in the £, and, strong Preferentialist as I am, I think that is an exaggerated Preference, and more than is necessary for any useful purpose. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment expressly disclaimed any desire to raise that issue, and I am not going to argue it further now. His demand is, of course, for a general reduction as regards the Tea Duty. If his proposal were carried it would reduce the yield of the Tea Duty from something like £14,000,000, which it is at present, to about £6,000,000, and the loss of £8,000,000 of revenue is a loss which I cannot face. Both hon. Members, the Mover and Seconder, are concerned as to the proportion between direct and indirect taxation. The hon. Member who seconded wants, I think, no indirect taxes.
  Mr. ARNOLD: No indirect taxation execpt on luxuries.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should say that tea is one of the common necessities of life. I have always contended so, especially among the poorer classes. But the real question is not whether this tax standing by itself is fair. I venture to say that none of our taxes taken individually are fair, but they must be regarded in combination, because one balances and completes the other, and where one raises the scale unduly on one section of the population another restores the balance. Therefore it is only by regarding the question as a whole that we can arrive at an appreciation of the justice of our system of taxation. We cannot consider one tax in complete isolation by itself and condemn it as if it were the only tax. Both hon. Members spoke as if we were piling up new duties on articles of food of primary necessity. I am not doing anything of the kind, and as far as I have made any change in the duties it has not been to increase, but to reduce them. Is it, therefore, quite fair for hon. Members to speak of the piling up of taxation? The hon. Member who moved said he wanted to cut down indirect taxation and get revenue by direct taxation. I observe that the Leader of his party has got an Amendment down to exclude a large por-
  976
  tion of the population from Income Tax. If we are to have no indirect taxation and no direct taxation, how is the revenue to be obtained? I should be rather glad if the hon. Member would state what proportion he thought was fair or reasonable at the present time as between direct and indirect taxation.
  Mr. ROSE: I think the whole of it should be borne by direct taxation, and that there should be no indirect taxation at all. That is my object. I cannot answer for what the Leader of my party is going to say, and I do not think that is quite a fair argument against me.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member's point is not that there should be some different proportion between direct and indirect taxation, but that there should be no indirect taxation at all. That would mean, for instance, that there would be no taxation on beer or spirits. Then we come to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adamson) that a large portion of the population should pay no direct taxation. Let me just say what is the proportion between direct and indirect taxation. According to the Estimates which I have laid before the House direct taxation comes to rather more than 75 per cent. of the whole tax revenue for the year, or 75.08. Sumptuary taxes—that is to say, taxes on alcohol, tobacco and entertainments—contribute 17.91 per cent., and the total contribution to tax revenue of all other indirect taxes is 7.01, which I think is not an unreasonable proportion of the whole amount. I believe it is a smaller proportion than any that has been reached in quite recent years.
  Mr. WATERSON: May I ask if the Excess Profits Tax is treated as direct or indirect?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As direct taxation.
  Mr. WATERSON: Why?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Because it is so. I admit we may dispute a great deal as to what is direct or indirect.
  Mr. IRVING: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the tax is borne by each family?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It would be impossible in a tax like tea to get a return as to the individual amount of duty paid

  977
  on the tea consumed. I could not contemplate any reduction of the Tea Duty to the figure proposed by the hon. Members.
  Mr. ADAMSON: The right hon. Gentleman referred to a difference between the Mover of the Amendment and myself as regards the question of taxation, but there is no difference between us or, for that matter, between the party and myself on the question of being against the taxation of the food of the people. As has been stated, tea is a very important article of diet, and this tax which we are seeking to reduce from 10d. to 2d. bears heavily on the poorest of the poor, and especially on those households where tea is a necessary article of life. During the Second Reading Debate I gave my personal views in favour of indirect taxation so far as they applied to luxuries, but the article now under discussion cannot be included in the category of luxuries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply, asked what would be the effect of this Motion if it were accepted or carried, and said that it would be to increase the Preference on Colonial-grown teas. Our object in moving this Amendment, I desire to say frankly, is to reduce the tax on tea to the lowest possible figure to which we can reduce it. If it had been permissible to move the complete abolition of the Tea Tax, we would have taken that line, but we understood that there would be certain difficulties in the way of moving for its complete abolition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of his replies, has pointed out that he cannot afford to lose the money that would be brought into the Exchequer by the tax that we are now discussing. He also pointed out that it did not amount to a very large sum, but that he could not afford to lose the sum that it would bring in. In view of the manner in which it will press against the very poorest of the people, it would be well worth the trouble of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try and find some other source for raising the amount of money involved in this Tea Tax.
  During the course of the Second Reading Debate, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) tried to show to the House that the working classes of this country had profited to a far greater extent than the money section of our people. He went on to point out that the wages of the workers had increased somewhere between £800,000,000 and £1,000,000,000, but he omitted to take notice of this very important fact, that
  978
  whilst the wages of the working classes had possibly increased by the amount which he stated, which he said was pretty nearly double the wages they received before the War, he omitted to note that, although that might be true, at the same time the cost of living had more than doubled. [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN indicated dissent] The Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head, but I took my information from the figures supplied by the Government itself, which shows that the cost of living three months ago had risen by no less than 130 per cent.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman is referring to the Board of Trade figures, which give not the cost of living, but the cost of certain articles.
  Mr. ARNOLD: Is it not the fact that, according to the Labour Gazette," the increase in the cost of living is 110 per cent., or 103 per cent. if you leave out the taxation, and by making further adjustments it cannot be brought below 95 per cent.
  Mr. ADAMSON: Evidently we are getting into a very warm discussion as to the exact amount. The broad fact remains that the cost of living increased to as great an amount as the increase that took place in the wages of the working classes, or, in other words, the class on which the tax we are now discussing bears most heavily are in a worse position now than they were in August, 1914.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: It is the same all round.
  Mr. ADAMSON: That is what I was leading up to. Another thing which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley and the Chancellor of the Exchequer failed to note is that during the same period of time the wealth of the working classes of this country has increased by no less than £5,000,000. If that is true, here is a source from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could very easily make up the small sum of money that he would lose by agreeing to our Amendment, and reducing the tax from 7d. to 3d., as has been suggested by the Mover and Seconder of this Motion. Not only could he find this additional revenue in the direction which I have already pointed out, in the increased wealth, but those who are earning incomes of over £l,000, and in some cases £100,000 a year, could well afford to pay a few coppers of an increase

  979
  and so relieve this very excessive burden from the shoulders of the poorest portion of the population of this country. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, notwithstanding the very emphatic way in which he has refused this concession, will
  see his way to agree to the Amendment which has been moved, and so relieve the poorest of the poor of this excessive burden that bears so heavily upon them.
  Question put, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 285; Noes, 63.

  Division No. 28.]

  AYES.

  [5.40 p.m.

  Adair, Rear-Admiral

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Dawes, J. A.

  Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Allen, Col. W. J. (Armagh, N.)

  Dean, Com. P. T.

  Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

  Archdale, Edward M.

  Dennis, J. W.

  King, Com. Douglae

  Atkey, A. R.

  Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Dockrell, Sir M.

  Knights, Capt. H.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Du Cros, Sir Arthur Philip

  Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

  Barrand, A. R.

  Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Edge, Captain William

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Eyres-Monsell, Com.

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Falcon, Captain M.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)

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

  Farquharson, Major A. C.

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish

  FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.

  Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancs., Lons.)

  Bird, Alfred

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Lynn, R. J.

  Blades, Sir George R.

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Lyon, L.

  Blair, Major Reginald

  Gange, E. S.

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

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

  M'Donald, D. H. (Bothwell, Lanark)

  Blane, T. A.

  Gardiner, J. (Perth)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. F.

  Gardner, E. (Berks., Windsor)

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

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Macmaster, Donald

  Bowles, Col. H. F.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Breese, Major C. E.

  Gould, J. C.

  McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)

  Briggs, Harold

  Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.

  Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

  Britton, G. B.

  Green, J. F. (Leicester)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Brotherton, Col. Sir E. A.

  Green, Harry

  Mason, Robert

  Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Bruton, Sir J.

  Griggs, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, William Lane-

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

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

  Moles, Thomas

  Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.

  Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Southend)

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Burdon, Col. Rowland

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

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

  Hacking, Captain D. H.

  Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.

  Butcher, Sir J. G.

  Hailwood, A.

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Campbell, J. G. D.

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

  Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

  Campion, Col. W. R.

  Hall, R.-Adml. Sir W. R. (Lpt, W. Derby)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hallas, E.

  Mosley, Oswald

  Carr, W. T.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Mount, William Arthur

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hanson, Sir Charles

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

  Cayzer, Major H. R.

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

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

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)

  Henderson, Major V. L.

  Neal, Arthur

  Chadwick, R. Burton

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)

  Nelson, R. F. W. R.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm.,W.)

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

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

  Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

  Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.

  Newton, Major Harry Kottingham

  Cheyne, Sir William Watson

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

  Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

  Clough, R.

  Hood, Joseph

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Hope, Harry (Stirling)

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Oman, C. W. C.

  Cohen, Major J. B. B.

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Colfox, Major W. P.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)

  Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.

  Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

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

  Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

  Hopkinson, Dr. E. (Clayton)

  Parker, James

  Coote, William (Tyrone, S.)

  Horne, Edgar (Guildford)

  Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

  Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

  Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)

  Parry, Major Thomas Henry

  Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pearce, Sir William

  Cory, J. H. (Cardiff)

  Hunter, Gen Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Courthope, Major George Loyd

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

  Percy, Charles

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)

  Hurd, P. A.

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

  Inskip, T. W. H.

  Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)

  Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)

  Jameson, Major J. G.

  Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Jesson, C.

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Curzon, Commander Viscount

  Jodrell, N. P.

  Pownall, Lt.-Col. Assheton

  Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.

  Johnstone, J.

  Preston, W. R.

  Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)

  Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

  Pulley, Charles Thornton

  Davies, T. (Cirencester)

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Purchase, H. G.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

  Rae, R. Norman

  Raeburn, Sir William

  Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville

  Waring, Major Walter

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

  Rankin, Capt. James S.

  Starkey, Capt. John Ralph

  Warren, Sir Alfred H.

  Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Watson, Captain John Bertrand

  Raw, Lt.-Col. Dr. N.

  Stevens, Marshall

  Welgall, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.

  Remer, J. B.

  Stewart, Gorshom

  Weston, col. John W.

  Renwick, G.

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Sugden, Lieut. W. H.

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

  Surtees, Brig.-Gen. H. C.

  Whitla, Sir William

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

  Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

  Rodger, A. K.

  Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts.)

  Wills, Lt.-Col Sir Gilbert Alan H.

  Roundell, Lt.-Col. R. F.

  Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)

  Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold' ness)

  Royds, Lt.-Cot. Edmund

  Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)

  Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, W.)

  Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

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

  Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)

  Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)

  Tickler, Thomas George

  Winterton, Major Earl

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

  Townley, Maximillian G.

  Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)

  Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Wood, Major M.

  Seager, Sir William

  Vickers, D.

  Yate, Col. Charles Edward

  Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)

  Waddington, R.

  Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

  Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Young, William (Perth and Kinross)

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

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Younger, Sir George

  Simm, Col. M. T.

  Walton, J. (York, Don Valley)

  Smithers, Alfred W.

  Walton, Sir Joseph (Barnsley)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Pratt.

  Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander

  Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Hancock, John George

  Rose, Frank H.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Harbison, T. J. S.

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Arnold, Sydney

  Hartshorn, V.

  Sexton, James

  Bell, James (Ormskirk)

  Hayday, A.

  Shaw, Tom (Preston)

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Hayward, Major Evan

  Short, A. (Wednesbury)

  Briant, F.

  Hinds, John

  Sitch, C. H.

  Bromfield, W.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

  Cairns, John

  Hogge, J. M.

  Spencer, George A.

  Carter, W. (Mansfield)

  Holmes, J. S.

  Swan, J. E. C.

  Casey, T. W.

  Irving, Dan

  Taylor, J. W. (Chester-le-Street)

  Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

  Jones, J. (Silvertown)

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

  Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lunn, William

  Wallace, J.

  Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

  Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)

  Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)

  Finney, Samuel

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Wedgwood, Col. Josiah C.

  Galbraith, Samuel

  M'Lean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Morgan, Major D. Watts

  Wignall, James

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh)

  O'Grady, James

  Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)

  Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  T. Wilson and Captain A. Smith.

  Resolution agreed to.

  Resolution reported,

  CONTINUATION OF DUTIES (CUSTOMS).
  "That the following duties of Customs, imposed by Part I. of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, and continued by Section one of the Finance Act, 1918, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and nineteen, shall continue to be charged as from that data until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty, that is to say:—

  Duty.

  Section of Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915.

  Additional duties on dried fruit

  8

  Additional duty on motor spirit

  10(1)

  New import duties

  12

  And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I beg to move, to leave out the words
  "new import duties…12"
  This is an Amendment to strike out one of the lines of the Schedule of the Finance Act of 1915, which imposes special duties upon motor-cars and parts, watches, clocks, and musical-boxes, and I propose, without going into the whole question of Preference, which is out of older in this Debate, to give some reasons germane to this particular Section imposing the continuance of these duties. In the first place, we have to ask why duties are imposed. Hon. Members who were in the House in 1915, or who have read the Debate, will know that these duties were imposed for a specific purpose, partly as what were called "sumptuary duties" for the purpose of preventing the unnecessary consumption of luxuries, and partly to save shipping, which at that time was

  983
  beginning to suffer severely on account of the German submarines. I put it to hon. Gentlemen who may be convinced Tariff Reformers that this is not a suitable basis on which to build a tariff for this country. We have always been told that Free Traders were clumsy and vague-thinking people, and that, Tariff Reformers were scientific people.
  Colonel BURN: Hear, hear!
  Captain BENN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is of that opinion. I appeal to him, therefore, as a scientist and an expert in these matters. We are told that a system of tariffs is a matter of a gently adjusted balance between this interest and that interest and between this country and that country. Is it, therefore, suitable for such a tariff to take as its basis these fortuitous, accidental duties that were imposed during the War for one purpose and to establish them permanently in the fiscal system of this country? It seems to me that the proposition is so obvious that it does not need anything more to enforce it than the mere statement. I would point out that when the duties were imposed statements were made in the House which were tantamount to a pledge that they would not be continued after the cessation of hostilities. I do not want to labour this point, because, of course, circumstances change, and things have to be done which were not contemplated, but at the same time, those who supported these duties are entitled to insist that the pledges that were made when they were imposed shall be kept. I will not read many extracts from the Debate, but I will read this one:
  "The only ground on which I can conceive any question of opposition to these duties from the point of view of the fiscal controversy is the idea that they will lead to something else. Duties of this kind would never be continued under any circumstances when the War was over."
  Mr. FRANCE: Who said that?
  Captain BENN: The present Leader of the House of Commons. That is a pledge, and one is entitled to say, firstly, that as a scientific basis of any tariff, even supposing one were a Tariff Reformer, this is a gross conception, and, secondly, that it is in flat defiance of the promise made to the House of Commons when it consented to the imposition of these duties. The object of the continuance of these duties is to enable us to give Colonial manufacturers a preference
  984
  in these matters. An examination of the schemes of Preference shows that the most important Colonies will get no benefit whatever, and I confess that it seems to me an insult to the true Imperial spirit to suggest that such a thing as the giving of a preference of 1d. on musical boxes or 1s. 6d. on motor cars somehow rewards the Colonies for their part in the War or binds together the Empire. It seems to me to be a total misconception of the real Imperial spirit to assume that is so. Are these duties going to have that effect? What about New Zealand? An interview was accorded to a newspaper by the High Commissioner of New Zealand, and he stated that New Zealand was unaffected. Why should you pick out an Australian trader and give him this monetary advantage and exclude all those traders in New Zealand who sent their sons to fight alongside the Australians. Is that going to unite the Empire or create that warm feeling of gratitude? I think this 2d. or 3d. gratitude, according to these nicely-graded variations, is an absurdity.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear.
  Captain BENN: If you are going to attempt this financial bargain, are you really getting the sort of spirit that you want by picking out half-a-dozen industries and excluding New Zealand entirely and the great industries of wool and meat that exist in Australia, and the great industry of timber that exists in Canada. I cannot conceive that it will possibly have that result. My third point, therefore, is that these duties, even assuming that this sort of thing makes a great empire, are utterly uncalculated to do anything but create irritation in the Colonies. My next point is that this can only be a beginning. If there is something in the conception of an empire with a barrier round it trading freely within its own members and including the products of other countries, then something else is bound to follow. The right hon. Gentleman's distinguished father said quite clearly and frankly sixteen years ago that if you give a Preference to the Colonies you must put a tax on food. It is obvious that you must do so because food and raw materials are the principal articles in which the Colonies deal. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies (Lieutenant-Colonel Amery) in the very interesting and sincere speech which he made the other day said, "Ah, but circumstances have changed. That statement was made in Glasgow in 1903,

  985
  and now we have totally different circumstances." This determination to put a tax on food has by no means perished in the programme of Tariff Reformers. Just prior to the War Lord Chaplin, who has always been a consistent supporter of this policy, said:
  "There can be no effective preference without duties on food."
  And Lord Lansdowne said:
  "Why are we so tenacious on the subject of the 2s. duty on wheat? Because we believe it to be indispensable if we are to have reciprocal commercial relations with our Dominions overseas."
  6.0 P.M.
  And the "Morning Post," which is the special organ of Imperial Preference, said two years before the War—
  "Let there be no mistake; if we drop food taxes we drop Imperial Preference."
  The next objection I have to these duties is that they cannot be made to achieve the end which the Government have in view, unless they are followed by other duties on the food of the people. I may go further and say that these duties alone are quite inadequate, without a general tariff for this country. This is the official doctrine of the Tariff Reform party: it is quite useless to attempt to give Preference to the Colonies unless you have a general tariff against foreign manufactures. The Leader of the House said there are two proposals, a preferential trade and taxation on foreign manufactures. The one is concomitant of the other, and the adoption of the one would inevitably lead to the adoption of the other. Hon. Members are fighting logically for the adoption of a general tariff against foreign imports into this country. What is the condition to-day? This Budget is the first plunge towards Imperial Preference, and the Imperial Preference is composed of a scratch collection of taxes imposed during the War for the purpose of discouraging the consumption of luxuries. It is a Budget supported by all sections of the people—by the people who say "it is quite inadequate and clumsy, but it is only part of the real thing we intend to get, and it is also supported by people who say, "This is the ultimate concession that we, as Free Traders can possibly make. Is it surprising that the country does not believe in the sincerity of this sort of thing? The people cannot understand how a party can consist of two constituent parts, each animated by different convictions but each preaching the same policy. I make
  986
  bold to say that is the sort of thing which checks popular confidence in the House of Commons and leads to the gibes which one hears uttered against politicians by people who do not believe that we are sincere. They believe, in fact, that we are prepared to make arrangements we do not sincerely believe in with a view to securing a party majority.
  What is going to be the effect on our foreign relations of the continuance of these duties? I am not ashamed to say I hope we shall retain friendship with foreign countries more than ever. But when I heard the right hon. Gentleman making his speech on the Tea Duty I thought we were back in 1914. He said that Canada was tampered with by Germany, but made her reply, and if we are tampered with by China we shall know what reply to make. Here is the beginning of the League of Nations, and that is the sort of speech we shall often hear in this House if we have this sort of tariff. It is the sort of speech which the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes when he is commencing a tariff war. But we do not want a tariff war. We do not want any war at all. We are placed by the Government in this position, that we have pretended to be supporters of the League of Nations, and we have made a peace on the basis of the fourteen points put forward by President Wilson, yet we are the first country to take administrative action in defiance of at least two of those points. We are the first country to continue, by enactment, Conscription, and we are also the first country by legislative enactment to defy Point 3 of President Wilson's aims and to destroy economic barriers. We are in fact creating them. We are hoping we are coming to an era of world peace where we shall have an understanding with other countries such as never before existed, when we shall have some clear approach to the brotherhood of man. I do not consider that a fantastic idea. But we are the first country by the act of this House to defy at least two of President Wilson's points. With America's withdrawal of her own tariff we have nothing whatever to do, but at any rate she has not taken the initiative, and that I submit is a perfectly good point. What are we doing? In this Budget we are chafing the susceptibilities of two of our greatest Allies; we are doing a great deal to destroy the French wine trade and the American tobacco trade. The friendship

  987
  between this country and the United States of America is the rock upon which civilisation is in future to be built. What is the real basis of the British Empire? I need only select from the speeches made by Members—and I could select many extracts—words which would well describe that basis. I might take extracts from the utterances of the First Commissioner of Works, but I will content myself with quoting some noble words of the Secretary of State for War, who declared that the British Empire is held together by moral and not by material forces; that it has grown up in liberty; that it is not preserved by restrictions; and that the great triumphs of our race have been won not for Britain but for mankind.
  Mr. FRANCE: I have much pleasure in seconding the Amendment, and I propose to support it upon two lines of argument which I think will appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I say that quite sincerely. In the first place, I wish to emphasiso the argument addressed to us in the early part of the hon. and gallant Member's speech, and in this I am sure I shall have the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy and approval—the suggestion that, above everything else at this time in politics, we want to have the keeping of promises and pledges. We want, in fact, honesty of purpose. I have myself one or two extracts from the Debate which took place under war conditions in 1915 with references to the taxes on motor cars. Not only were those taxes put on—and put onavowedly—by the Coalition Ministry under the pledge which has been quoted, that they were to be of a temporary character, but the Chancellor of that day (Mr. McKenna), when challenged with regard to their possible permanent character, stated that the taxes were temporary taxes, intended purely for war purposes and to discourage expenditure on extravagant things, as well as to limit the amount of tonnage being used for such purposes at that time. I venture to think that the subsequent method of import restrictions was a much sounder policy for securing that end. However, that was at the time the avowed object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who went on to say that there was no intention to continue the taxes, and they had no desire to protect trade without beginning a new Tariff Reform movement. The declared purpose of these particular taxes was to avoid extravagant expenditure in unnecessary things and to
  988
  prevent the transport across the Atlantic of heavy machinery, such as motor cars, and soon. That is my first point, which, I think, will appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and there is no one but will feel that whatever else he may stand for, and whatever he may in future be distinguished for, one of the things we shall always remember him by will be his steadfast honesty of purpose in public life. I appeal to him to help us in securing that no temporary advantage shall be taken of this matter, and that we shall not allow ourselves to slide upon the slope of future entanglement which will make it far worse than if it were merely for this year one change in the fiscal programme for the year, because in so far as regards renewing them now, when it was promised they should only be temporary, we ought not to create hopes in the minds of those who make these articles in this country, or in the minds of people in the Colonies, that in future years we are going to continue this policy of Preference. That would not only break a distinct understanding, but it would make it worse by cementing it by a new arrangement of the preferential taxes which you are now reimposing.
  I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of the Debate that took place in that year, although he took no part in it. I think at the time he held another very distinguished post. But he will be interested to remember that an Amendment was proposed by a well-known Liberal Free Trader, and supported by Mr. Hewins, to give Preference to the Colonies, by not imposing these taxes upon Colonial imports, and subsequently a further Amendment was proposed not to impose them upon Allies. The reason given by Mr. McKenna and by the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary for India (Mr. Montagu), who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was interesting. It was that they could not give a Preference to the Colonies and thereby encourage hopes in their mind, because these taxes were of a temporary character. That is the point we have got to this year. We do not want to encourage the Colonies to believe the taxes are of a permanent character. The Government of that day resisted the proposal. To-day they are supporting it. I do not think further need be said to remind those who were not in the House at that time that these taxes were of a temporary character. Let me say a word or two about the tax itself. Perhaps the principal item in the

  989
  Resolution is the tax upon motor cars and accessories, on parts of motor cars, and on motor-cycles, and that branch of the trade.
  I am not very well acquainted with the trade in musical-boxes and the other trades referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, and I do not know how important the matter is so far as they are concerned. I would ask the House to remember, with regard to the motor-car industry—I speak with bated breath in the presence of those who know the subject inside out—that if ever there was a trade in this country which demonstrated beyond doubt that it is not absolutely necessary to have tariffs to foster and protect a new or an infant industry, it is the motor-car industry. For years in this country every kind of legislation prevented us from advancing in regard to motor-car traffic. We had the old and foolish expedient of never allowing self-propelled traffic to pursue its way without an aged gentleman in front with a red flag. If it exceeded its limits, I suppose he ceased to exist. That was the best means we adopted for protecting the public from danger. Other countries did not have that foolish legislation. They started and developed the motor-car industry. When we in this country began, for the first time, to understand that there was a future for self-propelled traffic we were behind other countries, and if we had a protective tariff or anything like this protection I am not sure that we should not be still far behind. We imported cars, we learned all there was to be known about them and the industry, and we imported parts and whatever we wanted in regard to them. What has been the result? Not that the motor-car industry in this country did not succeed but that it flourished immensely. The use of British-made motor-cars developed, and instead of the imports of foreign-made cars increasing, the imports decreased and the exports increased. At the time of the outbreak of war, I would go so far as to say that the finest car in the world was made in England, and the general standard of excellence in regard to engines applied to road traffic placed us at the top of the tree. That was an infant industry which started and grew under a system without a tariff. If at this critical time the House allows this tax to be continued, it will be done in defiance of the pledges and promises given that it was to be a temporary tax. It is
  990
  admitted that it is a clumsy and most foolish tax, but at the same time it is a very formidable tax from the point of view of the protection of the trade of this country. As was said by the then Secretary of the Treasury at the time, and I have no doubt it was thought by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, these were never duties and could not be duties that a Tariff Reformer would suggest if he were starting a scheme of Tariff Reform. These are admittedly clumsy duties, they are unnecessary, and they are being imposed in defiance and breach of a definite pledge to the contrary. For these reasons I heartily support the Amendment.
  Mr. HOLMES: Lord Rosebery, in his book on "Pitt," said:
  "Time and circumstances and opportunity paint with heedless hands and garish colours on the canvas of a man's life, so that the result is less frequently a finished picture than a palette of squeezed tints."
  I venture to suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because of the time and circumstance and opportunity, instead of presenting his first Budget really to provide the necessary revenue to meet the necessary expenditure, has produced a Budget of "squeezed tints," because he has felt he has had an opportunity of bringing forward two matters which one can understand are very dear to him, namely, Colonial Preference and Protection itself. This particular Amendment deals with what are frankly protective duties. It deals with the duties we are going to continue on cinematograph films, watches and clocks, motor cars and cycles, and musical instruments. Previous speakers have already quoted from the Debate of 1915. If the House will forgive me, I will give one more quotation from the then Chancellor of the Exchequer as showing that it was not intended that these duties should be continued in the time of peace. Mr. McKenna said:
  "When once again we have peace, and once again the taxes must come up to be reconsidered, then will be the time for us to argue upon the basis of fiscal theory."
  I hope that those of us who are opposing these Import Duties, will have the co-operation and assistance of the First Commissioner of Works, because he was not satisfied with these duties when they were introduced in 1915 by Mr. McKenna. He described it as,
  "This absolute folly, this amateur tariff, wrong in incidence, and impracticable in execution."

  991
  He finished up by saying something which was in the nature of bathos after what he had previously said—
  "I hope he will give some kind of pledge on behalf of the Government that in any case this is not to be taken as representing any normal state of things, but is an emergency measure of which no one is to take advantage after the War is over."
  Tennyson once wrote
  "The jingle of the guinea heals the hurt which honour feels."
  I hope that, so far as the First Commissioner of Works is concerned, that the glamour of office is not going to heal the hurt which principle feels. The original object of the Import Duties no longer obtains. Clearly they are now intended to be protective duties. Otherwise, if they were only intended to be Revenue Duties, a corresponding Excise Duty would be put on similar goods of home manufacture. It is a rather curious thing that a prophecy which Mr. Asquith made in this House in 1904, when this controversy first started, that
  "a duty which is temporarily put on for a provisional purpose, ends by being protective and permanent,"
  is apparently to become true concerning the duties put on by Mr. McKenna when Mr. Asquith himself was Premier. The hon. Member for Batley (Mr. France) said these duties were intended to be permanent. That is perfectly clear from the speech which the Under-Secretary for the Colonies made last week. Referring to these duties, he said:
  "We are establishing the duties in order to emphasise a certain principle which we believe to be of incalculable future value."
  He went on to say:
  "It is true that the importation of many of these goods into this country from different parts of the Empire is very small, but the standard we have to take is not the standard of what is imported now."
  Clearly it is impossible for us to say to the Colonies, "We are going to give you preference on motor cars. Go ahead and put up your Preference," and, when we have done that, say that we shall take off these duties. If these duties give a Preference to the Colonies, they must be permanent duties. Therefore, these duties, which were put on temporarily for the purposes of the War, will become permanent protective duties. Let me take the case of cinemas. Foreign cinema films are to be taxed. Foreign cinema films are desired by the cinema-going public. I hardly like to refer to Mr. Charles Chaplin in this
  992
  House, but every hon. Member knows that his films are demanded by the cinema-going people all over the country. They are the most popular films that can be seen. They will come in. The cinema proprietors will have to pay more for those films. They are not philanthropists. They are not going to pay for the extra cost. They are going to put it on the entrance money; therefore the people who attend cinemas, practically every man, woman, and child in the land, will have to pay more for their cinematograph entertainments because of the Import Duties. The same will apply to watches and clocks. The price of English watches will go up to the level of the foreign watches plus the tax. We may be quite sure of that. So one can go on through the list of cycles and motor cars, etc. The consumer has got to pay and the producer in this country is going to gain by these duties, and not merely the producers, but the producers in particular areas. The people who will gain from these particular duties are the manufacturers, particularly of Birmingham and Coventry. One wonders why these particular parts of the country should have an advantage over other parts of the country where there are also manufacturers. During the last two years we have had Protection in its various forms by the restriction and prohibition of imports subject to licence. What have we seen? May I take one case, that of gloves. Foreign gloves were absolutely prohibited from import into this country except under licence. The result has been that everybody has had to pay enormous prices for their gloves compared with pre-war times. The glove manufacturers of this country have made great profits. I venture to make the statement that every glove manufacturer in this country has paid Excess Profits Duty to a large extent. The result of that prohibition has been to give an opportunity for profiteering and to give great cause for discontent. It is the same with regard to all the articles that have been prohibited. That was Protection in its most naked form and the public have had an opportunity of seeing what it means. The late Mr. George Wyndham, in that flowery language of which he was a master, said in 1904 or 1905:
  "Great Britain, after sixty years of unmitigated free imports, is a good place for drones. Let us not mistake the contented lullaby of the surfeited consumer for the busy murmur of the working hive."
  Now, after two years of prohibited imports we do not hear any contented lullaby from

  993
  the surfeited consumer. On the contrary, we hear the protests and groans from the consumer against the prices he has had to pay for all kinds of goods. If there is a contented lullaby at all, it is the lullaby of the contented producer, who has made great profits out of this prohibition. One does not want to regard by-elections as a perfect barometer of the political weather, but every Member of the House will agree that there is something in the opinion which has been obtained from the three by-elections which have taken place one after another. If they mean anything, they mean a protest against two things: first, against the continuance of Conscription; and, secondly, against high prices. The effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Budget is to keep up high prices in those particular trades where he is giving these protective duties. Why, I ask, are the film-producers and the motor-car manufacturers and the watchmakers to be the only people to receive protection in this country? Why should they be a specially privileged class? What is going to happen? The Board of Trade has now got a special Committee sitting and deciding upon the future of our different industries. We may be sure, having regard to the composition of those committees, that we shall have recommendations that all these industries shall be protected, and how are we going to resist the claims of the other industries if we have allowed these particular industries—film-producers, watchmakers, and motor manufacturers—to be protected? The effect of this Budget is that we are laying the foundation for a complete system of Protection, and it is being done in defiance of a pledge which was given by both sides of the Coalition Government. I believe a policy like this, which can only mean the enrichment of the few at the expense of the many, is one which the country is not prepared to accept.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Wedgwood Benn) made a special appeal to me in complimentary language which has been repeated without the complimentary language by the hon Member who has just spoken. The suggestion in both cases is that there is something like a breach of faith in proposing to continue these duties. I do not accept that position. I do not entirely accept the explanation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman or of the hon. Member (Mr. Holmes) for the reasons
  994
  which impelled the late Government to impose these duties. I think it probable that in that Government, if you could get behind the curtains of Downing Street, you would find there was not complete harmony of opinion among its members on all subjects, and on this, amongst others; and not all its members, if they had had occasion to speak upon the subject, would have given exactly the same account of their reason as was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day. But whatever you may think of Mr. McKenna's fiscal views, whether you agree with him or not, you will not think Mr. McKenna was a foolish man or that he said foolish things. I do not think at any time he could have defended a duty on the importation of watches or cinema films on the ground that it was necessary to save tonnage. He did propose the duty as a war measure, and both he and the Leader of the House, in speeches which have been quoted, contemplated that they would not be retained in this form when we got back to normal times. What the Government would have done with them when normal times returned, if that Government had still been in existence, I do not know, and I think anyone would be rash to prophesy. While we sat together we seemed to be coming nearer in opinion on these subjects, and it is only since we parted on other issues or for different reasons that our differences on this particular issue have assumed their old irreconcilable character. Both the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Benn) and the hon. Member who moved the Amendment misrepresented my attitude and suggested that I imposed these duties in order to provide a Preference. That is historically untrue and it is inaccurate as a picture of my mind. I did not impose them: they were already in existence. I do not continue them in order to create a Preference. They are being continued in pursuance of a principle which I have expressed on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and we embody the principle of Preference in them.
  Mr. FRANCE: Would the right hon. Gentleman, in his mind, make any distinction between an existing tax which was a permanent tax, and an existing tax which his predecessor had promised should be removed directly the War was over?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think my predecessor went quite so far as to promise that it should be removed directly the War was over, and if it comes to that,

  995
  the War is not over. I simply apply the principle of Preference to the existing duties. I agree that no Tariff Reformer setting out to initiate a scheme of Tariff Reform would have chosen these particular duties at these particular rates and no others in order to establish his case by practical exemplification. I am not entitled to speak for Mr McKenna, but I should not be surprised if the duties commended themselves to him because he thought they had inherent defects which would prevent their being an example of anything beneficial which the Tariff Reformers could claim hereafter.
  I am bound to take note of the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Benn) on the subject of Preference. He said the great bond of Empire was a moral one. I agree with him. Then he goes on to say, "A penny or a two penny, or a three penny Preference on this or that article is not going to increase that bond." That is such a bagman's view of the whole question. We never put it forward on that ground. We agree that the bond of Empire is a moral bond, and a recognition of unity embodied in Preference is another moral bond. It is strengthening the bonds which exist—a Preference on these three or four duties that we have. It is a recognition of the fact that the Empire is one and its interests are common. It is that which we think of real value in our relations with the Dominions Overseas. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to revert to a pre-war attitude of mind or a pre-war form of expression. He stands at this Table oppressed and ashamed by the despicable position occupied by his country. He says, "We are the first after accepting President Wilson's fourteen points to repudiate them in legislation, and that in two respects." We have repudiated them in neither. I am not going to argue the first because it has no connection with this Amendment, and is really out of order. But he suggests that the establishment of Preference in the British Empire is an infringement of President Wilson's economic point. If he had read President Wilson's explanation of his own economic point to his own people he would have understood that it was nothing of the kind, and after all, when it comes to interpretation of the utterances of President Wilson, I think the President is a greater authority than even
  996
  the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I regret that he should hold his country up to odium on a charge which is utterly false and absurd. Why do I continue the duties? For revenue in the first instance. They brought in £500,000 last year, and they will bring in, I should think, something over £1,750,000 this year. They are duties brought into existence under the circumstances of the War and standing alone in our present fiscal system. They must be reconsidered in the light of the review of our trade policy which the Government has undertaken to make, and I do not commit myself, and I do not ask anyone else to commit himself, to continue these duties at this figure beyond the year for which I am now asking authority. They must come into the general review of the trade policy of the country. That I think is legitimate, but it is equally legitimate that, confronted with a deficit and an immense need for money, with the position of the foreign exchanges, which is a matter of constant care and watchfulness, I should continue duties put on with the avowed intention of checking unnecessary and luxurious expenditure abroad. The hon. Member (Mr. Holmes) revived even more strongly than anyone, else the memories of our old contentions over Imperial Preference, but he has not yet rivalled the masters of the art of finding a good political cry. I think "Your films will cost you more!" will be less effective on the platform than the older cry, "Your food will cost you more!"
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I am in some difficulty in regard to the two speeches which have been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In his first speech, as I understood it, he regarded that Resolution at any rate, and I presume this Resolution also, as the first step in the great scheme of Preference to which his illustrious, father devoted so much of his Parliamentary and public life. We were all touched at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech when he recounted the incident in which Mr. Joseph Chamberlain took part, when, at the close of one of his meetings, one of his hearers said to him that he could not understand why anyone had refused to support the scheme, and Mr. Chamberlain said in reply that the day would come, although through blood and sacrifice, and then the right hon. Gentleman said, "The day has come. Here it is." I refer to that as evidence of what.

  997
  the right hon. Gentleman meant by these Resolutions—that already passed and the one now before the House. I listened with great astonishment to the speech he has just delivered, because he said, unless my ears deceived me, that these proposals were not intended as a Preference, but were simply carrying on these taxes as levied with the consent of Parliament on the argument adduced by Mr. McKenna when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Which is it? Let me read what Mr. McKenna said:
  The Government put these taxes forward as taxes on luxuries which they wish to discourage in the national interest, and so far from desiring or seeking to develop the motor car industry, they desire to discourage it, and they think it will be a most unpatriotic use of capital to invest it in a new motor car industry."
  Then he goes on to say:
  "They are introduced by me as war taxes, and my hon. Friend—"
  He was replying to some hon. Member who had been saying that these taxes were liable to be permanent—
  "will be able to quote the introduction of these taxes if such a proposal is made and say that they were introduced under the conditions in which we now stand."
  Further on he said:
  "The taxes are not introduced as permanent taxes. They are introduced as temporary taxes."
  Which is it? If they are sumptuary taxes, then I say at once, in the present condition of the country, I am all for them. If in the conditions existing this year, which are financially as serious as ever they were, and are becoming daily more serious, you are going to introduce sumptuary taxes. I am with you, and if that is the sole reason for this tax, I say without any consultation with my colleagues that I will not go into the Lobby against it. But I want to know which it is. A statement has been made by my right hon. Friend this afternoon which seems to me to be inconsistent with the proposal of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. My point is that if this is a sumptuary tax I will not vote against it, but it is a different matter if it is a preference tax, as has been said most clearly. There is not a single Member who has spoken in support of these taxes who has not welcomed them as part of a preference scheme. If we get a very clear explanation that the whole of this Resolution before the House is based exactly upon the declaration made by Mr. McKenna when he was Chancellor of the
  998
  Exchequer and also by the Leader of the House in the quotations which my hon. and gallant Friend read, we know where we are. There is no reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not tell us which it is. I want to know and the country wants to know. Hon. Members in this House are entitled to know. Those with whom I have the honour to be associated, and also the Members of the Labour party, are perfectly clear so far as we are concerned, but there are a large number of hon Members who are in a rather difficult position. They have stood by Free Trade all these years and they are entitled to know from the Government whether these are sumptuary taxes, or whether they are—and up to this moment I have had it fully and clearly in my mind that they are—put on as part of a scheme of Imperial Preference. I feel they are, because my right hon. Friend said in one of his speeches this afternoon, that they were the outcome of the Imperial Conference.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not these taxes.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Then what was the outcome? There was no relevance in talking about the Conference unless it meant this Resolution. What was the object in referring to the Conference? The impression left clearly on my mind was that this is part of the scheme adopted by the Imperial Conference in 1917. Unless I get a very clear statement that these are sumptuary taxes and nothing else, I shall, of course, vote against this and the other Resolutions.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can only speak again by the courtesy of the Committee, but the right hon. Gentleman almost challenges me to speak. I will endeavour to make myself clear, very briefly. The principle adopted by the Imperial Conference, and accepted by His Majesty's Government, is that where there is a duty there is to be a preference, but each self-governing member of His Majesty's Dominions is autonomous in its own sphere, and is not to be called upon to put on duties for any purpose but its own, or to take them off for any purpose but its own. We, therefore, do not put on duties, these or any other, in order to promote preference, but when we have duties in existence we intend to make them subject to preference. I think I have answered the straight question which the right hon. Gentleman put to me.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Then it is not a sumptuary Resolution but part of the preference scheme which was adumbrated by the Imperial Conference?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend and I do not mean the same thing.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: What do you mean?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's form of putting it. That is not what I said and I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's description. They are sumptuary taxes. That is one of their features, but wherever these taxes are, wherever these Customs Duties are, our principle is to give a tax preference upon them.
  Mr. BIGLAND: To us it seems perfectly clear that this question of an Imperial Preference rate on motor cars will be reconsidered, when the promise of the Leader of the House is fulfilled, and before the 1st September a thoroughly considered scheme of Fiscal Reform is put before the House. It is perfectly evident to us that the Imperial Preference rates that may be put on may be changed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite clear when he says that he puts this tax in the Budget for this year only, and if by the 1st September a new range of duties, say, at 30 per cent., is fixed on manufactured and partly manufactured goods, then the preferential Colonial rate will be changed according to the rate which is then fixed in a general tariff. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not be put in the position of saying positively whether this is a sumptuary tax or part of Imperial Preference. The Mover of this Amendment seems to have forgotten that since Mr. McKenna spoke in this House we have had a General Election, and the Prime Minister gave a pledge to the electors of this country that on all duties put on by this Parliament in future an Imperial Preference should be given in everything that was charged duty in our Custom House. Therefore, the intense weight that has been put upon the pledges that were given by a Chancellor of the Exchequer in a previous Parliament do not hold when we look round the benches opposite and see how many of those who hold the views that he upheld are now absent from their places. The country clearly understood when it voted at the last General Election that Imperial Preference would be given on certain articles, and the nation having
  1000
  voted by enormous majorities on that question, no Chancellor of the Exchequer can go back upon it, and I do not see how any hon. or right hon. Member who supported the Government at the last General Election can now vote against the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: As one who had the coupon and was pledged to support the Government, I shall be glad to give some reason for voting against this proposal. In the first place, the letter of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House which was read at the Coalition meeting on the Saturday after the Armistice, laid it down that Imperial Preference would be limited to such a form as should not include taxes on food or raw material. These Preference proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly have violated that pledge, because Preference has been given on cocoa, sugar, and tea, which from every human point of view of interpretation amount to taxes on food. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that he is continuing the policy of giving Preference upon articles which he has admitted were first taxed as sumptuary taxes. The real objection that one has to these proposals embodied in the present Bill is the nature of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, both in introducing his Budget and in the discussions which have taken place since. I do not know whether it is possible for those who take an opposite view to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in these matters to be at any time in contact with his mind, but I find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid it down that, while these taxes in themselves interest him very little, it is his special pride to have introduced a Budget which lays the foundation upon which he can continue to build such a structure as will fully represent the policy for which his late father stood. I hope I do him no injustice, but, as I understand him, his sole interest in these Preference proposals in the Budget, whether in the articles I have named or in manufactured articles, was that they would inevitably lead to a policy of full Preference. When my hon. and gallant Friend said he objected to a 1d., 2d., or 3d. being offered to the Colonies, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "So do I," and he added, "That is a bagman's point of view." Who raised the bagman's point of view? Every speech that has been made in favour of Imperial Preference from the time the

  1001
  issue was put before the country was an appeal to the people of England to sacrifice, if need be—and they were frankly told that it would involve sacrifice—their traditional fiscal policy, because otherwise we should lose the Empire. Unless we made this concession the Colonies would leave the Mother Country. After the Boer War we were told that we ought to do it because of the sacrifices of the Dominions during the Boer War. After this War we are told we must do it because of the sacrifices of the Dominions in this War. The Dominions made their sacrifices for reasons very much better than that.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the Resolution which is now before the House.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: If I may say so, I thought I was dealing with arguments which had been used many times by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in answering various objections relating to Imperial Preference.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is no question, as I understand it, of Imperial Preference in this Resolution. This is a matter as between foreign countries and our own.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: As I understand it, it is a matter between foreign countries and different parts of the Empire. Preference is to be granted in favour of the Dominions as against foreign countries in regard to the particular articles to which this Resolution refers. I am further encouraged to believe that the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is merely a beginning of the general policy which we know by the name of Imperial Preference, or Tariff Reform, because the Chancellor said, with reference to these taxes, that he wishd to raise a sum—it was £1,000,000 last year and it may be £1,750,000 during the coming year—from these taxes which are now under review. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has so far made a loss of £3,000,000, and having made that loss—which, indeed, in this coming year may be larger, namely, some £4,000,000 or £5,000,000—he is making the best of it by securing £1,000,000 or £1,750,000. Clearly, since his duty as Chancellor of the Exchequer is to raise every penny he can, he is not doing that for reasons of revenue. He is doing it, as we well know, for reasons which commend themselves to those with whom he has
  1002
  been habitually associated, and which do not commend themselves to, but which rouse violent opposition in, those with whom he has been in opposition during the last fifteen years since this question was first raised. It is clearly not a fair position for any of us to be put into when we are invited to say that, because we are pledged to support the Government to secure the objects of the War, we are pledged now to support a form of taxation against which if we do not protest now, we shall not be able to protest, as it is extended from Budget to Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said this afternoon that what we choose to do within the British Empire is only the concern of the British Empire. With great respect to him I cannot imagine a more ridiculous or absurd remark. Of course, there is a sense in which it is perfectly true, but there is also a sense in which the nation has made up its mind, that there is to be a degree of comity between nations such as has never before existed, as one of the fruits of this War to all the world. If we are proposing now in this country to establish a fiscal policy by giving a preference such as is given by a reduction of these sumptuary taxes which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is continuing, or by any other means, the hon. and gallant Member for Leith is perfectly entitled to say that it is a very hopeless and dreary outlook as regards the League of Nations. The country, I am perfectly sure, never realised during the election that those whom it returned would find themselves in a position where they would have to make a decision upon this issue, which was never clearly put before them. Despite the result of the election, the country is capable of great political discernment, and despite the overwhelming degree of representation of a certain form, the country will always take a view diametrically opposite to that which is being expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day. I do not think that he, or those who think with him, have succeeded in converting the country from the views which it has held now for over seventy years, and which it has three times recently condemned. If this issue is to be raised again, it is clear to us all that it is to be raised in the old form. It is the old issue. It is no use pretending that it is not. The country has three times given its opinion on it, and if I were the right hon. Gentleman, and wished as an act of filial piety to raise a memorial to my father by

  1003
  establishing this form of fiscal policy in this country, I would rather do it on a square issue, on an appeal to the country. I should consider it very little honour or credit if it were secured by a side wind and by putting Members pledged to support the Government in the embarrassing position of seeming to be false to that pledge or to the convictions they have held for so long and in which they so strongly believe.
  Mr. ACLAND: I rise for the purpose of taking up the last remark which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in reply to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Stanley Holmes). He said that these taxes upon foreign watches, clocks, and motor cars are intended to be sumptuary taxes. I cannot accept that as really the basis of the reason for this tax. It would have been perfectly natural and, in our opinion, perfectly right to adopt a proper method of sumptuary legislation as one of the objects of this Budget. There was machinery ready at the hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if that had been his object. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Parliament appointed a Committee last Session to try and draw up for him, which we did, a system of Luxury Duties. It was a Select Committee of this House. The last Chancellor of the Exchequer told me that if he had remained in that office this year he would have put that Committee's recommendations into force, being convinced of their practicability and soundness. That argues, at any rate, that the scheme was carefully and seriously considered as a fiscal instrument, and it is a proper, recognised way of dealing with expenditure on sumptuary lines. If people are buying things of a class which are luxuries they are taxed, if they are buying ordinary things at an abnormally high price they are taxed. But that proposal, worked out as it was by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, has been dropped, almost without a word, by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. That being so, I think it is really not fair to the House to say that there is a sumptuary object in these duties when he has abandoned altogether the sumptuary instrument which was fashioned to his hand under the instructions of his predecessor. It is really impossible seriously to argue that you want to have a sumptuary effect against the cheap Ford motor car when you take
  1004
  no steps whatever to prevent people buying the £2,000 Rolls Royce car. It is equally impossible to persuade people that you really want to discourage expenditure on luxuries when you put a heavy duty on a cheap Waterbury watch and take no measures against the fifty-guinea or hundred-guinea jewelled wrist watch for a lady. If the Government is doing nothing whatever to discourage expenditure on luxuries at home, of which there is a great deal too much, it is extremely difficult to ask us as serious people to believe that these duties are put on as sumptuary duties against these cheaper and more ordinary things of everyday consumption, which are not luxuries, if they come in from abroad.
  Major HAYWARD: I intervene merely for the purpose of asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. I see that he is not in his place at the moment, but perhaps the Financial Secretary will answer it. This Amendment merely proposes to abandon a series of taxes which were imposed for war purposes only, and in resisting that Amendment the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I understood, said that he could not abandon these taxes for two reasons. The first was that he could not afford to do so, as he wanted the money which they would yield. The second was, that they were luxury taxes. Those are both very excellent reasons. If they are his only reasons they can be subjected to a very simple test. In the first place, would he abandon the Preference proposal with respect to these taxes; and, secondly, will he impose a corresponding Excise Duty on similar articles manufactured in this country? If he will do that we shall clearly understand that his object is merely to get the additional revenue, and that they are sumptuary taxes; and it will assist him to get more money and give further effect to his desire to keep down luxurious expenditure If the Financial Secretary could satisfy me on that particular point I, for one, certainly should not vote for this Amendment.
  Mr. A. SHAW: I rise because of a challenge which was thrown out with a smile in this direction by my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian. He seems to be under the misapprehension that because a man is a supporter of the Government he has ceased to hold all the principles that he has ever professed, and is floundering in a morass. I must decline to flounder in any morass conjured up by

  1005
  the imagination of the right hon. Gentleman. The position at the General Election was that the duties which are the subject of this Resolution each and all stood condemned to death by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore it was only as duties condemned to death that they could affect the issue of the election at all. We have now been told that, when a Preference on the existing duties was spoken of, that involved the supposition that the duties now in existence for a fortuitous purpose, although they have been condemned to death, were intended to exist for ever. I think that is entirely a misreading of the whole situation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly correct when he said that if a duty was imposed there would be a Preference, and that on duties still remaining there would be a Preference. Before you have a Preference you must have a duty, and we are now considering whether we should have a duty or not. On both those grounds I feel very strongly that Coalition Liberals who are supporters of the Government have on this matter a perfectly free hand. We refuse to follow in the direction in which the Government are leading because we think that it is fraught with the gravest possible consequences to this country. For these reasons, though I do not follow my right hon. Friend in all things, I intend to follow him into the Lobby this evening.
  Mr. ADAMSON: The hon. Member for Birkenhead, in his short speech, pointed out that my hon. Friends who moved this Resolution seemed to have forgotten that since those taxes were imposed there has been a General Election, that the Prime Minister put clearly before the country as one of the principal issues the question of Preference, and that the country had by a very substantial vote agreed to it. I would suggest that the electorate paid very little attention at the last General Election to the question of Imperial Preference. In my opinion they voted for the Coalition Government with the idea that the Prime Minister, as head of the Government, had been successful in winning the War, and that they believed he was the proper person to deal with the grave questions that would be involved during the period
  of reconstruction. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to come out into the open and tell us exactly what he means, because, in reply to a definite question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Sir D. Maclean), he said he did not mean what my right hon. Friend meant. In the course of the speech he mentioned the name of a former Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. McKenna), and pointed out that Mr. McKenna imposed this purely and simply as a war measure. I understood him to say that he was continuing it only for another year, and that it would not be continued in its present form. I would like him to be quite frank with the House, and to tell us what he means by a statement of that kind. In his speech earlier in the evening he said that Mr. Henderson was also in favour of Imperial Preference. I should like him to inform us in what Resolution Mr. Henderson agreed to the principle of Imperial Preference?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the Resolution approved of by the Cabinet, of which he was a member, and passed by the Imperial War Conference.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I have not been in consultation with Mr. Henderson since the statement was made, but I understand that others have, and that he cannot remember any Resolution in which he agreed to the principle of Imperial Preference.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want to quote Mr. Henderson unfairly, especially as he is not here. I hope that my right hon. Friend will refer to him, and he may remind Mr. Henderson that he helped to draft the Resolution which was passed by the Imperial War Conference.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I have put the points which I wished to submit. I hope that the Chancellor will come out into the open and tell us exactly what he means by a continuance of the taxes. So far as we are concerned, we cannot assent to the imposition of taxes of this character, and if the Mover of the Resolution is going into the Lobby we will join him there.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 87.

  Division No. 29.]

  AYES.

  [7.20 p.m.

  Adair, Rear-Admiral

  Amery, Lieut.-Col. L. C. M. S.

  Bagley, Captain E. A.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Archdale, Edward M.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Astbury, Lt.-Com. F. W.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Allen, Col. W. J. (Armagh, N.)

  Atkey, A. R.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-

  Gould, J. C.

  Morris, Richard

  Barnston, Major Harry|

  Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.

  Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Gray, Major E.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Greame, Major P. Lloyd-

  Mount, William Arthur

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Green, J. F. (Leicester)

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Greer, Harry

  Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)

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

  Gretton, Col. John

  Nall, Major Joseph

  Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

  Griggs, Sir Peter

  Nelson, R. F. W. R.

  Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich)

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

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

  Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish-

  Gwynne, R. S.

  Newton, Major Harry Kottingham

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hacking, Captain D. H.

  Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

  Birchall, Major J. D.

  Hailwood, A.

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Bird, Alfred

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

  Oman, C. W. C.

  Blades, Sir George R.

  Hall, R.-Adml. Sir W. R. (Lpl,W. Derby)

  O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.

  Blair, Major Reginald

  Hallas, E.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Blane, T. A.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Parker, James

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. F.

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

  Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

  Hanson, Sir Charles

  Parry, Major Thomas Henry

  Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

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

  Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Breese, Major C. E.

  Haslam, Lewis

  Percy, Charles

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Henderson, Major V. L.

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Briggs, Harold

  Henry, Sir Charles S. (Salop)

  Pinkham, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles.

  Brittain, Sir Harry E.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Britten, G. B.

  Higham, C. F. (Islington, S.)

  Pownall, Lt.-Col. Assheton

  Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)

  Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.

  Preston, W. R.

  Bruton, Sir J.

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

  Pulley, Charles Thornton

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

  Hood, Joseph

  Raeburn, Sir William

  Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.

  Hope, Harry (Stirling)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Burdon, Col. Rowland

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rankin, Capt. James S.

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

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

  Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

  Campbell, J. G. D,

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Reid, D. D.

  Campion, Col. W. R.

  Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

  Remer, J. B.

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Hopkinson, Dr. E. (Clayton)

  Renwick, G.

  Carr, W. T.

  Home, Edgar (Guildford)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

  Cayzer, Major H. R.

  Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)

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

  Roundell, Lt.-Col. R. F.

  Chadwick, R. Burton

  Hurd, P. A.

  Rowlands, James

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm.,W.)

  Jesson, C.

  Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

  Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Lady wood)

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)

  Cheyne, Sir William Watson

  Johnson, L. S.

  Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)

  Clough, R.

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

  Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)

  Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.

  Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)

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

  Cohen, Major J. B. B.

  Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Simm, Col. M. T.

  Colfox, Major W. P.

  Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

  Smithers, Alfred W.

  Colvin, Brig.-Gen. R. B.

  Kidd, James

  Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  King, Com. Douglas

  Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

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

  Coote, William (Tyrone. S.)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Starkey, Capt. John Ralph

  Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

  Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Cory, J. H. (Cardiff)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)

  Stephenson, Col. H. K.

  Courthope, Major George Loyd

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Stevens, Marshall

  Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Stewart, Gershom

  Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

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

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)

  Sugden, Lieut. W. H.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Curzon, Commander Viscount

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

  Davies, T. (Cirencester)

  Lowther, Col. C. (Lonsdale, Lancs.)

  Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts.)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)

  Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

  Lynn, R. J.

  Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)

  Dean, Com. P. T.

  Lyon, L.

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

  Denison-Pender, John C.

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

  Tickler, Thomas George

  Dennis, J. W.

  M'Donald, D. H. (Bothwell, Lanark)

  Townley, Maximillian G.

  Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Dockrell, Sir M.

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

  Vickers, D.

  Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

  M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)

  Waddington, R.

  Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)

  McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Eyres-Monsell, Com.

  Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

  Walton, J. (York, Don Valley)

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Manville, Edward

  Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

  Farquharson, Major A. C.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Waring, Major Walter

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Marriott, John Arthur R.

  Warren, Sir Alfred H.

  FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.

  Martin, A. E.

  Weston, Col. John W.

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Mason, Robert

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C.

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

  Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.

  Whitla, Sir William

  Gardner, E. (Berks., Windsor)

  Mitchell, William Lane-

  Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tysen

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Moles, Thomas

  Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

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

  Glyn, Major R.

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

  Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

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

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)

  1008

  1009

  Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)

  Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)

  Young, Sir F. W. (Swidon)

  Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)

  Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Younger, Sir George

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Worsfold, T. Cato

  Winterton, Major Earl

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord Talbort and Mr. Pratt.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Yate, Col. Charles Edward

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Grundy, T. W.

  Roberts, F. O.(W. Bromwich)

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Hancock, John George

  Rose, Frank H.

  Arnold, Sydney

  Harbison, T. J. S.

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Hartshorn, V.

  Seager, Sir William

  Bell, James (Ormskirk)

  Hayday, A.

  Sexton, James

  Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)

  Hayward, Major Evan

  Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Hinds, John

  Shaw, Tom (Preston)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Hogge, J. M.

  Short, A. (Wednesbury)

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Holmes, J. S.

  Sitch, C. H.

  Bramsdon, Sir T.

  Irving, Dan

  Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

  Briant, F.

  Johnstone, J.

  Spencer, George A.

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

  Swan, J. E. C.

  Bromfield, W.

  Jones, J. (Silvertown)

  Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)

  Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander

  Taylor, J. W. (Chester-le-Street)

  Cairns, John

  Kenyon, Barnet

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

  Carter, W. (Mansfield)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Casey, T. W.

  Lunn, William

  Tillett, Benjamin

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)

  Wallace, J.

  Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  M'Lean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

  Wignall, James

  Edge, Captain William

  Morgan, Major D. Watts

  Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)

  Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

  Neal, Arthur

  Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  O'Connor, T. P.

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

  Finney, Samuel

  O'Grady, James

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Onions, Alfred

  Wood, Major M.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  Rae, H. Norman

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh)

  Redmond, Captain William A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

  Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas.

  G. Thorne and Mr. France.

  Resolutions agreed to.

  Resolution reported:

  CONTINUATION OF DUTIES (EXCISE).
  3. "That the additional duties of Excise upon medicine imposed by Section eleven of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, and continued by Section two of the Finance Act, 1918, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and nineteen, shall continue to be charged until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty.
  And it is declared that it is expedient in the

  —

  Up to and including the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and nineteen, in respect of all spirits, and on and after the first day of September, nineteen hundred and nineteen in respect of spirits shown to be the produce of a British Possession.

  On and after the first day of September, nineteen hundred and nineteen, in respect of spirits not shown to be the produce of a British Possession.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  For every gallon computed at proof of spirits of any description except perfumed spirits

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  1

  0

  0

  1

  2

  6

  For every gallon of perfumed spirits

  …

  1

  11

  10

  1

  15

  10

  For every gallon of liqueurs, cordials, mixtures, and other preparations entered in such a manner as to indicate that the strength is not to be tested

  …

  …

  1

  6

  11

  1

  10

  3

  public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
  Resolution reported:

  SPIRITS (CUSTOMS).
  4. "That in addition to the duties of Customs now payable on spirits imported into Great Britain or Ireland there shall, on and after the first day of May, nineteen hundred and nineteen, be charged the following duties, that is to say:—
  And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I beg to move, to leave out the words,
  "On and after the first day of September, 1919, in respect of spirits not shown to be the produce of a British Possession."
  The Amendment has for its purpose to eliminate from this Resolution all elements of Preference, so that the same duty will be charged on incoming spirits, whether from parts of the Empire or from foreign countries. It is not necessary that I should cover again the ground that has been covered in the discussions on the other Resolutions, but the points that we made then are, perhaps, more emphatically obvious in connection with this Resolution. The case, as I understand it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is that, although it is not the 1d. or 2d. which really binds the Colonies to the Mother Country, it is the feeling that they are all in the one commercial enterprise, but this is a duty which gives an enormous advantage to a part of the Empire, mainly, I think, the West Indies, and therefore it will increase the feeling of irritation of such Dominions as New Zealand, which are entirely excluded from the Preference. Therefore, all that was said about the failure of these Preferences to achieve even what their promoters pretend they are intended to achieve, applies with a hundredfold emphasis to this particular duty. This Amendment does give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity to answer the questions more fully that were put to him by my right hon. Friend(Sir D. Maclean). He is trying to ride two horses. He has got to get both the Protectionists and the Coalition Liberals into the Lobby with him if possible, and the result of the last Division has shown that he has been less successful in doing that in that last Division than in any previous Division that has taken place since this last Parliament assembled. He said the duties are being imposed for revenue purposes and for sumptuary reasons, to discourage luxuries, but if he accepts my Amendment he will both get more revenue and discourage luxuries. There is an increasing feeling among Tariff Reformers that the Budget could be boldly defended on the ground that it is a Protectionist Budget. The "Morning Post" said even this morning:
  1012
  "It is unwise on the part of the Government to insist so much, as some Ministers are inclined to do on the argument that the Cobdenite principles are nut necessarily infringed."
  Why not say frankly what you desire? The hon. Member for Birkenhead made a speech, and said, "Wait until the 1st September, when we shall get the general tariff." If that is a defence, it is a defence, and let the Chancellor of the Exchequer make it.
  An HON. MEMBER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I am in sympathy with my hon. and gallant Friend who has moved the Amendment, and against the Preference side of this Budget, but I do not wish to deal with that point now.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is the only point we can discuss now.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The point raised by the hon. and gallant Member has been discussed two or three times to-day, and I must express my growing surprise at the arguments which he uses in opposition to Preference. I think he is rather hard put to it when he has to rely on such arguments as that because this Preference will affect the West Indies largely and beneficially it must be a source of irritation in New Zealand, where they will derive no benefit. Let me say in passing that if we affect the trade and industry of one part of the Empire beneficially, the results are not likely to be confined to that particular part of the Empire, and the relation of the West Indies with Canada are of a kind which is certain to cause a reaction in favour of Canada from any increased prosperity in the West Indies. What about New Zealand? What New Zealand authority has the hon. and gallant Member for the irritation which he expresses? I think it was at the 1907 Conference where the representatives of the Dominions assembled together expressly disclaimed the idea that there could be any ground of complaint in one colony which did not derive a benefit from a Preference in our duties because other Coloniess or Dominions did, and the resolution accepted by the British Government, and in pursuance in which I am proposing them, was supported by the leaders of both the New Zealand parties representing the Dominion of New Zealand in the Conference of 1917. I hope I shall always be attentive to the grievances of our fellow citizens in the

  1013
  Dominions overseas, but I think that the representatives of those Dominions may be left to speak for themselves, and that imaginary grievances need not be created for them, in spite of and in face of their express wishes, by my hon. and gallant Friend. I am very sorry if I have not made my position perfectly clear to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is not for want of trying, and I think they will do me the credit to believe that it is not because it is my habit to try and obscure my thoughts and conceal them from the House. It is because the principle upon which I am acting is such a simple one that they will not believe that it is a real one. I will restate it. His Majesty's Government were parties to a resolution, passed in the Imperial War Conference of 1917, that as soon as might be there should be established a Preference in duties, to quote the words of the resolution, "now or hereafter existing." We must have duties on spirits, and I propose to embody, in accordance with the undertaking of His Majesty's Government, in these duties the principle of a Preference, and in this case alone, for the reasons I have expressed, the Preference is given by way of surcharge on foreign spirits instead of reduction in the duty on Colonial spirits. For that reason, if my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment were carried, we should be not gainers but losers to a trifling extent. My hon. Friend challenged me to disavow Cobdenite principles. I disavow them. I have disavowed them for many years, and, if it is any satisfaction to my hon. Friend, I repeat the disavowal. I only permit myself to add that, if you summoned Mr. Cobden to the new world in which we are now living, I am not sure that he would not disavow—in fact, I am sure he would—some of the principles upon which he preached and acted during his life, and I am sure I am on safe ground in stating that he would hasten to disavow, and with enthusiasm, many of those who claim to be his followers and supporters.
  Amendment negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. O'CONNOR Mr. O'CONNOR rose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We are still on spirits.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I should have thought the fact that an Irish Member rose to address the House would have brought home to your mind and memory that spirits was the subject which I intended to raise.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I thought, perhaps, it was Excise to which the hon. Gentleman wished to refer in connection with spirits.
  Mr. DEVLIN: We are more interested in the Customs Duty.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I may say that spirits have pursued me all through my political career. In fact, the very first time I took part in defeating the Administration was on the question of whisky, in June, 1885, when I had the support, I believe, of some of the hon. Members who are now supporting the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. This was followed in my recollection by a speech of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, one of the most eminent Chancellors of the Exchequer we ever had, in which he said that there were a great many reasons indeed against his increasing the tax on whisky, and somebody in the House said there were seventy-three reasons. That happened to be the exact number of the Members of the Irish party at the moment. Now there are only seven instead of seventy-three, and the result is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can do with a light heart, and with perfect security, what his eminent predecessor could not do when there was a large number of Irish Members here I am father astonished, really, that the right hon. Gentleman has not equipped his knowledge on this question, if I may say so, by the study of the literature upon it, which is very important. He will know as well as I do that when the financial relations between England and Ireland were made the subject of a Commission, which sat for several years, it was reported that the taxable capacity of Ireland was exceeded by, if I remember rightly, £3,500.000. At that time the taxation of Ireland was something like £11,000,000. I do not know what the exact figures are to-day, but I am told the amount is over £30,000,000. That Commission reported in favour of the reduction of Irish taxation proportionately as between the two countries. When this Commission reported there was a very remarkable article in the "Edinburgh Review." The authorship of the article has never been avowed,

  1015
  but I believe it was due to the very brilliant and penetrating pen of Lord Milner. In the course of that article, while dissenting from the findings of the Commission, the author expressed the view that it was a very serious and questionable thing that Mr. Gladstone had imposed additional taxation in Ireland immediately after the famine, and I am told that, even an unemotional individual as the late Lord Goschen said to one of his friends that when he read the Budget of Mr. Gladstone—I think it was when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer for the first time in the early fifties—it sent a shudder through him to see the additional taxation that was imposed by him on a country just emerging from all the horrors and terrors of the Irish famine.
  Yet here to-day we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer, forgetful of all the literature upon the subject, forgetful of all the pleas made to him, not merely from Irish Members, but from Englishmen in sympathy with Ireland's demands, coming forward and adding an enormous addition to this taxation upon Ireland. So far as the distillers and those in the trade themselves are concerned, they have made their own case. I make the case of the people of Ireland, and I assert that in adding to the taxation as described by your own Commission, and admitted by a large number of your public men, you are making an enormous additional burden. I do not think it is fair, and I am perfectly sure it will be one of the elements—and there are enough already—leading to discontent in Ireland. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman is taking this course, and I hope it will not have the serious and prejudicial effects which I anticipate.
  Resolution reported,

  SPIRITS (EXCISE).
  5. "That in addition to the duty of Excise now payable for every gallon computed at proof of spirits distilled in the United Kingdom there shall, on and after the first day of May, nineteen hundred and nineteen, be charged the following duty (that is to say):—

  £

  s.

  d.

  For every gallon of spirits computed at proof

  1

  0

  0

  and so on in proportion for any less quantity.
  And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. DEVLIN: I would not intervene at this stage of the discussion were it not for the fact that when the Budget Bill was before Parliament, I ventured to place some important, and, to Ireland, very vital considerations before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I then placed the national objection which Ireland had to the new taxes he was imposing, the greater burden being in connection with the whisky duties. I thought when he came to make his rather lengthy and exhaustive reply, he would have given some reasons to the House why this additional burden was imposed on Ireland, and whether Ireland was to get anything out of her connection with this country except increased taxation. I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and from beginning to end he never replied to a single argument advanced from these benches, nor a single claim made by us on behalf of our country, and I emphasise the argument which has been adduced by my hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) that it seems to me a very strange circumstance that, at a moment when Ireland is practically denuded of any representation in this House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts an additional burden of £10,000,000 of taxation on Ireland. His Budget has been described as a colourless Budget. It is a carry-over during this transition period. The Government are in so many difficulties that they have not the courage to face the financial difficulties that encounter them. But the only real and genuine tax he has put upon any article is upon an article of Irish production. The whisky industry is one of the few industries that this country has not destroyed in Ireland, and yet he puts an additional tax upon that great industry, which, in my judgment, it will kill altogether, and you will then have finished the task you set yourselves of destroying practically every industry in that country.
  Apart from that, I want the right hon. Gentleman to answer me one or two questions. I want to know, in the first place, upon what ground he taxes Ireland at all. I decline to recognise, and no one who has any belief in the principle of liberty can sanction, the right of any British Chancellor of the Exchequer to tax Ireland. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe in taxing without representation? We have no representation. We have nothing whatever to do with the government of our own country or the guiding of its common destinies, or the administration of its affairs—nothing whatever. The

  1017
  only thing you offer us for this tremendous financial burden you have placed upon us is this Army of 40,000 soldiers in Ireland—the Army of Occupation—the representatives of the people having no more to say in the affairs of their country than they have in the affairs of China. The administration is entirely in the hands of the enemies of the people. All power, government, and administration is carried on there either by the ascendancy party in Ulster or our political opponents in this country, and, much as you despise Ireland and assail her at home, and misrepresent her abroad, you have the brazenness to come to this House and add £10,000,000 a year to the burdens which Ireland has already to pay for her connection with this country. I understand that the English man is eminently a business man. The Chancellor of the Exhequer is the business head of the British Government, and I would like him to explain to us how he regards the financial relationship between Ireland and England as a defensive commercial arrangement that can satisfy Ireland. Ireland is paying £33,000,000 in taxation to this Empire. I want to know what Ireland is going to get for it, or what Ireland has had for it. We have heard about housing. A Housing Bill has been introduced for England, passed through two of its stages in the House of Commons, and is now practically passed through Committee. A Housing Bill has been introduced for Scotland, has passed its First and Second Readings, and has gone to a Committee, and will shortly pass through Committee. Great educational schemes on which money is splendidly and rightly lavished for England and Scotland—
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The observations of the hon. Gentleman do not seem to me very relevant to this Resolution, which is not confined to Irish whisky, but includes Scotch whisky as well.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Yes, but I understood that we had to pay this additional burden by the imposition of these whisky taxes; and what are we getting for it? What are we going to get for it? That is what I want to know. The Scotsman's whisky is being taxed, but the Scotsman is getting his housing, his educational, and his new public health schmes. Not one of these things has been as much as mentioned in this House in regard to Ireland. At a time when the only country taxed by the new
  1018
  Budget is Ireland, housing is neglected, public health is neglected, and education is neglected. The extraordinary feature of it all is this: that we do not want you to deal with public health, with housing, with education, or with any of these questions, because you do not know a thing about them in Ireland. We want to do these things ourselves, and you will not allow us. You insist upon the make believe that you are going to do these things in this Parliament, and you do not do them. The only thing you do is to impose an almost impossible fiscal burden upon a country already borne down by taxation, and taxed according to a Financial Commission of your own British experts to the extent of £3,500,000 a year more than Ireland is entitled to pay for nearly a century. Ireland gets nothing for it but the Army of Occupation, courts-martial, the disappearance of all constitutional forms of government, the oppression and suppression of public liberty, of public speech, and the destruction of every constitutional vestige of liberty that exists in any country in the world. That is what Ireland gets. You get your taxes. Your treatment of Ireland and the condition of that country at the present time is a stigma upon the British name. You are held up to scorn and ridicule over the whole world owing to your administration.
  I want, then, to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does he feel he is justified in putting further burdens that we are unable to bear upon a great Irish industry? Does he think it fair when he is practically taxing nothing else, and no other country, to add £10,000,000 to Ireland, which is already overtaxed? He will not deny the statement I have made that a Commission of financial experts, set up by the British Government, only one member of which, I think, was an Irishman, declared that Ireland was paying £3,500,000 more per annum than she was entitled to pay—and millions have been added to that taxation since! I again ask the right hon. Gentleman, as the business head of the British Government, what has Ireland got for this tremendous fiscal burden? Finally, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that this and other transactions, for which the Coalition Government are responsible, is driving every moderate man and everyone with any constitutional instincts into the camp of the extreme party in that country. We cannot defend anything you do. What is

  1019
  more, you cannot defend it yourselves. We get nothing. We address the Treasury Bench, and we see nothing but a bench of Ministerial mutes. The right hon. Gentleman was invited the other day in one speech from these benches to explain all these things. He treated our appeal with contempt. I know there is no more courteous Minister in the House of Commons. I am sure that was not his intention, but do right hon. Gentlemen opposite mean to tell me that they are going to get rid of the Irish question by silence? That the ostrich-like policy of sticking their heads in the sand will solve this problem? Do they mean to tell me that by the censorship in Ireland, by keeping all reference to Ireland out of the British, foreign, and American newspapers, they will—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Really, the hon. Gentleman is abusing the forms of the House. The censorship in Ireland has nothing whatever to do with an imposition of a duty on whisky in Great Britain.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I will respect your ruling, Sir. I will not proceed in that strain. It seems to me the only thing we should do is to go to the hillsides in Ireland. Perhaps that is what hon. Gentlemen want to provoke us into. That may be their policy. If so, it should be declared straightly and frankly as the policy of the Government.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman for the Scotland Division (Mr. O'Connor) will acquit me, I think, of any discourtesy in not rising immediately after he sat down, but I thought it would be better for the moment to wait. In regard to these taxes on Ireland, the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has appealed, and has repeated his appeal to me of the other night, when he covered a very wide field. Anyone listening to the hon. Member would, I think, see something of the difficulties of Irish government. The hon. Gentleman asked, apropos the addition of these duties on whisky distilled in the United Kingdom, for a declaration of the policy of His Majesty's Government in respect to Ireland. He asks me what the Government is going to do for Ireland. He hastens to assure me that he denies our right to do anything, and will not be grateful for anything we do.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I deny your moral
  1020
  right to tax us—it is a different thing. I admit your right to give us our freedom—but you will not do that.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member asks me what we propose to give, having assured me first of all that we have no right to legislate for Ireland at all, and that, whatever our legislation is, he has no use for it—he does not want it. He must really pardon me, for I mean no discourtesy or disrespect, if I turn to the issue of the Whisky Money and do not enter into the whole of the Irish question. The question involved in the speech of the hon. Gentleman for the Scotland Division suggested that we were inflicting a new injustice on Ireland and imposing upon her a charge she was incapable of bearing. I do not want to add grievances, real or fancied, to Ireland. I do not wish that in the case of an Irish industry, or any other, to impose duties which are unfair, intolerable, and crushing. I believe that the tax I have proposed can be borne by the industry out of the profits it is enabled to make without any such evil effect; but I am going to see the representatives of the industry between now and the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. I have already seen two representatives from Ireland, who wished to put their case. I believe there will be other representatives from the Irish Benches present at the coming deputation. I shall then be able to go with something like detail into the matter, to hear from them exactly what their case is, and I shall carefully consider whatever they have to say. If it is proved to my satisfaction that the tax is one that is crushing in its effect and contrary to the intention I have in my mind, I shall have to modify it. I do not think that is so, and I do not think it will be so proved. I do not, however, want to prejudge the case now, or to meet particular proposals beforehand. Now that the proposals are public property I shall be glad to discuss them with the deputation, and give full consideration to what they put forward.
  Mr. BIGLAND: I should just like to say one word in reply to the hon. Member for Belfast. This is the second speech in the House in which he has raised this question of—shall I say?—the wickedness of taxing Ireland, which is getting nothing in return.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Iniquity, not wickedness!
  Mr. BIGLAND: I would suggest to the hon. Member that if he will read the speeches in this House of the late William Redmond, when he begged the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day to give a Preference on tobacco grown in Ireland, which would be the greatest boon to Ireland and would enable eighteen people per acre to be employed all the year round, in tobacco growing, he will consider the matter differently. I claim that the rebate of 1s. 4d. in the lb., which is equal to £150 per ton, on tobacco grown in Ireland will be—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Tobacco is not in question here. It will follow whisky.
  Resolutions reported,

  BEER (CUSTOMS).
  6. "That in addition to the duties of Customs now payable on beer imported into Great Britain or Ireland there shall on and after the first day of May, nineteen hundred and nineteen, be charged the following duties (that is to say):—
  In the case of beer called or similar to mum, spruce, or black beer, or Berlin white beer or other preparations, whether fermented or not fermented, of a similar character—

  £

  s.

  d.

  For every thirty-six gallons where the worts thereof are or were before fermentation of a specific gravity—

  Not exceeding one thousand two hundred and fifteen degrees, a duty of

  4

  0

  0

  Exceeding one thousand two hundred and fifteen degrees, a duty of

  4

  13

  9

  In the case of every description of beer other than that above specified—

  For every thirty-six gallons where the worts thereof were before fermentation of a specific gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees, a duty of

  1

  0

  0

  and so in proportion for any difference in gravity.
  And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1913."

  BEER (EXCISE).
  7. "That in addition to the duty of Excise now payable in respect of beer brewed in the United Kingdom, there shall on and after the first day of May, nineteen hundred and nineteen be charged the following duty (that is to say):—

  £

  s.

  d.

  For every thitry-six gallons of worts of a specific gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees, a duty of

  1

  0

  0

  and so on in proportion for any difference in quantity or gravity.
  And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have Statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

  PRIVATE BREWERS LICENCES.
  8. "That in lieu of the existing duties charged upon licences to be taken out annually by brewers of beer (other than brewers for sale) occupying houses of an annual value not exceeding fifteen pounds there shall, on and after the first day of October, nineteen hundred and nineteen, be charged the following duties (that is to say):—

  £

  s.

  d.

  If the brewer is the occupier of a house of an annual value exceeding ten pounds and not exceeding fifteen pounds—

  (a) where he brews solely for his domestic use

  2

  10

  0

  (b) in any other case

  0

  4

  0

  If the annual value of such house does not exceed ten pounds

  1

  5

  0

  And such licences shall be taken out by all such brewers, including those who brew solely for their own domestic use."

  REDUCTION OF CERTAIN DRAWBACKS AND ALLOWANCES.
  9. "The drawback payable on the exportation or shipment as stores of any chicory, coffee, or tobacco, or in respect of any molasses delivered by a refiner to a licensed distiller for use in the manufacture of spirits, and the allowance payable to a refiner in respect of any molasses used solely for the purpose of food for stock, shall be reduced by an amount not exceeding one-sixth of such drawback or allowance if the duty charged on such chicory, coffee, or tobacco, or on the sugar from which such molasses was produced, was a duty of Customs or Excise less than the existing duty."

  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  10. "That—

  (a) Excess Profits Duty under Part III. of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, as amended or extended by any subsequent enactment, shall, unless Parliament otherwise determine, be charged for any accounting period ending on or after the first day of August, nineteen hundred and nineteen, and before the fifth day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty; and

  (b) Excess Profits Duty shall be an amount equal to forty per centum instead of eighty per centum of the excess profits for any accounting period commencing on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and nineteen, or in the case of an accounting period which has commenced before that date, but ends after that date, forty per centum instead of eighty per centum of so much of the excess profits as may be apportioned to the part commencing on that date."

  DEATH DUTIES: INCREASE OF RATE OF INTEREST ON DUTY OUTSTANDING.
  11. "That the rate of interest payable on Death Duties shall be five per cent. instead of three per cent."

  ESTATE DUTY: ALTERATION OF SCALE.
  12. "That there shall be substituted for the rates of Estate Duty set out in the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1914, the following rates:

  Where the principal Value of the Estate

  Estate Duty shall be payable at the rate per cent. of

  Exceeds

  £

  £

  100 and does not exceed

  500

  1

  500 and does not exceed

  1,000

  2

  1,000 and does not exceed

  5,000

  3

  5,000 and does not exceed

  10,000

  4

  10,000 and does not exceed

  15,000

  5

  15,000 and does not exceed

  20,000

  6

  20,000 and does not exceed

  25,000

  7

  25,000 and does not exceed

  30,000

  8

  30,000 and does not exceed

  40,000

  9

  40,000 and does not exceed

  50,000

  10

  50,000 and does not exceed

  60,000

  11

  60,000 and does not exceed

  70,000

  12

  70,000 and does not exceed

  90,000

  13

  90,000 and does not exceed

  110,000

  14

  110,000 and does not exceed

  130,000

  15

  130,000 and does not exceed

  150,000

  16

  150,000 and does not exceed

  175,000

  17

  175,000 and does not exceed

  200,000

  18

  200,000 and does not exceed

  225,000

  19

  225,000 and does not exceed

  250,000

  20

  250,000 and does not exceed

  300,000

  21

  300,000 and does not exceed

  350,000

  22

  350,000 and does not exceed

  400,000

  23

  400,000 and does not exceed

  450,000

  24

  450,000 and does not exceed

  500,000

  25

  500,000 and does not exceed

  600,000

  26

  600,000 and does not exceed

  800,000

  27

  800,000 and does not exceed

  1,000,000

  28

  1,000,000 and does not exceed

  1,250,000

  30

  1,250,000 and does not exceed

  1,500,000

  32

  1,500,000 and does not exceed

  2,000,000

  35

  2,000,000

  40

  It being a quarter past Eight of the clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

  RAILWAY FARES.
  Major WATTS MORGAN: I beg to move,
  "That in the opinion of this House, present conditions no longer justify the retention of the increase of fifty per cent. in passenger railway fares imposed during the War, and these fares ought to be restored to the pre-war rate without delay; further, that, in order to meet the needs of the general public, the present inadequate train services should be increased and provision made for the running of cheap trains on a scale at least equal to the pre-war standard."
  The subject-matter of this Motion is one which creates a good deal of feeling, especially in our mining districts, and it
  1024
  has taken up a very large amount of the time of local Members to explain the attitude taken up by the Government upon it, though with due respect I think it would be more correct to describe it as the want of sympathy and attention to a matter which is of great importance and which very closely affects the interests and welfare of the huge mass of the people, especially in our large congested areas. I did not know that this question was so popular until it had been placed on the Order Paper of the House, and I find that it could be extended to cover the whole of this Kingdom. Perhaps I may be pardoned if first of all I place the matter before the House in the way in which my Constituents look upon it. They remain quits convinced in the belief that the Government should long ago have made some move in this matter without waiting to be urged to do it, and more especially in the district where I come from, in the stated or agreed periods of holiday times provided by arrangement between employers and workmen. No one, I think, believes that six months after the Armistice and on the eve of the declaration of peace terms, which we all hope will bring the complete cessation to the great World War, that this increase of railway passenger fares is either justifiable or necessary. The reasons brought forward for its establishment have been swept away, and it is not possible for anyone to defend its continuance, even as an emergency precaution to prevent unnecessary travelling, in order that the railways should be entirely used in the work of carrying munitions of war or the rapid transit of troops from whatever point became necessary from time to time. Looking up the records of this House I find that the discussions on this subject are very meagre, because it was brought about and these increased rates imposed at a time when it was argued that it was solely on the ground that it was a war regulation. It was put forward as a question not to increase the revenue in any shape or form, but was asked for and pleaded for and granted submissively by this House as a war regulation to give full and unlimited means to those in authority and responsible for the transit of human and material machinery requisite to a successful issue on our behalf in the great War. Very little was said, and I think I would not be far wrong in saying that the statements would be better described as whispers. It was only on one point that it was sought to justify these

  1025
  increased rates being extracted from the great mass of the people on account of its being fair or even due to the railway companies. On that ground I must say the reply which was given on the 14th of April last came rather as a surprise. On that occasion the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, in reply to a question put by an hon. Member, stated that nothing could be done in the shape of providing cheap excursion fares, or oven more trains for the workers at the Easter holidays, and then he said, I suppose as an after-thought, "An effort will be made by the railway companies to afford greater travelling facilities during the coming summer." The terms of this announcement by the Under-Secretary are very mysterious and altogether vague. Outside official circles it is thought and believed by us that it is the business and paramount duty of railway companies to provide and afford travelling facilities at least within reason. The mere promise to run some sort of train service does not arouse in us any gratitude. If it is intended to run a better train service, why not say so in definite terms, because that would create a very much better impression? The Armistice is now long past, and peace, we hope, is now approaching. For over four years the people have borne the strain of war and its anxieties, and they have suffered in silence. Work and worry tell the tale on the nerves of the nation, and the stress is all the greater with the relaxation following the end of the actual fighting. I want this House to mark that.
  We had in this House some sort of a promise with regard to improved trains, and a statement was issued from the office of the Railway Executive Committee which set forth that there will probably be no cheap trains run this year, which in effect means that unless this House pays heed to the strong appeal of the general public and insists upon it no cheap trains will be run. This decision of the authorities surely is lacking in imagination as to what is desirable should be done. I suggest that nothing would have been more acceptable to the general public than the restoration of cheap travelling facilities for the last Easter holidays. With deference I submit that if it was too difficult and too complicated to be done at the old-time peace rates, some measure of improved facilities could have been granted on some reduction of the 50 per cent. increase Cheap-
  1026
  ness of travelling is what I have aimed at in the Motion I am placing before the House, and it is the whole point as far as the working classes are concerned. The mere running of a few more trains is entirely beside the question, and it will simply resolve itself, in my mind, to a slight increase of comfort to the ordinary travelling public, or people will travel who are now scared of the railways by the dreadful overcrowded conditions. The people concerned are those who are bound to travel and those who are able to afford it, with whom the spending of money is of no object. The mere promise of increased or additional facilities will not mean a holiday for the large mass of the people, and they are the class of people who are mostly in want of it. They simply cannot afford the luxury of going into the country or to the seaside with their families at a rate of 1½d. or 2d. a mile for a third-class fare.
  To begin with, they live in overcrowded districts, and in a very large number of cases they rear up large families of four, five, six, or even seven children, and in many of these cases only the father, the head of the family, is a winner of wages. To all this class of people—and they are numerous—unless there are to be cheap trains there might as well be no trains at all. From that point of view they are tied hand and foot for all times to come in those closely-congested districts, and they can never hope to enjoy the country air or breathe for a short day even the health-giving powers of the sea. I conjecture that the reply may be given that the rolling stock or the engine-power is at the present time deficient. In passing, I might point out that no munitions or troops on the same scale as in war-time are now being moved in any great quantities on our railways.
  If it is said it is a question of revenue and it is the cost of it, since I have been in this House, and that is only a very short time, I have heard it argued very strongly that the good health of the mass of the people is a great national asset and of interest to everyone. Whilst agreeing with that sentiment, might I respectfully, point out that the spirit and temper of the people on this question with regard to railway travelling cannot be disregarded. I cannot say, indeed nobody can say, what fares and restrictions are justified and what are not. Hon. Members of this House, by means of questions, have asked

  1027
  for the necessary information, but they cannot get it. As far as I know, no one outside official circles knows the facts and figures, and I urge upon the House and express the strong hope that it is no penny wise and pound foolish idea that is at the bottom of this decision to shut out from the fresh air and relaxation the vast numbers of our population in the great towns and districts of our country.
  The railway authorities have already decided as to the last holiday. The general public have learned during the last War to form fours and implicitly to obey orders, but there is a growing feeling and a very high temper being cultivated in this country with regard to this question. If it is said that it is impossible to provide cheap facilities for everybody all round, I would suggest that a start could be made in some of the special districts where the ordinary strain and conditions of life are of the heaviest. If we are to be told that it is impossible that anything can be done to relieve this feeling of unrest and vexation, it would be wise to tell the House and the public frankly and freely what are the obstacles and impediments in the way. I think it would be conceded without argument that the control and right of travel is of vital necessity and importance to the public, and our complaint now is that some months after the War is over this question is being treated as if it were the exclusive concern of a small number of officials in the railway executive. This being so, I want to declare that it is of sufficient importance to engage the attention of our front line of Ministers as a whole. It will be obvious in the near future, if it cannot be discerned now, that our comprehensive and beautiful plans for a new Britain and for the abolition of our slum districts and the distribution of our population over a larger area must necessarily be doomed to failure if workmen living at a long distance from their work, as a large number of workmen do, are involved permanently in very heavy travelling expenses and conditions of discomfort in the extreme in passing to and fro to their work, and in this respect we have a grievance, and we approach the authorities to remedy the same. When we do this we are politely told that the public have no right to penetrate or attempt to remedy this grievance
  The time at my disposal will not allow me to deal with the policy of the local
  1028
  railway companies in taking off trains on the branch lines, but it is notorious in the district which I come from that if you want to get on to the main lines, either going to or from Cardiff, you cannot do it without a great deal of time being wasted every day. I am aware that the other day in this House the railway authorities published a mass of figures, but I should like to point out that they are entirely valueless at the crucial point as to how far these increases of fares are justified or necessary. They do not indicate in any way what each increase has yielded in revenue. It may be said that the miners, whom I more or less represent in this House, have had a considerable increase in wages under the award of the Coal Commission. That may be true, but I do not want it to be forgotten that in that same Report there was a pronouncement that such increase could be well met even with a lesser price per ton to the consumer than was paid at the present time. If that is so, then unless the pre-war railway fares are going to be restored, we stand to lose. Our extra wages are dissipated, and we obtain no greater measure of comfort and no higher standard of living. There seems to me to be a clear case for the redemption of Ministers pledges. I may be asked on what ground I base my assertion that Ministers have pledged themselves with regard to this matter. I will only bring forward two of the heavy guns. I am sure the House will agree with me in regretting very much the reason of the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and in wishing him a safe and speedy recovery in order that he may resume his duties and again take his part with the Government. The right hon. Gentleman, in his election address, dated November, 1918, stated—
  "With regard to the increased railway rates, the 50 per cent. will be abolised as soon as possible after the War has ceased, and pre-war standards and privileges will be again established."
  That was emphasised, if possible, in a speech which he made at Ashton-under-Lyne on 4th December, 1918, which is more than six months ago, when he said—
  "The time is rapidly coming—it was close at the door—to remove the fifty per cent. increase in the railway fares and to restore all the pre-war privileges that had been in operation."
  Again, on 6th December that pledge was repeated; indeed, the next heavy gun is

  1029
  the Prime Minister himself. He sent a message from Paris to the people of this country, and, put shortly, the text of the massage was as follows: "Every one of the pledges given by the Ministers or myself to the Constituencies will be redeemed to the full. All the conditions and privileges of pre-war time will be restored." If the provisions brought about by the War, universally regarded as temporary, and well-known as the War Traffic Regulations, are to be continued, then we shall have lost the War with a vengeance, but I believe they can and will be swept away by the strength of the desire of the great mass of the people of this country for the restoration of the pre-war rates and a larger number of trains to deal with the dreadfully overcrowded state not only of the third-class but of the first and second class compartments as well. I have here a mass of telegrams and letters showing that the conditions which prevail with regard to the third-class are also applicable to the first and second classes. One writer very graphically described it, and said that if anybody but the railway authorities did it and sold tickets wholesale they would be sent very shortly to Devil's Island, and we should be invited to take them out and shoot them. I am afraid that time will not permit to deal with the unfair distinctions that are made by the way in which the Railway Executive, or the authorities carry on their work, but I would like, briefly, to point out the hardship entailed upon commercial travellers and other business people. They have been pleading, if it is not possible owing to deficiency of rolling stock to restore pre-war conditions, that they should be granted some small concession having regard to their particular and special work in respect of week-end tickets.
  I have been deluged with telegrams and letters from holiday resorts showing that the Government attitude is not justified on account of the higher cost of labour, coal, materials, or anything else. In pre-war times they ran cheap trains in every direction at a cost of less than one-fifth of 1d. per mile. I am informed on very good authority that the working cost to-day is not more than 10s. per mile including all expenses. I have no knowledge whether that is correct or otherwise, but, supposing it to be wrong, if we add another 50 per cent. the same as has been done to the fares, making it 15s. per mile, even then 120 third-class passengers at
  1030
  1½d. per mile would defray the whole of the cost, and the second-class and first-class passengers and all the other traffic carried by that train would be clear profit. Every train by which I have travelled has contained more than 400 third-class passengers, being crowded to the extent of fifteen, eighteen, and twenty in each compartment. There was in the train by, which I travelled on the Taff Vale Railway when I came to London this week—it was one of the earliest trains, starting at 7.30 a.m.—412 third-class passengers all the way to Cardiff. I desire to point out that we compare very unfavourably with other countries in respect to the cheapness of public travelling. Turn to whatever country you like it will be found that the fares are very much below even, our pre-war rates. Take either of the nations on the Continent of Europe or any of our Colonies, and you will find that our fares are more than double theirs. In some of the Colonies you can travel second-class for fifty miles for 2s., or ½d. per mile, whereas in our own country the mileage rate for third-class at 1d. per mile is 4s. 2d. In each case, of course, I am quoting pre-war rates. The answer may be that in all these other countries the cheapness of the rate is due to the fact that the railways are nationalised. If that is the case, then is it not both desirable and essential that in our own country no time should be lost in bringing out system up-to-date and thus conferring on the working classes a great boon, removing discontent, allaying much of the present industrial unrest, and at the same time bringing happiness to large masses of the people in this country, restoring the confidence of the country, and opening the avenues to good relationship, increasing production by workers and enhancing the prosperity and good of the State, thereby establishing a nobler and happier Great Britain for the workers of this land.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: In rising to second the Motion, may I say I do not think the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade will deny that this increase of fares was first imposed by a responsible Minister who stated that it was not so much for revenue purposes as with the object of restricting travelling. Both the House and the country recognised the necessity and reasonableness of that, but at the same time it was distinctly understood that when the War was over this 50 per cent. increase would be put aside. I am inclined to ask the hon. Gentleman, is

  1031
  not the War over, and if it is over, why should there be this strange reluctance on the part of the Department or of the Railway Executive to remove this additional impost? I do not know whether to appeal to the representative of the Board of Trade from a sentimental or from a business point of view. I know he is sentimental in many respects, and, therefore, I will venture to appeal to him from that point of view. London is a huge place. Young people come up to London, leaving their parents many miles away. The parents may be overtaken by illness. Folk are naturally drawn by paternal and maternal sympathies, and in many cases they may have to make a long journey thereby incurring heavy expenditure, or, lacking the money, they may have to fail to respond to these very proper human instincts.
  May I put another point of view. Thanks to a Committee over which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, presided not so many months ago under certain recommendations large industrial councils have been set up. I will speak of my own particular trade for a moment. There, happily, we have formed an industrial council and within the past six or seven weeks, in conjunction with the employers, we have come to the very happy arrangement that the whole of the men, women, girls, and boys engaged in the printing trade of this country shall this year, for the first time in the history of the industry, be given a week's holiday with pay. I venture to say that out of the many thousands of people who will jump for joy when that happy week comes round there will be a very large number who will be taking a holiday for the first time in their lives. What is going to occur? They find they are given the week with pay by their employers, but if they want to avail themselves of it, as we hope they may be able to do, they will have to face a heavy railway expenditure which, I fear, is going to destroy to a considerable extent the value of that particular holiday. Why should not this 50 per cent. impost be removed? We are about to celebrate peace—the greatest peace, I suppose, the world will have ever seen. Whitsuntide is approaching. The holiday season is near. What better action could the Department take than to respond to what I believe will be the unanimous feeling of this House, that this 50 per cent. increase in railway fares shall
  1032
  be no longer operative? What better action could the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues take this night than at the conclusion of this discussion to declare they are prepared to go back to pre-war fares? It is a great opportunity. It is not much use appealing to the Department from a sentimental point of view I know. I was not in this House very long before I arrived at the conclusion that the only way to influence the Government is by defeating it. There is no prospect of that to-night. We can only appeal to the good judgment and good sense of Ministers.
  Not so many nights ago there was a discussion in this House with regard to Members and their salaries, and the main objection then raised on the part of some Members was that the cost of railway travelling was so excessive that they were placed in a position of great disadvantage. The feeling was strong on the part of some of my hon. Friends—fortunately I am differently situated in that matter because I am a London Member. Hon. Members who have to travel from Scotland, from Ireland, and from Wales have to pay what I may term huge sums of money to the railway company, and I do not wonder that they are dissatisfied. They have not gone quite to the extent of threatening to declare a strike—I do not know what the effect upon the national industries would be if they decided to do that—but we do not want anything of that kind. I would, however, appeal to the representative of the Board of Trade to see if something cannot be done in the direction we desire. My last word as a London Member is with regard to over-crowding—the scandalous over-crowding that is taking place day by day on our railways. I wish an official of the Board of Trade or a member of the Railway Executive Committee could see what goes on morning and night on the Underground lines. Let them try to get into a train, say, between six and half-past seven at night; let them see women and young girls being pressed into compartments already full and over full, and the doors being closed on them with the greatest amount of difficulty. You can hardly get in, and it is equally difficult to get out. It is a disgrace to the railway companies, and should not be allowed to go on. I am afraid it will go on until something happens. God forbid that anything of the

  1033
  kind I have in mind should happen! What would be the result if a train with six of these long carriages, crammed with people, were to meet with an accident? Let us assume that some accident does arise of the kind from which, happily, we are very free. What would be the result? Immediately there would be such an outcry, not only in this City, but throughout the country, that the Board of Trade and the Executive Committee would have to take action. Why should we wait for an accident of that kind to occur? Let us try to prevent such a thing happening. Thousands and thousands of boys and girls and women in particular have to make their way to the City day by day and to make their way home again. They are paying this extra money, by the way, and are having to stand instead of being provided with additional comfort for the increased fare. I appeal to the Board of Trade to see if something cannot be done, both in the direction of removing this additional 50 per cent. and, above all, to remedy the scandalous overcrowding which is going on week by week and month by month, and which must be known to the authorities. Something should be done to alleviate this particular matter.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I do not think that any Member of this House would envy me my position in having to reply to this Motion which has been moved by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Morgan), and seconded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman). First of all, I should like to say that I fully recognise the strong feeling that exists in the country among their Constituents, and, indeed, among my own, although perhaps not so acutely as in the London and suburban districts, and the necessity under which they have felt themselves to be to state this case as plainly and forcibly as they have done in the House to-night. I am grateful to them for having avoided some of the excesses to which some people have gone in advocating the same cause. Last night some kind friend sent me a leaderette from one of the leading provincial papers on this very subject. It began by saying:
  "People pay double fares for the privilege."
  To start with, that is untrue. It went on to say:
  "High officials of the Board of Trade, and especially those who represent that Department in the House of Commons—"
  1034
  In the absence of ray right hon. Friend, may I thank the hon. Gentleman opposite for the very kind reference he made to my right hon. Friend. That reference can have meant myself—
  "Are understood to avoid the trains at the 'rush hours' and to use Government or private motor cars as their customary means of travel."
  9.0 P.M.
  If I had a private motor car in London, I could not do a greater service to the country than use it rather than crowd the trains, but I have not. I have never used a Government caron my own requisition yet during the three years I have been a member of the Government. I share the experience of other people about the rush hours. I have "strap-hung" with the best of them—it is the only exercise I get. This article concluded by saying:
  "If they could be compelled to join for a week the daily fight on the platforms, all their present complacency would disappear and they would insist upon the profiteering railways giving fair play to the fare paying passengers."
  Language like that is unworthy of a very serious question like this. As for profiteering railways, everybody knows that is nonsense. The complacency with which those representing the Board are supposed to face the House of Commons is one which I certainly do not feel myself. The only complacency I can feel in the matter at all is that I have tried to speak the truth in the House of Commons and not to mislead people by false hopes. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution spoke of the want of sympathy by the Board of Trade. I wish at the outset to repudiate that statement most warmly. If any hon. Member will take the trouble to reflect for one moment, he will easily convince himself that for any individual or any Department to adopt an unpopular attitude merely for the sake of being unsympathetic with the public, and not trying to do his best, would be a most idiotic action on his part, and one which no Department would be likely to take if they could possibly avoid it. We have the greatest possible sympathy with the intention of both sections of the Motion before the House, and we should be only too thankful if we were able to agree with what the hon. Gentleman has moved. We know quite as well as anybody else—perhaps more than some people—the great need which those people who have worked for years with hardly any respite during the War have for holidays to refresh themselves, and to regain some of that patience which, I am afraid, many of

  1035
  us have lost. We feel still more the importance of making every possible provision that can be made for getting the children in our populous districts out into the fresh air to enjoy the country life or the seaside, or wherever it may be that they wish to go. I know quite well it was only a figure of speech when the hon. and gallant Gentleman said we had no sympathy with this proposal. Unfortunately, we have to look hard facts in the face. Both hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have said the War is over, but neither of them will contend that we have returned straight away to normal pre-war conditions. They put the blame on the Government for this deficiency and this overcrowding, but the blame rests upon the Kaiser and upon the Germans who undertook this War, and they know as well as I do that you cannot return to absolutely normal peace conditions even within six months of the signing of the Armistice, and although we have not yet got peace signed.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: Is it not the case that the carrying of troops and munitions has practically ceased?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: A certain amount of it has certainly ceased, but I want to put before the House—and I am sure when I have done so hon. Members will see that we have some reason for not being able to accede to this Motion—figures about the state of our railways, rolling stock, and so on.
  An HON. MEMBER: What about motor stock?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is not the question at the moment. The question is the railway position. However sympathetic we may be—and we are—with the objects they have in view, the present state of affairs makes it quite impossible to carry it out. The words of the Motion are that "present conditions no longer justify the retention of the 50 per cent. nor the continued reduction of the train service." I want to give the House some figures which I think will show that present conditions do justify it. There have been taken for the work of the War Office overseas 1,600 passenger coaches and 700 locomotives. Of the locomotives 300, I think, or thereabouts, have been returned, but not one of them is in action. Every one is undergoing repair. Of the 1,600 passenger coaches not one has yet been re-
  1036
  turned to this country. Owing to the conditions of the War, the ordinary repairs as well as the ordinary new construction of locomotives and rolling stock have dropped seriously into arrears. In normal times 3 per cent. of the rolling stock is under repair, and probably rather less than 10 per cent. of the engines. At present, instead of 3 per cent., 10½ per cent. of the passenger coaches are under repair, and 20 per cent. of the locomotives.
  Major MORGAN: If 1,600 railway carriages and 700 engines were taken to France to supply 4,500,000 men, and we have less than 1,000,000 men in France now, when can we expect the War Office to disgorge the engines?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Owing to the occupation of German territory, we have a much longer line of communication to keep up.
  Major MORGAN: The German rolling stock.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That does not cover the whole thing. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is prepared to say, "We are going to take away all facilities for communication with our troops," he may have something in his argument. I am sure the House will recognise that that is impossible. Three hundred of our engines back out of 700 is pretty good work in the time. Now I come to new construction. The ordinary annual requirement to keep up stock in ordinary times is put, although it has now always been kept up to that mark, at 600 or 700 new engines. During the War something like 100 to 200 new engines—Iam giving a wide margin—have been constructed. That means that during the years of the War there has been a loss of new engines, and those the most modern and of the largest type, of 2,000. In coach-building the normal new construction would have been something like 6,000 in the War period. During the War there has been practically none. That means that during that time we have lost a huge quantity of passenger coaches which in normal times would have been serving the public. That is not the fault of the Board of Trade or the Railway Executive. The Railway Executive and the railway companies placed themselves unreservedly and patriotically at the disposal of the country to do the best they could to win the War, and the only fault which can be attributed to anyone is to be attributed to the Germans for having

  1037
  declared War. That is the reason, combined with the fact that many more people are travelling although the fares are not cheap, why it is impossible to revert immediately to pre-war train service and conditions. I think the House will agree with me that, supposing it were possible financially to run cheap trains, to advertise cheap trains would be to attract to the railway stations a number of people for whom accommodation could not be found. Nothing could be more cruel or unkind than to do that. It is very easy to say, "Why do not the Board of Trade or the Railway Executive rectify this position?" How are they going to do it? Where are the engines and the carriages which are to bring us back to pre-war conditions? If anyone can show me where they are and how it can be done I can understand their voting for the Motion before the House. A good deal has been said about the Railway Executive. They are making the most strenuous efforts to increase the services and the accommodation. A considerable addition has been made already, and during this month and next month more may be expected. With regard to the London suburban traffic, we fully recognise what inconvenience is caused, but it would be merely raising false hopes to pretend that we can return to pre-war conditions for many months to come. We should be very glad if we could improve the chance for working people, and especially for children having holidays in the country. The companies will do all they can.
  Major WATTS MORGAN: When?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As soon as they can. When they have the locomotives and the carriages. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are knocking off trains now."]
  Major MORGAN: Is the hon. Member aware that on the Taff Vale Railway for Easter there were engines and carriages lying idle and no children could be taken away?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not aware of that, but I shall be glad to inquire into it if the hon. and gallant Member will give me the facts. If the companies were to advertise cheap trains there would be nothing like the accommodation that would be necessary for the people who would desire to travel. If you advertise cheap trains, it necessarily implies that anybody who comes can be
  1038
  accommodated, and there would be a far greater outcry if, when you had advertised cheap trains, people could not get into them, than you have when it is stated frankly and plainly that the companies are unable to meet the difficulty. We were most anxious, and so were the railway companies, to provide every possible holiday facility that could be provided with the depleted stock. They informed me that it would greatly increase the number of people who might be able to get away from the populous centres if, wherever possible, employers and workpeople arranged to take their holidays at other than the Bank Holiday and week-end periods, and that if they cannot do that in the months of June and early July it may be very difficult to take even the limited number they would wish in July, August, and the beginning of September, which are the popular periods. I hope that employers and workpeople will do what they can to try to arrange that the holidays shall be taken at other than the usual time, so that the largest possible number of men, women and children may take advantage of the holidays. The right hon. Gentleman who seconded this Motion spoke of the Council that is known by your name (Mr. Whitley), or which your name honours or which honours your name, and which has done a very great deal of good, in my opinion, in ventilating grievances and diminishing disputes in many great industries, and which I did all I could to promote when I was at the Ministry of Labour. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that, owing to that organisation, the trade to which he referred had been enabled to secure a week's holiday. I hope they will go one further and secure that the week's holiday shall be taken, if possible, at a time when the traffic is less on the railways and when every member of that trade will have the opportunity of enjoying the holiday.
  Major MORGAN: When is that time?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must be a little reasonable. He knows perfectly well that on Bank Holidays and on certain other times the crowding is worse than at other times. With regard to cheap fares, I should like hon. Members to realise that the expenses of the railway companies have more than doubled since before the War.
  An HON. MEMBER: So have ours!
  Mr. JOHN JONES: They are not the only people whose expenses have doubled.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Have you asked the Government to subsidise you?
  An HON. MEMBER: No.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: You ought to be very thankful that the railway companies are only asking you 50 per cent. for what has cost them 100 per cent.
  Mr. NEIL M'LEAN: We are subsidising the railway companies.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No. If 50 per cent. were taken off the fares, the railway companies would be involved in a loss which is calculated at £20,000,000. I think the hon. Member who moved this Resolution quoted a speech by the President of the Board of Trade, and interpreted it to mean that he had promised to take off the 50 per cent. immediately the War was over. I have not the speech here, but in the words quoted my right hon. Friend said that he hoped to see the fares reduced as soon as possible. We all hope that.
  Major MORGAN: The time is drawing close.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is it possible to do it? They have not the carriages and the locomotives with which to do it. It is not possible at the present time. My right hon. Friend assures me that in that speech he never defined any time when such reduction would be possible or stated the amount of the reduction which could be made at any particular time. With regard to these cheap fares, I have already said that if there is no accommodation it would be cruel to advertise cheap excursions. The real point is that if you take off the 50 per cent., which it is perfectly true to say was put on originally to reduce the number of people travelling, but which is necessary now for totally different reasons—if you were to take that off, the only result would be that the general public—that is to say, the taxpayers—would be subsidising the travelling public. Those who support this particular Motion have got to decide with regard to these fares whether they wish the State to subsidise the travelling public. I do not agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda said about the passenger fares in this country being very much higher than in other countries. That is not my information at all. The Government hope that, by the operations of the Ways and Communica-
  1040
  tions Bill, great economies may be effected in the running of our railways. If these economies are effected, it may be possible to carry out the desires of the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution. I am undertaking a very unpleasant task to-night, but I should not be fulfilling my duty if I did not say quite plainly that at the present moment it is not possible to do what they desire, I say once more that there is no Government Department which sympathises more with the object that is in their mind than the Board of Trade; there is no Government Department more interested in improving and increasing the trade of the country and the railway facilities of the country. It has been said that I was sentimental. I am trying to suppress that as much as I can, as I think the truth is more important than sentimentality. I therefore have to say, with great regret, that it is impossible for us at the present moment to hold out any hope of being able now to fulfil the desires expressed in this Motion, but that whenever it becomes possible—as it becomes possible—the Railway Executive Committee will, I am quite sure, do everything they can to assist the travelling public in getting every advantage out of the railways which the depleted state of their stocks allows them to give.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: Is the Government paying the ordinary railway fares and the 50 per cent., or merely guaranteeing the interest to the shareholders?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think I am right in saying that the Government are guaranteeing the pre-war interest which the railway companies earned.
  Mr. GILBERT: I am very sorry to have heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just replied to the Board of Trade. I was hopeful, when I heard the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution, that we might have had a more sympathetic and hopeful speech from him. I think he knows how strongly is the feeling outside this House amongst the travelling public that something should be done in order to get us back to pre-war conditions. I would suggest to him that if he could have given us some facts as to what the railway companies are doing at the present time in order to get back to pre-war conditions, it would have been much more helpful than telling us what the railway companies have done during the War. We all recognise their difficulties during the

  1041
  War. We all know what they did to assist our men on the front. But that is all past and a good many months have elapsed since the Armistice was signed. Surely the Railway Executive Committee must have considered this matter very urgently since the Armistice was signed. The railway shops which were used for munitions have surely now been taken back for railway work. Could not the Government give us some facts as to how many locomotives and carriages the railway shops propose to turn out this year? I hope they are working at high pressure in order to turn out as many as they can. I am speaking as a London Member, and I want to endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford has said. We in London specially feel this question of the increase of fares. There is probably no other place in the country where there is so much suburban traffic for workers of all kinds, and I do not think there is anywhere where the workers—many of them people with fixed wages—have felt the increase of fares more. This 50 per cent. has been a very great tax on the suburban residents in London. Before the War nearly all the railway companies around London advertised cheap fares in order to attract people to live in the suburbs. Many people, like Government employés, school teachers, and others, whose salaries were more or less fixed, went to these suburban places. Many of them bought houses, either through building societies or in some other way, and their railway fare was put down as part of their annual expense on the income which they received. This 50 per cent. increase on the ordinary fares and on the season-ticket rates, is a great hardship which these people have suffered during the War. We were hopeful in London that at any rate something would be done, that if the whole of the 50 per cent. could not be taken off the Government would at any rate do something in order to relieve the burden on these people. My hon. Friend, in reply, talked about the amount of money that the Government would lose if cheap fares were granted.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: What I stated was the amount that they would lose if the 50 per cent. were taken off.
  Mr. GILBERT: I accept that correction. The figure I took down was £20,000,000. We have had several questions asked in the House during recent weeks regarding the figure which was given by the Minister-
  1042
  designate of Ways and Communications as to the prospective loss on railways if they were conducted as they are at the present time. I think I am correct in saying that, while 50 per cent. has been put on railway passengers' fares, no such addition has been put on railway goods rates in any part of the country. The railway passenger is paying a very big excess on the passenger fares. If the railways are losing money, they must also be losing equally on goods as well as on passengers, and the passenger, it seems to me, is bearing the loss which is being incurred on goods traffic at the present time. That is unfair from the point of view of railway passengers. We in London feel very bitterly the taking away of the pre-war holiday facilities. I have taken some part recently in trying to get some of these facilities restored. In pre-war times we had day excursions, Sunday excursions, cheap week-end tickets, cheap weekly and cheap fortnightly tickets, in addition to tourist tickets. They were all swept away during the War. People did not grumble about this during the War, but they will feel it a great hardship to learn from the speech of the hon. Member to-night, in view of the needs of the great population of London and the surrounding districts, that facilities from the holiday point of view are not to be restored in the immediate future. Even in cases where there were third-class fares, which were cheaper than double the single fare, some individual on the Railway Executive found this out, and in addition to the increase of 50 per cent. the return fares have been abolished and they are now double the single fares. This is felt very keenly. There is a very strong feeling among the public that something ought to be done in order to meet the special case of holiday traffic in the summer months, and I urge upon my hon. Friend to impress on the Railway Executive Committee the great urgency of doing something to relieve the situation. People who worked very hard during the War bore all the strain of the last four years with patience and never complained, but now that the War is over, and we are getting towards peace terms, the Government might go out of their way to try to meet the wishes of this great part of the population who have behaved so well in the years of crisis.
  Lieutenant-Commander ASTBURY: I need scarcely say that I agree that if it is possible for the Board of Trade to get the Railway Executive to give some reduction

  1043
  to the travelling public it ought to be done. But I would like to deal with the question from the business man's and the trader's point of view and with reference to the question of trader's contracts. The Railway Executive have put up the limit from £300 worth of traffic, which carried a trader's contract, to £500, and they have struck out all indirect traffic, and on top of that they have increased the price of these contracts. This is penalising small traders. It makes very little difference to a large trader whether he has to pay £20 or £30 a year more for his contract, but for small traders who have to travel about the country, especially big distances, such as from Manchester to London, it means a very great deal, and there are cases now of traders in the city from which I come who have had three or four contracts, and who now when they have come up for renewal find that those contracts have been refused. This is a case which the Board of Trade, in the interests of the trade of the country, should bring to the attention of the Railway Executive. There is another point with regard to the lowering of the fares. I do not approach it wholly from the point of view of the travelling public. We have got to remember the effect of high fares on those men who have to travel to their work. A great many of my workmen have to come fifteen or twenty miles by railway, and a large increase in the fares makes it very difficult for them with the other increases during the War to make both ends meet. The whole House realises the tremendous difficulties we are up against in having so little rolling stock and so few locomotives in the country, but these matters cannot affect what I urge with regard to railway contracts, the changes in reference to which have such a bad effect on trade.
  Mr. J. BROWN: I feel, in rising to address the House, that anything which I could say with regard to pre-war conditions on railways would be absolutely futile. After the speech which we have heard from the Front Bench not one of us has any hope that any relief will be given to the travelling public. Speaking for the Labour party in Scotland, I do think that everybody will agree that Scotland has a special grievance because of the great distances and because of the long time we have to be in the train, and the miserable conditions we have during those weary hours that we are in the corridors. In
  1044
  order to get a seat one must be at the station an hour before starting-time, and, travelling on the Midland as I frequently do, by the time we reach Leeds it gives the guard all he can do with the utmost difficulty to find his way along the corridors because of the numbers of people who are in those corridors. It is not so long ago since, when going up—and this happens every time—I saw soldiers coming home from the front for their hard-earned rest rolled up in their great coats, lying in the corridors, because a grateful Government could not provide them with seats to take them to their own homes. If the hon. Member, speaking for the Government, would reconsider what he has been saying regarding the probability of some relief being given, it would be well for the Government. I think that it is a scandal that, so many months after the Armistice, we should still be unable to find decent accommodation when travelling to and fro. Not only is the distance great, but the price is prohibitive, and here, again, I think Scotland suffers particularly. It takes, roughly, £130 for a third-class ticket to take one home once a fortnight and, so far as we are concerned, we are hardly able to afford such a sum at that.
  We have, or ought to have, the greatest travelling facilities in the world. It was our people who discovered the power of steam; it was they who gave to the world the facilities that they have for railways to-day, and yet, in spite of what has been said from the Front Bench, we have to pay more than any other country in the world that we know of to-day, and that should not be so. The hon. Member deprecated the lowering of rates because it would mean a loss of money. That is where the whole trouble comes from. We are always balancing up accounts, and we fail to remember the facilities and the pleasure and the usefulness of giving those cheaper fares to the working classes, because after all it is they who chiefly suffer. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said, regarding traders' tickets, that it did not much matter to the bigger concerns. It does not really matter so very much to the people who have money to spare whether there is a 50 per cent. rise on the ticket or not, but it matters a very great deal to the working classes, especially if they are travelling long distances. As a matter of fact, even before the War, before there was a 50 per cent. rise, with all the facilities that we had with our week-end tickets,

  1045
  and our tourists' tickets, and all the other tickets, many of our people were unable to visit places of interest in this old country of ours, and it is surely the bankruptcy of our statesmanship that we cannot devise some means of opening up to the travelling public the great power that we have in railway engines and railway lines. We seem to be under some kind of enchantment. We have everything that the genius of man can devise, and yet we are unable to get the facilities that we ought to expect from the railways that we have built. I wish to protest for the Labour party in Scotland against the very unsympathetic speech that we had from the Treasury bench, and I hope even yet that the Government will take second thoughts on this matter. The country suffered, and suffered grandly, when it was necessary in order to carry munitions of was and to carry our troops to the point of embarkation or to carry them to and fro, and there was very little grumbling during the period of stress and storm, because we realised that that was in some measure doing our little bit in order to assist the Government. But the need for that has greatly passed away. We are a good many months after the Armistice, and there must be a great returning of those railway carriages and engines. There, should be, if there is not, and surely it is the duty of the Government to give the people who suffered so readily and so loyally some little relief now that the terrors of war and defeat have passed away from us. I hardly followed the hon. Gentleman's explanation, because, first of all he did admit that the fares were raised in order to prevent travelling, but almost in the next breath he said, "Supposing you had plenty of facilities, we could not lower the fares at all." So I got into rather a maze. We require this relief. We require more provision for the travelling public, and especially the working classes. We require the fares lower, so that they will be able to get some measure of enjoyment from those increased facilities, and when we have said that, we have given our whole case. That is our case, and I think that this House, whatever the Government may think about it, will be sympathetic with the Motion that has been moved by the hon. and gallant Member to-night, and will assist us in trying to get the Government to accept that Motion and to make an honest
  1046
  attempt at this great scheme of reconstruction, because this might easily form a part of the great scheme of reconstruction—a return to the pre-war conditions of our railways. I trust that the Government will hold out a little more hope and that the House will assist us in such a manner that the hon. Gentleman will be compelled to reconsider the statement he has already made.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: I think the hon. Members present are very grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda (Major Morgan) that he availed himself of the good fortune of the ballot to put down, a Resolution on this question, considering, the enormous amount of interest that is centred in it in all parts of the United Kingdom. I think myself that there are two distinct phases in connection with the question. First of all, there is the regular phase in connection with persons travelling daily, backwards and forwards to their ordinary occupations. Representing as I do a Constituency just outside London, where a very large number of people have to come in daily to their ordinary occupations, and have to avail themselves of the railways, either by paying the increased 50 per cent. on their fares or else their increased season: tickets, I know how keenly they are interested in the question, and I must say that, while I know the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is sympathetic—and I can assure the House that I know he is; he has been a straphanger, and I have been with him on those occasions—I was very much disappointed at the speech which he delivered. If I may say so, he seemed to overburden himself with an amount of responsibility. He narrated all that had taken place in the past, all of which we are glad did take place in the past. We are all pleased to think that in the hour of emergency a number of our coaches were taken to France, that our locomotives were sent there, that everything that possibly could be done was done on purpose to assist in the great struggle that was then going on. When he told us—we were pleased to hear it—of what had been returned in the way of locomotives and coaches, I suppose none of us was very much surprised to know that when some of these locomotives or coaches came back they were not quite ready to be immediately put on the lines again.

  1047
  But when he had told us all that—and we were thankful to hear it—what we wanted to know, and do want to know, and ought to know in our opinion, is, what is going on at the present time in the great workshops on our lines in regard to the reconstruction of coaches or the manufacture of locomotives? If the hon. Gentleman will kindly give us information on that point, I think the House will be much more satisfied. If he wants to get, as I have no doubt he does quite earnestly and honestly, the sympathy of the House, he must take the House into his confidence, and tell us clearly and definitely that at Wolverton so many thousands of men are building coaches, at Crewe or elsewhere so many engines are being put up, and so go through the great workshops of the railways, and give us some intimation of what is being done, on purpose to inform us that there may be within a short distance of time greater facilities on our railways. So far as regards the portion of his speech as to those who have to take season tickets, I am sure it was almost sad.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I did not refer to season tickets; it is not in the Motion.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: The subject of general railway facilities is, I understand, in the Motion. I do not want to transgress, but I hope the Debate is not to be confined to the question of holiday traffic. I thought it talked about the entire removal of the 50 per cent. I was present, and took a great interest, when the 50 per cent. was first put on. I was one of the critics at that time. I was a critic of the Board of Trade also when, to level up the 50 per cent. on ordinary fares, an increase in season tickets took place, and I then pointed out, with other hon. Members, that a great hardship was being inflicted on a large number of persons who have to come into this great city or other cities daily, with season tickets. We were told then, as has been repeated over and over again in this Debate, that it was not the desire to raise money at all, and that it was only to stop travelling that this increase had taken place. Now we are told that that reduction of travelling has not taken place. What am I to say to people who thought they were submitting to a temporary increase on their season tickets, or on their ordinary fares, to go backwards and forwards to earn their daily bread, when we are told there is no immediate chance, and, so far as I can judge
  1048
  from the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, no chance in the near future, of any reduction whatever? He said that, possibly there is some hope when the Ways and Communications Bill comes into force, but that Bill has not yet passed the Standing Committee, although it will pass in due course. But when it has passed and becomes law, surely the Minister-designate will not be able by the magic touch of a wand to bring about these economies. If the economies are really not to come into existence until the Ways and Communications Bill becomes an Act, I am afraid it will be a long time before the economies come about. What we want is that the Board of Trade and its officials, with the Railway Executive, shall turn their mind seriously to the great work, as has well been said, as a part of the reconstruction in getting our railways in order, and seeing whether there is not some means of economising in another direction which will enable, if not all the 50 per cent. to be taken off, at least some reduction to be made and greater facilities given on the railways. I have never been able to get what it is the Government allow in the figures with regard to the cost of the railways for the conveyance of troops. We are always asserting, and it has never been contradicted, that if they would put down anything light—a reasonable sum—not necessarily the full charge of fares for civilians—with regard to the transport of troops up and down the country, and give honestly the benefit of that to the figures, this great difficulty would not have taken place. That is the question in a nutshell with regard to what we require. We ask the Government, if you cannot take off the 50 per cent. all at once, show us at least that there is a possibility of a reduction being made, and at least show us clearly and definitely that every nerve is being strained on purpose to get locomotives and coaches.
  There is the question of holiday traffic. I asked a question on Monday last, whether some reduction would be made in the fares in connection with holiday traffic during this month, and the months of June and July, and I modestly, in that question, only asked for a reduction of 25 per cent. off the 50 per cent. What was the answer I received. It was what other Members have received previously, that the Railway Executive were considering the question. Now we really do want to know, and I was in hopes the Parliamentary Secretary

  1049
  would be able to tell us to-night, how much longer the Railway Executive want to do their thinking in? Let us know at once that these facilities cannot be afforded, or else let us tell the public that they will be able to afford these facilities during these months for holiday folk, and they will then do what the hon. Member has so often pleaded for in this House, and that is, tend to spread out the holiday traffic, instead of leaving it all to August and the beginning of September. I do sincerely put these questions to the Parliamentary Secretary. I want him to understand that the whole of the House, I think, is prepared to afford him all support it possibly can in getting back to normal times, but we do demand, and we have a right to demand, that the Board of Trade, through its Railway Executive, should show us that the work is being taken in hand seriously and energetically, and that there is some real hope in the near future.
  Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I, personally, am very grateful that the hon. Member who introduced this Debate has used the opportunity of the Ballot to move the Resolution on the subject of travelling facilities. I would like to associate myself with what he, and those who followed him, have said, but I do not want to attempt to repeat their statements. I only want to refer in a word to one aspect, which is very seldom referred to in this House—that aspect of the public life of our country which is very quiet, very self-sacrificing, very seldom makes itself heard, but, perhaps, all the more is feeling the cruel inequalities of the present conditions of existence. When we think of the health of the country, the health of the fathers, mothers, and children, and what an asset that is to our progress, it seems to me that the travelling facilities are one of the elements which we have specially to consider if we are going to promote that health and provide those happy conditions which we have been so fully promised. I have here a letter which I have received to-day, in view of this Debate, from a Nonconformist minister, and it is something in the nature of a human document. I am only going to quote one short extract. He says:
  "My own case may be more or less typical of many. My means, barely adequate in pre-war days, are now, even with a thirty per cent. increase, quite inadequate to meet the increased cost of living. Consequently we have had no holiday for three years, whilst work has demanded a greater strain, and spare time has been devoted to voluntary war work."
  1050
  He adds:
  "The consequence has been that my wife has got nervous prostration and has broken down in health, and I myself have been ordered to take myself and family somewhere away."
  I would not have referred to that case had it stood alone, but it can be multiplied by thousands and tens of thousands throughout the country. These are the quiet, ill-paid, self-sacrificing portions of the community who, feeling the condition of things to-day, appeal to us that under the circumstances they may receive some consideration. I venture, therefore, respectfully, but earnestly, to appeal to my right hon. Friend to give us a little more comfort than has yet been given to us. I know the hon. Gentleman who spoke just now is one of the most genial of men, and one of the most kindly-hearted we have in this House; but a more depressing and more unsatisfactory statement I do not remember to have listened to in the House. After all, I cannot help feeling—and I think hon. Members of this House feel, too—that really "where there is a will there is a way." What we want is the war-will manifested in the direction of a little realisation of the demands of the country—that such should receive more consideration than apparently is being shown. Unless more is done I feel that the unrest which distinctly does exist will certainly be extended in directions where at present there is absolute quiet. In the interests of progress, and in some direction in the carrying out of the promises made at the recent election as to the conditions we were going to have, of happiness and enjoyment, I earnestly urge the right hon. Gentleman even now to give us better conditions of railway travelling, if only from the standpoint of the health and comfort of the people. By so doing he will be largely following on the lines of the promises made by his distinguished leader, and helping to fulfil some of the expectations which were raised.
  Mr. JOHN JONES: Representing a working-class constituency in the East End of London I am not going to appeal to the sentimental feelings of hon. Members. I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade to recognise that there is a limit to human endurance. During the War workers consented to be circumscribed in their opportunities of travel when they had better the means to pay for it. In the interests of the nation they were appealed

  1051
  to pay the extra 50 per cent. They raised no objection, in spite of the fact that they could ill-afford to pay the increased impost placed upon them. What is the position to-day? Overtime has been stopped in most factories engaged in the production of war material. Thousands upon thousands of men and women have been thrown out of employment. Consequently they are not able to pay the fares that are now being demanded. Whilst during the War it might have been possible to meet the increased impost for revenue purposes—apart from the fact that we were told at the beginning that this impost was made not for the purpose of revenue, but for the purpose of preventing unnecessary travelling—I suggest that the reason given in the original case absolutely falls to the ground.
  What is the position so far as we in the East End of London are concerned? Instead of getting increased opportunities of travel since the Armistice we are getting decreased opportunity to travel. All the local railways, all the local tramway services, now tell us that because of the cessation of hostilities they are not able to get the material to provide the necessary vehicles to carry the travelling public. It is all due to the fact that so far as they are concerned they are not able to provide opportunities for the people to travel because of the great demands made upon them during the War. Take one railway company that deals particularly with the East End of London, the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Company, which is now a branch of the Midland. The workers who were able to travel from East Ham to Fenchurch Street, or from East Ham to St. Pancras in certain trains, are now being debarred because it is essential that city traffic should be conducted to the outer area of London. What be happening? By not stopping at East Ham and Plaistow, the ordinary worker is debarred the opportunity of getting home after his day's work
  Take the ordinary workman. In the old days he could buy a workman's ticket, travel up to the City, and go back any time during the day. Now he is told he cannot travel until after 12 noon, and then only by certain trains. That used to be the custom in the old days, I quite admit; but at the present time the number of trains that he cannot travel by has been increased. What is the result? Congestion! Take the trams or 'buses. Talk
  1052
  about strap-hanging! Hon. Members come to this House and make great professions of the fact of their strap-hanging. I suggest that if they heard what the worker said of them it would be that they should hang and not strap-hang—in this sense, that whilst they may strap-hang occasionally, the workers have to strap-hang all the time. In the morning when they wish to catch the car it is a fight for the chance to get in. At night when the workman wants to get home it is a fight for the chance of getting out.
  Take the Underground between the hours of five and eight in the morning, and between the same hours at night. You will find that there it is almost as hard a struggle to get out of the train as to get into it. Why is there this difficulty? The Ways and Communications Committee is proceeding with its work at present. We understand that thousands upon thousands of motor-cars and vehicles are on hand. If the Government cannot give us facilities on railways, or reduce the fares, can they not organise motor traffic as they did during the motor-car drivers' strike in London?
  When the Tube railwaymen were on strike in London, you could provide Government cars to carry the people. Can you not do so now? You admit you cannot carry the public on the trains, you say you are not able to control the railway system as we suggest, but cannot you use the thousands upon thousands of motor cars which you have all over the United Kingdom; cannot you arrange routes and cannot you use these cars to relieve the congested traffic in the same way as you did it when the workmen on the Tubes went on strike to get improved conditions of employment? The Board of Trade pretends that it is only a watertight compartment. But could not the Ministry of Ways and Means and the Board of Trade, acting in conjunction, come together as a matter of absolute immediate necessity to deal with this problem of the London traffic? What is happening in London? Fares are being increased. We have a huge traffic combine, and the fares are not merely being increased 50 per cent. but in some districts the increase is 200 per cent. I venture to suggest that this Resolution ought to be carried by this House, because if the Board of Trade knew that they had to improve their methods, and to try and provide better facilities for the public, they would be prepared to do something on the lines suggested in the Motion.

  1053
  On behalf of the workers of the East End of London, I wish to say a word on the question of holiday fares. There has been no holidays for these people during the last five years. Southend is the nearest place we can go to, in the form of a seaside resort, but it has been impossible for the ordinary working man to take his wife and family there. We are asking that this House shall at least say that after we have faced the stress of War in a large number of cases, and seeing that in many cases wives and children are absolutely left unprovided for, at least the old services shall be restored, the 50 per cent. shall be abolished, and we shall have some chance of getting back to the old conditions that prevailed in the days before the War.
  Major NALL: I do not propose to go over the ground regarding fares. We have heard a great deal about the sentimental side of this matter and I will not touch on that, but I want to say a few words on that part of the Motion which refers to facilities. It is assumed that everybody who travels by train is a straphanger. One wonders then who are the people who get the seats. What I particularly want to mention is the holiday traffic. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that the Railway Executive Committee view with some concern the possibility of dealing with the forthcoming holiday traffic. He told us that some 1,600 coaches which were sent over to France had not come back. Hon. Members who know the distances that are travelled on the other side of the Channel, and are aware of the discomforts that our men in France are subjected to by travelling in open trucks, are not prepared to press for these coaches to be returned until they can really be spared. I am sure that many hon. Members would prefer to go on straphanging for a few months longer in order that the men overseas can get decent couches to vide in. We must realise the difficulties the Board of Trade and the Railway Executive are up against. So far as accommodation is available I would like to suggest that a bigger effort should be made to ration the accommodation. It has been tried in the North, and successfully in Lancashire. Probably there are some people who will say it has not been successful, but it has certainly relieved the situation. If the companies would try and look in advance, showing on the ticket the trains, the passenger can
  1054
  travel by to the principal holiday places, the passengers to those places would be saved a great amount of trouble and would be certain to get to the destination by the train by which they proposed to travel. Even before the War. so far as Lancashire is concerned, the North Wales service of the London and North-Western Railway Company was always bad. As long as I can remember, since I was at school, that service was inadequate during the summer months. It was inadequate during the War and quite inadequate at Easter and unless the Board of Trade ginger up the people concerned it will be absolutely inadequate during the coming summer. In a lesser degree the same thing applies to the Isle of Man traffic and that service will require an increase. There, again, if people are to travel with comfort under present conditions a system of rationing the accommodation available must be adopted.
  I have spoken of the North and one can quite easily imagine that it would be a great benefit to the people in the South. The facilities to places like Folkestone, Eastbourne, Brighton, Bournemouth, Torquay, and other towns along the coast to which there is a big rush of traffic could be very greatly improved by a system of booking places in the trains. I do press this matter on the Board of Trade and ask that it should be brought before the Railway Executive Committee so that they can adopt the system which has already proved to be useful in Lancashire.
  So far as fares are concerned I do not want to differ too strongly from some hon. Members but I think the proposal to have reduced fares in May and June in order to attract people to the holiday resorts in those months instead of later in the summer months really will not have the desired effect. Families cannot go away in May and June when the children are at school. Holidays do not depend only on the closing of works and mills and arrangements between employers and employed. They depend on the school term. If the cheap travel facilities are only to be offered in May and June it will mean that people with no families will go away on the cheap fares and the wretched man with a big family will have to pay the full fare in July and August. Therefore, I submit that if any reduction is made at all for holiday traffic it is useless to lower the rate in May and June and not in the other months. If it is possible to make any

  1055
  reduction at all, it should apply throughout the summer and should be restricted first to the trains which are rationed.
  The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Sir A. Geddes): I wish to thank the hon. and gallant Member (Major Watts Morgan) for having seized the opportunity of the ballot to raise this question, for it is undoubtedly one that requires the best attention. Owing to the unfortunate illness of the President of the Board of Trade, it has been my lot to see something of the work of the Board of Trade and of the Railway Executive Committee, and I can assure the House that when this responsibility fell upon me one of the very first things in my mind that I would like to investigate thoroughly was this very question which we are discussing to-night. I said to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Bridgeman) that I wished I had been supporting the Motion instead of having to resist it, because the whole of my natural sympathies are with the Mover, Seconder, and supporters of it. I have had opportunities, however, forced upon me of seeing the inside working, and I can assure the House that, in spite of my desire to persuade the Railway Executive Committee to do something tangible to help immediately, I really do not quite see what can be done without running the risk of a breakdown, or, alternatively, of a very serious interference with the commercial traffic on the railway lines. I have gone into the whole of the figures, and I hope to have the opportunity of circulating to the House within a few days a complete statement showing exactly what the cost of running she railway this been. There is no doubt that the costs are high. I do do not know, in view of health considerations which are bound up with cheap railway travelling, that the costs would have bothered me very much at this particular time, because I realise that we are passing through a transitional period, and that our people now need holidays perhaps more than ever before, and I do not think that I am laying any undue stress upon the question of costs. One just takes note of it in the general considerations. I can assure hon. Members, however, as they will realise when this Paper is circulated—it contains a mass of figures which it would never do to read out at the present time—that the financial position of the railways is not easy, and that the State is faced by
  1056
  a serious contribution. This afternoon I met the vice-chairman of the Railway Executive Committee, Sir Herbert Walker, and I discussed with him the situation. It is quite clear that you cannot put more travelling on to the railways at the present time than they are bearing. I can assure the House with every desire to get more traffic I do not see how it can be done. As a matter of fact, we have already brought the traffic on the railways up enormously, and when I say no more can be put on I mean just immediately, although every few days it may be possible to work in another train or two. We have had 3,677 new train services within the last few weeks. We have put on the Caledonian Railway another 250 trains. We have put them on throughout all the English lines up to this great total. The London and North-Western Railway have had 650 new train services worked in, but the difficulties are appalling.
  We have still, a great demand for railway service overseas, where we have a great amount of railway material and rolling stock locked up in essential services, but we are getting more of the men and stores back. We cannot get all these men back immediately. There are still about 100,000 men to come back now to the railways, and we are doing everything we can to get them, and they are coming back just as quickly as they can be spared. Remember that during the period of the War, and more especially during the last year of the War, we had to allow the railway services of this country to run down, and we were drawing men from them far beyond the limit of the possibility of maintaining full efficiency, and we have a long leeway to make up.
  At the very time when all that leeway is to be made up we are faced by a very great difficulty. I do not complain, but far from it I welcome tile fact, and nothing that I am going to say must be taken as showing any lack of sympathy; but, nevertheless, it has added to the difficulties of the situation that just at the time when this great crisis is upon us in railway working the hours of work of the men, both in the traffic service and the shops, have been substantially and largely reduced. We have cut them down to a forty-eight hours' week in the case of the men on the railway service and forty-seven hours in the shop, and although many of these men have not yet received the time benefit of that reduction, and have only received a cash benefit in the form of over-

  1057
  time, it still remains the fact that this change in the number of hours which the men are working, which I welcome from the point of view of the men, and their home life and health, and ultimately from the point of view of their efficiency, it still remains the fact that that change, coming at this time, has added enormously to the difficulties which the Railway Executive and the railway management have had to face.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: Is it possible to utilise the services of any of the 1,000,000 people who are unemployed here?
  Major MORGAN: Or in France?
  Sir A. GEDDES: I am afraid I do not quite understand what my hon. and gallant Friend means.
  Major MORGAN: There are hundreds of railwayman in France, doing no work today, who cannot be demobilised. I have been a personal witness of that, even before December of last year.
  Sir A. GEDDES: I know the numbers of men that are coming back, and I know the responsibilities which attach to the Railway Operating Division in France, and I think, broadly speaking—and, after all, in all these things one only can speak broadly—the War Office have done all they could to meet the difficulties of the situation. They certainly, in my opinion, played the game thoroughly. They have got responsibilities; they have to be prepared for possible emergencies. It is very easy to say there are men standing by doing nothing. It is also easy to say, after one of these emergencies has arisen—and such an emergency might be very serious from the point of view of the whole of our interests—"Why did not the Government make some provision?" It is only with full knowledge, such as I admit I have not had until a few weeks ago, that one can say: "I think all have done their best under the difficult conditions under which they have had to work." With regard to the question asked by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Tyson Wilson) as to whether it was not possible to take on new men, it is possible, and men are being taken on, as he knows. He knows, too, that the railway companies are pledged to reinstate the men who went from their service overseas and who have served so gallantly and devotedly with the forces in the field. Those men are entitled to the first consideration in regard to the posts which are available, and they must
  1058
  and will receive that consideration. That is one of the factors in the whole situation. But when I have said all that, when I have recognised the difficulties of the situation, it might still be urged that something should be done to increase the traffic, and I would say this to the House. Although the War is over so far as active fighting is concerned, we must remember the vast numbers of men that are being demobilised every day and the amount of cross-travelling that that requires upon the railways, and we must realise that, although the active fighting is over, there is still a great deal of military traffic upon the lines. That in itself adds to the difficulties of the position of the Railway Executive.
  We now come to the question of fares. I look at this question of fares with, I hope, a perfectly unbiassed mind. I am a season-ticket holder myself, and I travel on crowded trains. I have travelled during these last few weeks over a great many lines around London at various hours, in order to see for myself the conditions which exist.
  An HON. MEMBER: What class?
  Sir A. GEDDES: I have travelled third-class, and first-class when I could not get into the third—[Interruption]—having on that particular occasion a first-class ticket. I have also travelled in the guard's van and also in a milk van, and I have travelled in various other ways. I know what the conditions are, and I quite admit that they are just about as unpleasant and as unsatisfactory as is possible. We are seriously considering what we can do to meet the situation, but I should be absolutely false to my appreciation of the position if I held out any hope that any immediate great improvement could be made. These are not the days of the "Arabian Nights." You cannot rub a lamp and produce a whole lot of new palaces or rolling stock, or whatever it may be. They have got to be built, and I am assured by the Railway Executive Committee that the full capacity of the shops for the manufacture of rolling stock is at present occupied by new stock that is under construction. You cannot do more than that. I have been told from various sources—I have made special inquiries—that the outside wagon and rolling stock construction companies are absolutely full up with orders. You cannot at a moment's notice increase capacity. There have been great difficulties over getting steel, over getting raw materials, over getting skilled men, and

  1059
  over machinery, and they are being met as fast as they can. There are demands for great capital sums to be expended to open up bottle-necks which exist on the railways. We have got to make some special arrangement. It is not easy to see what that can be in the present circumstances—when that capital will be available. We have got to look at the two sides of this problem all the time. To-day I had some half-dozen demands for larger capital expenditure on behalf of the railways pressed upon me by the vice-chairman of the Railway Executive Committee. These capital sums are required in order to make it possible to get extensions of works, in some cases iron and steel works, and in some cases works of various sorts which will give employment.
  Mr. N. M'LEAN: And the running of special trains.
  Sir A. GEDDES: No; there was no expenditure required for running special trains—entirely for works. That is a most unfortunate and unhappy remark, except, perhaps, that it gives me an opportunity of denying it most emphatically.
  Mr. M'LEAN: The meaning of my interruption was that a fortnight ago a railway company ran a special train full of gentlemen in order to go to the opening of a golf course which they themselves had laid down.
  Sir A. GEDDES: I was talking of capital expenditure for increasing facilities for traffic, and running special trains is not capital expenditure. There are large sums required for the development of the industry of the country, and I would ask the House to recognise that, as the acting Chairman of the Railway Executive Committee, I am faced by this problem which has been before me this afternoon: Is this money, which has to be raised somehow, to be put into developing the commercial and manufacturing activities of the country and, therefore, stimulate employment, or is it to be put into an ephemeral increase of service for holiday purposes this year? There can be no doubt which is the right answer. It must go to the permanent development of the manufacturing and industrial resources of the country. That is the decision which has been taken. It is a decision which goes against the desire of the Mover, the Seconder, and the supporters of this Motion. Those are the types of decision
  1060
  which one is faced with all the time. You have limited capacity for carrying. You have a limited number of men who are trained for duty—more are being trained as rapidly as possible. You have a limited amount of capital which can be got. You have limited conditions in which the railways are working. You have limits in the number of locomotives at work. You have limits in the number of seats available in the rolling stock you run. You have limits in the number of wagons available. You have limits in the carrying capacity of the lines. Remember that for five years there has been no development of the railways of this country worth speaking of. During those five years there have been great movements of population, and there have been developments of industries and works outside centres of population, and those developments have led to enormous increases of traffic. You cannot, whatever you do, get rid of these difficulties by a stroke of the pen or by wishing. You have to get down to the problem and try to work it out, and you are met by an almost overwhelming rush of demands. I can assure the House that neither time nor energy will be spared if by, or through, the expenditure of either, we can improve the railway service of this country. There are few things which absorb more and more time from day to day than this railway question. We are doing everything we can to increase the efficiency of the railways as rapidly as possible; but let us be absolutely sure that there are great physical difficulties which we cannot charm away. All the changes of hours and conditions that are being made—changes which I welcome—mean an increase in our difficulties It is not easy to get these difficulties overcome as rapidly as they would have been overcome if those changes had not been made. I assure the House that there will be no delay in increasing the passenger service as soon as it can be increased. If I should have anything to do with the responsibility of this matter at that time there will be no delay so far as the representatives of the Board of Trade are concerned in getting the fares down as far as it is possible to get them down. I can assure the House that everything which is possible to be done without leading to a breakdown in the service will be done in the way of cheapening fares, but it would be no kindness to the people of this country if, for a sentimental reason, we were to have cheap

  1061
  fares and to allow the railways to get overwhelmed, because the result of that would be to cause difficulties in the distribution of coal, which is a very great difficulty to the railways as well as industries at the present time. It would also disorganise the distribution of food and the distribution of raw materials. That would mean giving a holiday to the few and unemployment to many.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he is faced with another difficulty which cannot be got over?
  Sir A. GEDDES: What difficulty?
  Mr. T. WILSON: The industrial difficulty.
  Sir A. GEDDES: I see difficulties all around me. I see one difficulty in finding work for people. I see another difficulty here, and I see another difficulty there, because there are no lines to run the trains on I am surrounded by difficulties, and it is only by working as hard as one can that one can make any attempt to get through them. I did not make the knots: I stepped into the middle of the knots. It is only by trying to get them untied that you can hope to extricate yourself. If you start cutting the knots you will make things worse.
  Mr. INSKIP: One of the reasons why I intervene in this Debate is that I received directions from a large and important section of my Constituents not only to be present here, but to speak. Though I have received similar instructions on previous occasions, I have never ventured to obey them, but on this occasion I hope I may be allowed to make a few observations on the question. If anything would have made me favourable to the Resolution it is that I have had personal experiences, which are only those which have been shared by every Member of this House. It was suggested by one hon. Member that only one section of the community had any experience of the inconveniences of travelling. I can only say that on the last occasion on which I travelled to my home in Scotland I was not only compelled to travel in the corridor for the whole length of the journey, but forced to compete with a fellow passenger for half of the floor space. He was either so intoxicated or in so infuriated a condition of mind that he was prepared to contest for supremacy with me. He ended by break-
  1062
  ing one of the windows in order to wreak his passion upon me. When the train stopped at Rugby I was required by the police to attend on one of my four days' holiday in order to give evidence against him. The only way in which I could be relieved from the necessity of attending at Rugby police court on the Monday was by paying the damage to the extent of £l, and that over and above the 50 per cent. I had been required to pay for my small accommodation on the floor of the corridor. It is not only when I go to my home that I have these experiences. When I desire to visit my Constituents I travel in the corridor. I apologise for these personal reminiscences. I only make them in order that it may not be supposed that the inconveniences of travel at the present time are felt by only one section of the population. They are felt by all of us. There is not a single Member of the House who would not desire at the earliest possible moment to have the restrictions and inconveniences removed. One matter which would induce all of us to support the Resolution is the prospect with which the large populations in the East End of London and other large centres of population are faced in the coming summer months. The hearts of all of us went out to them when the hon. Member for Silver-town (Mr. J. Jones) portrayed the unhappy condition of those who were accustomed to go for a short holiday to a seaside resort but who, in all possibility, will be prevented by lack of facilities from enjoying the holiday they deserve.
  Nobody in this House, however strenuous his advocacy of this Resolution might have been, would actually have believed that it would be possible at an early date to restore the facilities and conveniences to which we have been accustomed. On that last journey to Scotland to which I referred, I had another experience which showed me that the difficulty was increased. Our wayside station has three trains a day, and our stationmaster is most of the time bored to tears. When an unfamiliar stationmaster came lately to collect my ticket I inquired the reason, and I found that the dignity of the station now required two stationmasters to perform the duties previously performed adequately by one. I am not saying that that was an improper thing, but manifestly the cost of travel on that small

  1063
  branch line will be very seriously increased, and the visitors to whom we are accustomed to look for assistance during our short and hectic holiday season when they come from Glasgow will have to pay a larger sum for the enjoyment of the amenities of that part of Scotland because of our having two stationmasters instead of one. The position in which we are at present is an illustration of the I way in which government control of large businesses operates If it were only possible to have a real big competition between railway companies the railways that offered the best facilities would have the largest number of passengers, whether these facilities were adequate carriages or low fares. We are deprived of the opportunity of enjoying proper facilities because owing to the necessities of the War the Government had to take over control of this large business. We now have Government control of this large business, and hon. Members opposite, when they make these moving appeals, are met with the strong opposition that is customary on the part of the official mind to appeals based, as it is said, on sentiment. We should be in a much more fortunate position to-day with regard to travelling if only the railway companies could be restored to the position in which they were before the War, and allowed to compete with each other for the patronage of the public. Unfortunately from my point of view—other
  hon. Members have a different, and it may be a better opinion—we are not likely for a long time to find railway companies in competition for our patronage, and if we are to wait as has been suggested until the Minister-designate of Ways and Communications has effected such economies in railway expenditure as will enable fares to be reduced, I cannot help thinking that we may have to wait until the Ides of March for a further reduction—
  Mr. ADAMSON Mr. ADAMSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. INSKIP: This a problem in states manship—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide" and "Order!"—
  Major MORGAN Major MORGAN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. INSKIP: In the pre-war days—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!" "Order!" and "Face the music!"]—I would have concluded my remarks if—
  Mr. ADAMSON Mr. ADAMSON rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 53; Noes, 118.

  Division No. 30.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Grundy, T. W.

  Sexton, James

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Hartshorn, V.

  Shaw, Tom (Preston)

  Bell, Jamas (Ormskirk)

  Hayday, A.

  Short, A. (Wednesbury)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Hinds, John

  Sitch, C. H.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Irving, Dan

  Swan, J. E. C.

  Briant, F.

  Jones, J. (Silvertown)

  Taylor, J. W. (Chester-le-Street)

  Bromfield, W.

  Lunn, William

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

  Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

  M'Lean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Cairns, John

  Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

  Walsh, S, (Ince, Lancs.)

  Carter, W. (Mansfield)

  Morgan, Major D. Watts

  White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

  Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

  O'Grady, James

  Wignall, Jamas

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Onions, Alfred

  Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

  Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Wood, Major M.

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Yeo, Sir Alfrerd William

  Finney, Samuel

  Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Gould, J. C.

  Rose, Frank H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  Rowlands, James

  T. Wilson and Captain A. Smith.

  Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

  Royce, William Stapleton

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Armitage, Robert

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Brittain, Sir Harry E.

  Astbury, Lt.-Com. F. W.

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Britton, G. B.

  Bagley, Captain E. A.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Bruton, Sir J.

  Baird, John Lawrencs

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Carr, W. T.

  Chadwick, R. Burton

  Jodrell, N. P.

  Randall, Athelstan

  Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill

  Johnson, L. S.

  Renwick, G.

  Clough, R.

  Johnstone, J.

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Roundell, Lt.-Col. R. F.

  Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

  Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

  Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)

  Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)

  Cory, J. H. (Cardiff)

  Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

  Samuels, Rt. Hon. A.W. (Dublin Univ.)

  Courthope, Major George Loyd

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

  Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

  Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Seager, Sir William

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lort-Williams, J.

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

  Curzon, Commands Viscount

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Smithers, Alfred W.

  Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)

  Lyle, C. E, Leonard (Stratford)

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

  Davies, T. (Cirencester)

  Lynn, R. J.

  Sugden, Lieut. W. H.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  M'Donald, D. H. (Bothwell, Lanark)

  Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)

  Dean, Com. P. T.

  Hackinder, Hallord J.

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lard E. (Chichester)

  Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.

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

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

  Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

  M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)

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

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Eyres-Monsell, Com.

  Mitchell, William Lane-

  Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Weston, Col. John W.

  Gange, E. S.

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Whitla, Sir William

  Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

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

  Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

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

  Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)

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

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Nall, Major Joseph

  Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

  Neal, Arthur

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

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Nelson, R. F. W. R

  Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, W.)

  Green, J. F. (Leicester)

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

  Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)

  Gretton, Col. John

  Oman, C. W. C.

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Guest, Capt. Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.)

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

  Worsfold, T. Cato

  Hacking, Captain D. H.

  Parker, James

  Yate, Col. Charles Edward

  Hallwood, A.

  Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

  Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

  Hood, Joseph

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

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

  Percy, Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.R. McNeill and Col. Sir Rhys Williams.

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

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Hurd, P. A.

  Raeburn, Sir William

  Inskip, T. W. H.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Original Question again proposed.
  It being after Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

  WAYS AND MEANS [30th APRIL].
  Postponed Proceeding on Consideration of Resolutions resumed.
  Resolution reported,

  AMENDMENT OF LAW.
  13. "That it is expedient to amend the law relating to the National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue (including Excise), and to make further provision in connection with Finance."
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Baldwin.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  PEACE TREATY.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. ALFRED DAVIES: Can the Home Secretary state the leading features of the
  Peace Terms? They have been published, I understand, in Paris to-day, and in the Press notices it is stated that they will be out in the morning. May we be told to-night what they are by the Home Secretary?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I am not aware that any leading features of the Peace Treaty have been published in Paris to-day. I do not know to what the hon. Gentleman refers. I have no information of any statement made in Paris of any sort or description. So far as I know, the terms of the Peace Treaty have been communicated to London, Paris, and Washington in exactly the same way; Members of the House of Commons in this country and the corresponding Chambers in the other countries have been treated in identically the same way; and the Press of those countries has been treated in the same way. I have no knowledge of any statement of the leading features or any other thing concerning the Peace Terms made in Paris.
  Sir EDGAR JONES: The Home Secretary has answered very eloquently, but, think, mistakenly, having regard to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy made a statement earlier in the day that he had the whole thing in his pocket. It is quite obvious

  1067
  from a statement of that kind that the Home Secretary must know that in Paris the Peace terms have been communicated to the Press. If it transpires that is so, why on earth cannot the Members of the House of Commons know? The methods of the Government in treating the Press as if the Press were the elected representatives of the people of this country have gone on too long. I certainly think that the Government should understand that even the House of Commons will assert its rights. We may lake it to-night that the Home Secretary, with a full sense of responsibility, has stated that no terms have been communicated to the Press—
  Mr. SHORTT: No; I did not say anything of the sort.
  Sir E. JONES: What on earth did the Home Secretary say? I listened to his statement. Cannot we have a plain answer, especially if it is a fact that these terms have been communicated behind the back of the House of Commons, and that; the Press is in possession of them.
  Mr. SHORTT: I said nothing of the sort. I said that the Press of this country, of France, of America, and of the other countries, had been treated alike, and; that the representative Chambers of these countries had been treated alike. A Press summary has been sent out.
  An HON. MEMBER: What does it say?
  Mr. SHORTT: To suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy had the terms of Peace in his pocket is perfectly childish.
  Mr. DAVIES: Can we know the Press summary?
  Mr. N. M'LEAN: When, the right hon. Gentleman said that the respective Chambers of the different countries would be treated in the same manner, and the Press of the different countries also in the same manner, did he mean that the Press would be treated in the same manner by having a summary issued to them; and the Chambers in the same manner by keeping all the Chambers in ignorance of what has transpired even to the extent of the Press summary?
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In view of the fact that we shall all know the Peace terms tomorrow morning, may I ask the Home Secretary if he can tell the House when the Prime Minister will be here to receive the congratulations of the House on having fulfilled, as he told us he intended to fulfil, his election pledges in connection with the Peace terms?
  Mr. SHORTT: I cannot name the day, but he will be here in good time to receive I the congratulations to which the hon. Member refers.
  Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (TRANSPORT SERVICES).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (TRANSPORT SERVICES).
INCOME TAX.
  CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.
  CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.
  TAXABLE INCOME.
  TAXABLE INCOME.
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE.
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE.
  SALE OF ARTICLES SECOND-HAND.
  SALE OF ARTICLES SECOND-HAND.
  GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS.
  GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  FEEDING STUFFS.
  FEEDING STUFFS.
DEMOBILISATION.
  MEN ATTESTED UNDER DERBY SCHEME.
  MEN ATTESTED UNDER DERBY SCHEME.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  SIGNALLERS.
  SIGNALLERS.
  AGRICULTURISTS, DERBYSHIRE.
  AGRICULTURISTS, DERBYSHIRE.
  RHINE ARMY (RATIONS).
  RHINE ARMY (RATIONS).
  OFFICERS' WIVES, EGYPT.
  OFFICERS' WIVES, EGYPT.
  DISABLED MEN (EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES).
  DISABLED MEN (EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES).
  ARMY DRESS AND UNIFORM (COMMITTEE).
  ARMY DRESS AND UNIFORM (COMMITTEE).
  ST. ALBANS (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  ST. ALBANS (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  SUSSEX TERRITORIAL FORCE ASSOCIATION (OFFICER'S SALARY).
  SUSSEX TERRITORIAL FORCE ASSOCIATION (OFFICER'S SALARY).
  SOLDIERS' ORPHANS (INVESTMENTS).
  SOLDIERS' ORPHANS (INVESTMENTS).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  TELEGRAPHISTS (GRATUITY).
  TELEGRAPHISTS (GRATUITY).
  DEMOBILISED OFFICER.
  DEMOBILISED OFFICER.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  BONUS.
  BONUS.
  WOMEN'S ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  WOMEN'S ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  KING'S FUND.
  KING'S FUND.
INDIA.
  LEPROSY.
  LEPROSY.
  COTTON COMMITTEE (REPORT).
  COTTON COMMITTEE (REPORT).
  WEST INDIAN CUSTOMS CONFERENCE.
  WEST INDIAN CUSTOMS CONFERENCE.
  OMNIBUSES AND TRAMS (OVER-CROWDING).
  OMNIBUSES AND TRAMS (OVER-CROWDING).
  ASSISTANCE OF BLIND.
  ASSISTANCE OF BLIND.
  WATER POWER RESOURCES COMMITTEE (REPORT).
  WATER POWER RESOURCES COMMITTEE (REPORT).
  BRITISH MADE MORPHIA.
  BRITISH MADE MORPHIA.
  RAILWAY FARES.
  RAILWAY FARES.
  SHIPPING DEFICIENCY (ENEMY STEAMERS).
  SHIPPING DEFICIENCY (ENEMY STEAMERS).
  WOOL.
  WOOL.
  TELEPHONE (REINSTALLATION CHARGES).
  TELEPHONE (REINSTALLATION CHARGES).
OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
  AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
  AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  LABOUR SHORTAGE, HEREFORDSHIRE.
  LABOUR SHORTAGE, HEREFORDSHIRE.
  MILK SUPPLY (LABOUR).
  MILK SUPPLY (LABOUR).
  CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.
  CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.
  Age Limit.
  Age Limit.
  Foreign Languages.
  Foreign Languages.
  Reports.
  Reports.
  Physical Suitability.
  Physical Suitability.
  British-born Subjects.
  British-born Subjects.
  Examinations.
  Examinations.
  Salaries.
  Salaries.
  Civil Service Examination.
  Civil Service Examination.
  DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICE.
  DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICE.
  PRIVATELY-OWNED RAILWAY WAGONS.
  PRIVATELY-OWNED RAILWAY WAGONS.
  SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE (REQUISITIONED PREMISES).
  SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE (REQUISITIONED PREMISES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

THE GOVERNMENT AND AGRICULTURE.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH rose to call attention to the agricultural policy of His Majesty's Government; and to move for Papers. The noble Duke said: My Lords, I feel that I owe the House an apology for having postponed the Motion which stands in my name, and especially to the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture for having asked him more than once for a postponement in connection with matters which I wanted to bring to his notice. Meanwhile, I understand that a Royal Commission is being appointed by the Government. It is to be somewhat different from the Royal Commissions which we remember in the old days, because it is a Commission appointed not to shelve the problem or problems associated with agriculture but, on the contrary, it is of a new type. It is a Commission given specific terms of reference, and I understand that it is to report at a certain date. I think we are all agreed that a Royal Commission can be valuable. It is valuable because it can focus public opinion. Experienced agriculturists who are well qualified to express an opinion can be called as witnesses, and I think a good many of them will give evidence in support of the views and ideas which the noble Lord the President has frequently expressed. And it must be easier for a Government to determine its policy if a Report is presented to it in a compact and concrete form.
Having said so much, I am bound to add that I do not think the Commission will be any good at all if it is to focus opinion on purely controversial matters—I mean such matters as fiscal policy, land tenure, whether we are to have large farms or small farms, or what the exact size of holdings should be—nor do I think it would be of any value if it were to discuss the comparative merits of the old Domesday Book and the new one of a few years ago. If the members are allowed to discuss
488
these questions I feel certain that the Report will not be unanimous, and therefore, in a sense, it will lose its collective weight. If, on the other hand, it should be unanimous, a great number of people would not believe in it because they would say it represented a prejudiced opinion. In my humble judgment the terms of reference to the Commission should be in regard to the practical and immediate problems which confront us in connection with agriculture; and when those problems have been thoroughly sifted, then, indeed, we can invite the State to step in and assist us if it is necessary.
What are these problems? The problems which occur to me are the following. In the first place, we have to discover whether the output per acre of arable land on an average can be increased. When we have found out our exact or approximate cost of production, we can then compare it with the costs of production in other parts of the world so far as they are known. Our knowledge in this respect will depend largely, of course, on the information which the Government itself can supply. A comparison between these two sets of figures will indicate to us how far we possess or do not possess the world's markets. Simultaneously we must determine which branches of production are most valuable on national grounds. Then, with the economic figures on the one hand and our national needs on the other, the State will be in a position to examine data upon which it can, if necessary, determine its policy.
I turn to my first point—that of cost of production. Under that head it occurs to me at once to ask, where is the waste? I do not want this afternoon to reduce the discussion to the level of that of a Farmers Union meeting, but it cannot have escaped noble Lords that there is an amount of waste going on even at the present time. So far as the manure heaps of the farmers are concerned, at the very moment when they ought to be digging the manure into the soil they are throwing it out and leaving it to disappear in the bowers under the influence of rain. With regard to artificial manures, I think there is an immense opportunity for farmers to discover how to employ them in a more economical manner. At present a great deal of waste occurs owing to lack of knowledge and proper information. I expect that the President of the Board will agree with me

489
in these views; and if this should be the case I should like, at a later stage, to indicate to him the manner in which think matters might possibly be improved.
My next consideration is, What can the Government itself do in order to save in the cost of production? Will the Government in the future regulate the price of these artificial manures and will it ensure their quality? During the war it was the duty of a branch of the Food Production Department to regulate the price of these manures and to ensure their quality. I do not think that the farmers of England have sufficiently appreciated the immense services rendered to them by those who worked in that particular branch of the Food Production Department, over which I think Professor Voelcker presided. With regard to concentrated foods, are the prices of oil cakes and cakes of a similar character to be fixed, and are we to be sure of their quality? Or is the Government going to leave the prices of these things entirely to the fluctuations of the open market? Then, what will be the price of tractors in future? Will they be under the control of the Government or not? It is plain that in a few years time it will be possible for most of the tillage work on the farms to be carried out by a mechanical process. It is therefore vital that the Government should look into this particular branch and assure the farmers that tractors can be bought at a reasonable price, and, above all, that the spare parts in connection with them are at their disposal so that they do not have to wait for months in order to get them. Will the price of petrol be guaranteed, and also its quality? Last, but by no means least, binder twine—will the price of this commodity be under the control of the Government, or are the manufacturers going to be allowed to charge whatever price they think fit?
I am asking the Government and the noble Lord the President of the Board to consider these matters. In proportion as the noble Lord will examine into them he will be able to reduce the cost of production of the foodstuffs of the country. After all, to-day the noble Lord is deeply concerned in the action of the Wages Board presided over by Sir Ailwyn Fellowes. It is obvious that it is impossible for the noble Lord to see the activities of the Wages Board develop on lines that many people would like to see if at the same time
490
the subsidiary industries, on which the main industry depends, are allowed to charge what prices they like for the subsidiary commodities that the farmer is hound to buy. If you let these prices soar too high it simply means that you are diverting money which might be given to the agricultural labourer into the profits of those who control these subsidiary industries. I urge the noble Lord to give us some answer upon what, I think, is a most vital and important matter.
I turn to the consideration of the increase of output of the arable land per acre on the average. May I first say a word on the administration which is at the disposal of the noble Lord. Like every other Department of State, the Board of Agriculture commands the services of trained administrators. During the war it recruited another class of servant. The agricultural programme of each county was laid down by men with local knowledge and standing. These committees, which Lord Selborne originated, are, I understand, to be retained. The noble Lord explained that to us some time ago. If the Board of Agriculture is to make the best use of all its experts and the expert knowledge at its disposal it must blend the cumulative scientific knowledge of the experts at the Board with the practical skill and local knowledge of those who are responsible for the administration in each county. I realise that this is a matter for the noble Lord himself to decide, and I hesitate a little in dealing with it. I should like, however, to assure him that I, personally, as a farmer of a certain standing, have benefited enormously by the advice, help, and kindly interest which those directly and indirectly associated with the noble Lord have given me for some years past. I therefore approach this matter purely in the spirit of good will, which perhaps the House will allow me to illustrate.
During the time that I had the honour of serving under the noble Lord the hours which I found at my disposal were frequently devoted to writing to the farmers of my own county explaining to them the views and ideas of the President of the Board and those associated with him—of course, without giving away any official secrets. I am hound to say that I received a very poor response. But the sequel was this. The noble Lord came down to Oxford and addressed a large gathering of farmers, with the result that the atmosphere

491
of obstruction was immediately removed. I am vain enough to suppose that the noble Lord's success—and my failure—was not entirely due to my inability to write letters, but that it was partly consequent upon the direct personal control and contact between the administrator on the one hand and those who composed his audience on the other.
I now turn to my main point—the increase of output. I wonder whether the noble Lord has any information as to the amount of hay and stray which the urban population are likely to employ in the future. I admit that it is rather a curious question to ask him, and on first impulse he might think it a reflection on the urban population. But that is not my point. My point is this—that with the advent of cheap motor-cars and cheap motor transport, which I presume will be in the possession of people of moderate means within a very few years, it is quite possible that hay and straw, which has been supplied by the agrarian population to the urban population in abundance for years past, may no longer be required. What will be the result of that on the fertility of the soil of England? I think it will make an immense change. Nobody knows better than members of this House what would be the effect on the fertility of farms if the hay and straw now sold was employed and used on the land itself, building up the texture, improving and preserving its water capacity, and in other ways. I would like to dogmatise to this extent. I am convinced—I take now my own county and the Midlands—that if for a period of years the farmers of England consumed the hay and straw of their own farms; employed, judicially, artificial manures; ploughed deep, and paid careful attention to the seed which is now at their disposal through the efforts of Professor Biffen—if all these things were properly carried out over a period of two or three years the output on the average could be increased to the extent of one sack per acre.
When you come to consider the green crops I think this contention of mine holds weight with even greater force. The point, therefore, which I want to establish is this—that if the Board of Agriculture on the one hand looked into the cost of production, and on the other controlled and stimulated the activities of the farming community for a greater output, that margin might be apparent which is possibly absent
492
at the present time. In war time what was the ideal to aim at so far as agricultural development was concerned? If I may take an illustration I will take the unit of one hundred acres. Seventy-five of these acres would be in arable and twenty-five in grass. Of the arable land 70 per cent. would be in gold crops, and 30 per cent. in green crops. On that rotation or balance I estimate, in the Midlands, that something like 1 ton of cereals could be grown, 4 quarters of wheat, 5 of barley, 7 of oats, and some 25 tons of mangolds, 20 tons of swedes, and 6 or 7 tons of potatoes. That would be what the noble Lord would call farming at its maximum for the production of food for human consumption.
Supposing I alter my rotation, again taking one hundred acres as the unit. There will then be only sixty acres in arable and forty in grass. Sixty per cent. of the amble would be in gold crops, and 40 per cent. in green crops. You will then get a greater volume of food for food production purposes, but not necessarily a greater volume of food for human consumption—that is to say, the elimination of the bad fields, those fields which I might almost term Bolshevik fields—fields that will not respond to any kind of agricultural treatment, either to kindness or severe handling. Eliminate those from your arable cultivation and you will probably increase the average yield of gold crops per acre of the remaining land; the cost of production, I think, will be less, and there will be a greater volume of food for food production purposes.
What I want to discover from the noble Lord is this. What does he wish the farming community to do for the year 1920? Are we to grow food for animals, or are we to grow food for human beings? I do not think that the decision can be very much longer delayed. I believe that the House is in agreement with me when I say that there is a considerable desire on the part of the agrarian community to know where they stand. I do not know if I have made my point quite clear. What I want to establish is that the tactics of the farmers depend entirely upon the strategy as laid down by the Government. What is the strategy of the Government? Perhaps I ought to apologise for this series of interrogations. What I want to know is, what are the economic con

493
ditions which govern other countries in the world? Let us take for example wheat. At what price can wheat be delivered into England from other countries in the future? And what are the world's prices for beef, mutton, and wool? If there is a shortage of cattle and sheep in the world, then the price obviously will be high. I think that the noble Lord would then advise us to grow food for food production, but if on the other hand wheat will be dear and there are plenty of sheep and cattle, then the tactics of the farmers should be to grow plenty of food for human consumption. No doubt there are great difficulties in making these estimations, but surely I am right in saying that those difficulties are not insuperable. If we fail to get the information the danger to the State is that we may grow certain foods which we can obtain easily and cheaply from abroad, and on which you will have to put a tariff to help the home producer, or we may fail to grow other kinds of food which we cannot obtain from abroad, except at a very high price, and the absence of the commodity in England itself will enable the foreigner to command the market and charge us his own price.
I can give the noble Lord an example. At the present time the price of linseed cake is something like £20 a ton. What will be the price of linseed cake in the year 1920? If it is going to be £20 per ton let the noble Lord tell us so. The farmers could then be encouraged to grow beans, which are equivalent as a food to the linseed cake, and the cost of which would not amount to £20 a ton. The, benefit would be that the profit to the foreign producer would be saved, and also any profit that the shipper would get on the freight. I am sincerely anxious to find out this afternoon from the noble Lord if any of these contentions, or most of them, have merit and are worthy of consideration. I am sure that the noble Lord will bear in mind that there was an International Agricultural Institution started before the war, over which the King of Italy presided, which Fad for aim and object the discovery of the world's prices. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I am right in saying that that body furnished most admirable statistics. Am I out of sympathy with the House when I say that these are the kind of matters which we hope will form
494
the subject of consideration and discussion by the forthcoming Royal Commission?
I turn to the question of transport. I understand that Sir Eric Geddes is handling this problem. I am sure the noble Lord understands, but I am not quite certain whether Sir Eric Geddes understands, that the farmers do not want light railways, but want cheap motor transport. It has been my duty during the last three years to shift something like 15,000 sacks of cereals. amounting in bulk to from 500 to 1,000 tons per annum. I have done so with one motor lorry and two strong able men, well paid. If that practice became general and not exceptional on the part of the farming community surely the effect would be that the horses now on the roads could be concentrated upon further production of the soil, and foodstuffs lying on the farms could be transmitted easily and cheaply to the great centres from which the food is distributed to the people. The arrangement between the producer on the one hand and the consumer on the other would undoubtedly be very much more facilitated thereby than it is at the present time. I suggested to the present. Secretary of State for War when he was leaving the Ministry of Munitions that it would be a thousand pities if he were to break up that wonderful organisation of motor transport which was under his control, and to which was harnessed as splendid a lot of mechanics as this country has ever produced. There is a great desire on the part of the general public to see soldiers settle on the soil, and employed in agrarian pursuits. I said to my right hon. friend that I could not conceive of anything better or more useful than to employ these men in a subsidiary capacity in connection with the general output of production from the soil. I begged my right hon. friend not to destroy his transport. I do not know what has happened, but so far as I am aware the transport has now been dispersed, and the men who would have been vital to running it have been invited to take up posts in other industries, possibly in other parts of the world.
I am afraid my questions are limitless, but. I am going to ask my noble friend whether he can give us any information upon markets themselves—I mean those centres where the food has to be got to for the people's benefit and use. I know that I am on very tender ground here. I think that there is a lack of access to those

495
markets, and that an improvement might be effected. I know that the problem is a very difficult one. I have spoken to members of the Department over which the noble Lord presides for many years on this subject, and they appreciate the difficulties. I wonder whether in the general reconstruction of agriculture the noble Lord can give us any hints or ideas on that particular matter.
Before I sit down I should like to say one word on finance. The farmers to-day are paying taxes under Schedule B. I presume that a good many of your Lordships who are farming are paying taxes under Schedule B; that is to say, on the assessment of double the rent of the farm. The President has urged farmers to keep an account, and to come under Schedule D, that is under profits, and submit themselves to the same financial examination of their accounts as any other industry in the country. There was a note in The Times newspaper yesterday, which seemed to me official, telling the farmers where they should go, and saying that this company, or association, or body of men could teach them how to keep their accounts. I am bound to say I think that the President is perfectly right, and I think it would be wise if all of us followed his advice, and for this reason. As long as the Chancellor of the Exchequer can get revenue from agriculture based on an assessment of double the rent he remains only an amiable colleague of the noble Lord's, but the moment the President of the Board of Agriculture states that the revenue that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will get from agriculture will depend on profits, and will therefore be in relation to the general fiscal policy of the Government, he may possibly form an alliance both satisfactory to himself and fruitful to the Treasury.
I trust I need not apologise to the House for having brought these matters to their attention. I think some noble Lords are aware how difficult it is to discuss agrarian matters in this House without perhaps associating oneself rather at the same level with those who are discussing the same problems in the Chamber of Agriculture. But if the Government are anxious—and I believe they are anxious—for rural regeneration and rural amelioration I feel most strongly that the problems of administration, of production, and of transport are those which are paramount.
And in directing your Lordships' attention to them perhaps we may be able to remove some of those specious and spacious ideas which the members of His Majesty's Government possess, and with which they regard with perfect equanimity in peace times a deficit on our annual Budget of £200,000,000 I beg to move that the President of the Board of Agriculture should give the House the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on Agriculture.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers giving the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on Agriculture.—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I feel sure that every one here, most of you interested in land either directly or indirectly, will be grateful to the noble Duke for having brought this subject forward. But, quite apart from individual interest in land, I think he justly said that it is a large question affecting the whole of the conditions of the country, and that these conditions will depend very much upon what the terms of reference to the Royal Commission are going to be.
We live just now in an extraordinary age of committees and sub-committees. I happened for some reason to look back to the state of affairs in the months immediately following the French Revolution, when things began to stabilise and when France again began to become a great country. I find that the state of Europe—not in this happy island, but parts of Europe—is just now very much like France at that time. But in France they had I do not know how many committees—287, I think. My point is that apparently in any troublesome times, or when the intelligence of a man is distracted, there is an extraordinary soothing syrup to the individual in the notion that either a commission or a committee or—still more popular—a sub-committee is going to be appointed. When that is going to be done everybody goes away feeling quite sure that it will be for the best.
I have sat on one or two Royal Commissions and on one or two Parliamentary Committees of Inquiry, and my confidence is not very great in the Reports of Royal Commissions. The Commissions that I have had to do with since I have observed this world either report so little that the Government say, "It is not worth doing anything," or report so much that they say,

497
"It is perfectly impossible to tackle this and we should probably be turned out at the next Election if we did." That is my opinion about Commissions. Still, I suppose we are in for an Agricultural Commission, and I am therefore very glad that the noble Duke has brought this matter before the House, and has also invited the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is at liberty to do so, to tell us something about what the reference will be.
The noble Duke said that he had asked too many tiresome questions. A question which I should like to ask is, Will the reference of the Commission or the basis of the Commission rest upon an agriculture protected—I do not use the word in a bad sense—an agriculture which has been set going, and which is at present being kept going under the impression that farmers will in any way be guaranteed their losses? The noble Duke asked "What is the strategy of the Government as regards this?" Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell us. It must be laid down perfectly clearly, if this Commission's Report is to be worth the paper it is printed on or the time devoted to it, whether we are in for a subsidised agriculture or an agriculture dependent on the reigning prices and the ordinary rules of supply and demand which directed or misdirected—I do not care which; you can have it either way—agriculture in pre-war days.
I remember very well two or three debates that we had in this House on the state of agriculture in the early times of the war. There was one debate—I think it was before the Corn Production Bill—in which there was an interesting speech made by the noble Earl opposite, Lord Selborne, on the extreme importance of enormously increasing the tillage area of this country—a speech that I did not like, for I belong to cattle and sheep; I only believe in grass lands. I remember quite well saying that this would all be a mistake, this subsidised agriculture, this persuading lands which were not suited to grow corn to grow corn—and bad corn, and corn which would be very little use to anybody—because it was to get a subsidy; and I remember saying that I believed in tonnage and in free imports for the good of this country. I am quite willing to say that at that period of the war—I think it was the first year of the war—I was quite wrong. If my motion had found favour we should probably not have got on nearly as well as we have done.
498
But what you have to consider now is what you are going back to. As I said, I live in a fell and grass country, where we have never liked the plough. The West Biding County Council has been very sensible. We have not been forced into much ploughing. We have had to produce very little acreage, and I do not believe we have produced an acre which has grown a grain of corn of the slightest use to the service of man. But we have produced some good turnips owing too the extraordinary raininess of our climate and strength of our soil; and I myself hope, and have rather come round to the belief, that a small patch of tillage on an upland hill farm—100 acres or so, and perhaps eight or ten acres of tillage attached to it, with turnips and with the oats we are able to grow—will be a valuable adjunct to the, farmers, making them a little more self-supporting. Whether that is the general view held in my part of the world, I do not know. As I have said, I am a grassland mail, and am for the breeding and buying and selling of cattle. But, still, we are coming round to that. Not to go back to all these tiresome personal experiences I would again ask very strongly (and I hope we may get an answer), Is the reference to the Commission going to be based upon an agriculture which is to be subsidised in any particular way, or are we going back to free agriculture? That is one question.
The other question—which is rather local—is whether the noble Lord would consider this: Up, in my part of the country there are acres and acres and acres of not quite water-logged fell, but what amounts to land which has been so waterlogged by the water and rain coming off the fells that it is of very little use to anyone. On the other hand it is good land with lots of heart in it; and when I was farming (at one time I farmed 1,500 acres or so) I attacked about 100 acres of this, which cost me with my own men and horses—it took a longish time; we did it in a not very extravagant way—about £8 or £9 an acre. Ultimately I got it done, and this 100 acres which was pitying only £25 is now let as a grass farm at £125. This shows what can be done. But unfortunately we have none of us money enough to attack this land on any real scale. This winter I have been in correspondence with the West Riding County Council and they have sent people over.

499
They have seen samples of the land I have had in my mind in putting this before them. I think, as far as official correspondence goes, though you can judge very little from it, of course, as it moves in a terrible routine of classical sentences, the idea was rather favoured. If the Government could see their way to do something to lend the landowner and tenant money to deal with this water-logged land in my part of the country—I am speaking only of my own estate and of the near confines of it—I believe that most of the tenant-farmers would be prepared to join the landlord by paving a sort of quit rent for the drainage advantages they have received, provided that the money was advanced for the betterment of their farms in this way. But they make the important stipulation that they would only do so provided the land was drained on the local know-ledge of the country. It was drained on the hard-and-fast conditions imposed upon us by the Board of Agriculture.
I had for years—I have just got rid of it—a large land drainage rent of £100 to £500 a year imposed on our estate at home by my father. That land was drained with Government money; it was also drained under Government conditions in full defiance of everything the local people knew. We were forced to drain 4 feet or 5 feet, I forget which. At all events, it was about double what need have been. Putting aside the money which had to go out in various ways, it was an expensive operation. We are sick to death of that sort of thing in our part of the country, and nothing like a loan will be looked at on those conditions. But I would ask the noble Lord to suggest in his reference to the Commission that they should examine whether or not something in the form of land loans on what I call a more reasonable basis—on the basis of both the landlord and the tenant sharing in the payment of the interest on the money—might be granted.
The noble Duke paid a compliment which, having the honour of the personal acquaintance of the President of the Board of Agriculture, I was glad to hear him pay to the noble Lord. The noble Duke said that he had derived a great deal of benefit in his own operations from his correspondence with the officials of the Board, and from the able advice they were able to give him. The noble Duke lives nearer to London than I do, and his experience
500
seems to have been fortunate. I am afraid that up in our part of the country we do not take that view. I have no doubt there will be a change under the noble Lord who at present represents the Board of Agriculture in this House, now that things are getting steadier; but really during the last two years the Board of Agriculture has been looked upon not so much as a vain prophet as a false prophet. Therefore, if I may say so, I hope that if anything is to be done which involves the loaning of public money to localities, it will be the localities who will advise how that money can be best spent, and not the Board of Agriculture.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, if no noble Lord of more mature experience of the ways of this House is prepared to address you, I feel that it is my duty to prevent this debate expiring. Never throughout the long period that I have taken an interest in agricultural matters have I found the agricultural community in such a condition of unrest and with such a feeling of insecurity as possesses them today. It would appear to me that this is due to one cause and to one cause only—namely, that agriculture, like many industries, is under the somewhat deadening process of Government control, and that in this case at any rate the Government have no plan whatever which is to be followed during the next three or four or more years in working out this system of apparently inevitable control.
In this connection I cannot help wondering what has happened to the scheme which was no doubt formulated—certainly we were told more than eighteen months ago that it was being formulated—by the Ministry of Reconstruction as regards the after-war conditions of agriculture. Surely if there is a scheme, as the result of an enormous amount of energy and enterprise on the part of that Department, stowed somewhere away in the pigeon holes of the Ministry of Reconstruction, it ought now to be produced. It seems to me rather extraordinary that it should be found necessary to set up, as it were at the eleventh hour, a Royal Commission to enquire into those very problems which presumably the Ministry of Reconstruction was considering many months ago. Assuming that no such plan has been presented by that department to the Ministry of Agriculture and to the Government, surely the time has come for the

501
Government to decide exactly, not in the farmers' interests but in national interests, exactly what it really wants. For instance it would occur to me that the very first step which it is essential for them to take would be to decide whether and to what extent it is desirable, or indeed essential, to grew more food at home than was grown before the war. Possibly the Institution of the so-called League of Nations renders this process now quite unnecessary. It no doubt will be suggested—I happen to know that it is already suggested in some of the large centres of population—that the prospective creation of the League of Nations removes for ever from us all menace, either marine or submarine, to our future overseas food supplies. Personally I think that it would be extremely dangerous to budget upon such a prospect. But there are other considerations which are worthy of consideration as justifying a greater development of horse production, and not the least of them surely is the improvement of our national physique, the defects of which have been brought out in somewhat unfortunately glaring colours during the war. Another question which I should have thought was well worthy the consideration of the Government. at the present time is the very crucial question of International Exchange, bearing in mind the many hundreds of millions now represented by the pre-war importation of cereal food alone, not to mention meat.
If the Government has definitely made up its mind—and I cannot be at all sure from the recent utterances of the noble Lord opposite as to whether it has—that an increased corn production is absolutely essential in the best national interests, surely they have got to face the fact which was indicated by Lord Ribblesdale, that a very large area of what I may call second-rate corn land, upon which it did not pay to grow corn under pre-war conditions, will have to be brought into cultivation during the years which are now facing us. This land cannot possibly be cultivated and produce corn at the present or prospective rate of wages unless wheat is to be permanently in the future at something over 65 s. per quarter, even assuming that all these new labour devices are brought into operation, and of course more especially the utilisation of motor tractors and other implements that can be used with electric or steam power. But may I in passing draw attention to the fact that these
502
labour saving devices can only be used upon farms of very considerable size and indeed upon farms where the fields are of some considerable size. They can be ruled out entirely as regards the small holders, or indeed small farmers, in many parts of the country and notably in the South-West of England and in. Wales.
As against the prospect, without Government assistance, of corn reaching anything like 65 s. per quarter, there is everything to show at the present time that within the next twelve months overseas corn can be imported into this country at something under 50 s. per quarter, and this the product not of expensive labour or land such as ours but of some of the cheapest land in the whole of the world, if not virgin soil, and the product in many instances of the cheapest hour. Our own farm labour to-day is the dearest farm labour in the world, and our land requires the most expensive feeding of any land in the world if it is to produce the crops which we are told the country needs. Surely there are only two courses open to the Government—either to abandon Government control altogether—and let me in passing say that when once the Government has put its band to one end of the scale of Government control it is bound to carry through the process, and having guaranteed a minimum wage to guarantee an adequate margin of profit for the products of such labour—it is open to them either to abandon control altogether and leave both labour and the price of farm produce alike to the play of ordinary economic forces, or else to guarantee prices which will move pari passu with the state guaranteed price of agricultural labour.
For my part I am beginning to wish that the Government had never commenced the process of control of our great agricultural industry, and I wonder even now, bearing in mind that under war conditions agricultural labour has enormously strengthened its economic position—it has formed all over the country great trade unions which undoubtedly whatever course the Government takes, will have a great say as regards the future position of agriculture—whether even now it would not be better to scrap that element of control of the agricultural industry which has already come into existence, leaving labour to battle for itself and to supply itself with its reasonable requirements within the means of the agricultural industry. If this is not possible

503
there is a danger, and as I think a very serious danger, that organised labour in the towns, unless a great deal better educated than it has been in the past as to the fallacy of cheap food, may ultimately insist upon the unrestrained importation of cheap food from overseas countries. If the minimum guaranteed wage is maintained and indeed increased, as scents not improbable, and no guarantee whatever is given commensurate with that wage, home-grown bread-stuffs are bound to be reduced in my judgment to something like from five to ten weeks' supply only, and our rural population is bound to dwindle even to a lower level than it was before the war. It would occur to me in any case that anything that is going to prolong the delay in the settlement of the Government plan, be it what it may, is bound to create still further unsettlement in the agricultural industry. After all, farmers have to look ahead, not for one year only, as is probably quite sufficient in most other industries, but for at least four years in order to prepare their agricultural programme.
Guaranteed prices under the Corn Prodution Act, which are nominally in operation for another two years, have ceased to afford any security whatever. The Corn Production Act in this connection, as in many others, is a dead letter and has always been a dead letter. Although, on the face of it, there appears to be some sort of relation between the minimum wage on the one hand and the price of produce on the other, there is no provision in the Act for any rise pari passu, no constant relation between the guaranteed price of labour on the one hand and the guaranteed price of the products of labour on the other. Seeing that a decision is urgently needed as to what time Government policy is going to be, there is a danger if and when the Royal Commission is set up—we all know how very slow and cumbrous is procedure by Royal Commission—of the evolution of the plan of the Government being deferred so long as to create something like revolution amongst the farmers of this country.
We do not want to see the farmers of this country adopt the methods of the extreme Trade Unionists and "down tools," but there is a very real danger at the present time, unless the Government plan is settled, and settled in the early future. I, for my part, would venture to hope if the Royal Commission, as a convenient
504
Government buffer, has got to be brought into existence, that it will receive definite instructions that on this subject at any rate it will be expected to report within a definite stated time. The Royal Commission, as adumbrated in another place, is not likely, I am afraid, to be a body whose proceedings will be greatly accelerated. If instead of being, as I for my part should prefer to see it, composed of a Judicial Tribunal, preferably of Judges of the High Court before whom the evidence of various interests can be adduced—evidence brought by the farmers and the labourers on the one hand and by the representatives of the consumers on the other—it is to be composed, as we are told, of these conflicting interests whose representatives will be in the position (as appears to be the case on another Commission) of appearing not merely as adjudicators but also as partisans and prepared to give evidence, I ant rather afraid that the proceedings will be unduly prolonged and the position very much aggravated.
At the present time I am sitting on a body which is known as the Agricultural Costings Committee, and it is not for me to divulge the proceedings of that Committee so far as they have gone, but, if the noble Lord is expecting the Agricultural Costings Committee to afford any sort of guidance to the Royal Commission as to the cost of production of various farm crops in various parts of the United Kingdom, I am afraid he will be somewhat bitterly disappointed. It is quite apparent to us that the process is going to be a long one and that no thoroughly reliable information can be given by that Committee within a period of something like two years. But, in the meantime, cannot the noble Lord who adorns the headship of the Board of Agriculture give us rather a surer guide than he has done in the recent past as to what is in his opinion—knowing the mind of the Government; at least, presumably knowing the mind of the Government on these matters—the line along which we, who have to farm some of the land of the United Kingdom, ought to move. In other words, is it our duty to grow corn, or is it our duty merely to raise stock as we have done preponderantly in pre-war days? It affects those of us who live in the south-west of England very much We have ploughed up a considerable amount of land, largely because we felt it our patriotic duty to do so and largely because we were told we should be penalised if we

505
did not. Acres of valuable land have been ploughed up in a country which is not well adapted to the growing of corn, where the land is heavy, where a large area of it is very poorly drained, and where the rainfall is somewhat excessive. These are not conditions which make for the security of the corn-growing farmer, and we are justified in asking whether it is in the national interest, or whether it is the wish of the noble Lord opposite, that we should continue the arable production not of food for our stock but bread stuff for human consumption.
I see that the noble Lord, in a recent speech at, Taunton, indicated that, many farmers in the West would be well advised to devote the new arable area, which was originally intended for the extension of bread staffs, to growing soilage foods and fodder crops for their live stock. I do not think, if I may venture to say so, that advice such as that can have any other than an unsettling effect on farmers who have ploughed up land with a very different object in view. However, in order that there shall be no misinterpretation of what I am saying, I wish to make it perfectly clear that in my opinion a great deal of our land in the south and west of England, whatever may be the case in the north, is too extensively farmed, and that farmers who, when they have a good margin of profit from the year's activities take further land and grow more crops on an extensive system, might well be asked, if not compelled, by the Board of Agriculture, to put more capital and industry into the area already occupied. That would undoubtedly tend to the larger production of food of every sort at home. As far as I understand it, that was not the exact nature of the advice which the noble Lord gave to the Somersetshire farmers.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord. Lord Ribblesdale, refer to the question of drainage, because it is perfectly evident to me—and I have studied this particular subject for many years past—that something like two-thirds of the whole agricultural land of this country requires an improved system of drainage. I suppose it is sixty or more years ago, when agriculture was enjoying a measure of prosperity that large schemes of drainage were carried out throughout the country. It is universally admitted now that most of the drains were laid too deep, and at too great a distance apart; and in any case where
506
they did serve their purpose they have become choked up and are doing little or no good to-day. The whole system of agricultural drainage, particularly in the west of England and in Wales, requires overhauling, and the landowners have not the means of overhauling it. I ask, What is the Government going to do in order to enable these necessary drainage works to be carried out? It is quite clear that not only do you fail to get early germination owing to lack of proper heat in the soil, but you also fail to get anything like the output front your land so long as it is as ill-drained as most of it is to-day.
I want to ask the noble Lord whether he would not be a little more courageous in the matter of the enforcement of the provisions of the Fertilisers and Feeding-Stuffs Acts. There has been a large amount of rubbish—I can only describe it as rubbish—which has been sold for the purpose of feeding our poultry, pigs, and indeed our cattle, during the last three years. The Fertilisers and Feeding-Stuffs Acts make ample provision for prosecutions by the county authorities of those who sell adulterated animal foods, hut they have to obtain the consent of the Board of Agriculture before any such prosecution can be instituted. That consent is very seldom given, with the result that very few prosecutions of this character take place at all. It appears that unless there is a certainty of conviction beforehand the consent of the Board of Agriculture is refused. The noble Lord has only to see the reports of the consulting chemists of the Royal Agricultural Society and of the Bath and West of England Agriculture Society to find that these gentlemen have been flooded with samples of highly adulterated foods which are admitted in many cases to have poisoned the stock to which they have been given. This particularly is the case in the matter of poultry foods. In any case the Fertilizers and Feeding-Stuffs Acts are bound to be amended at an early date, and surely in the meantime the existing Acts can be carried out with greater courage than they are at the present time.
If the outlook for the ordinary farmer is at the present moment an unsettled one, how much more unsettled must be the outlook of the ex-Service land-settler, the small-holder, with little or no capital, with a smaller degree of practical experience, who fancies he is going to enter into a state of Arcadian bliss by settling

507
upon some 15 to 50 acres of farm land. If the economic outlook is bad for the large farmer, how infinitely worse it must be for the man placed in such an unfortunate position.
I want to say one thing in conclusion. In my humble judgment, agriculture is sliding down a somewhat slippery slope, while the Government appears to be standing by weeping and wringing its hands but not to any material extent arresting its downward progress. Agriculture has been often described as the Cinderella of industry. It is the Cinderella of industry. During the last two years at any rate it has managed "to go to the ball," in a beautiful coach driven by no less a person than the Prime Minister himself. It seems to me now that, instead of going to the ball, it is likely in the early future to go to the wall, unless some settled policy for agriculture is propounded by the Government.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, may I put one or two questions to the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture before he replies? In reference to what was said by Lord Bledisloe, I think the unsettlement and uncertainty in the agricultural outlook is one of the most difficult factors which farmers have to deal with at the present time. I hope the noble Lord when he comes to reply will, apart from the question of a Royal Commission or of what a Royal Commission may report, indicate to us what in his view is the best policy for landowners and farmers to adopt in accordance with the existing outlook.
May I give an illustration from my own county? The noble Lord belongs to what he calls a grass district, and other noble Lords belong to what may be called arable districts. Farmers about me hold mixed farms, partly arable and partly grass. If you are to have economical production it is of the first importance that the balance between arable, and grass laud should be properly adjusted. After the bad times of 1879 and 1880 the landowners in my district did provide a sufficient amount of grass land in order to obtain a proper balance for economic production. The difficulty of ploughing up grass land was not so much the actual ploughing in itself. It upset the whole economical arrangement which was necessary in order to get the best production from the farms in question. I can give an illustration of a farm which was
508
self-sustaining as regards the production of cattle, and with a sufficient amount of arable land for production. About 120 acres of that farm were ordered to be ploughed up. I do not complain of what was done during war times. But the result was exactly similar to that stated by Lord Ribblesdale—there was practically nothing produced of the slightest value. So far as anything was produced, it was merely suitable for cattle and poultry food and for nothing else.
What I want to ask on the question of policy is this. Does the noble Lord desire that this land should be retained as ploughed land quite irrespective of the economic loss, or would be advise farmers that the time has now come when they might restore this land to its former condition? Let me give an illustration of what that means in my own county. Arable land there is worth only about 10 s. per acre. It is that poor and second-rate sort which could not really produce profitable crops under the old conditions. Grass land we can let at from £2 to £2 10 s. per acre. It is quite obvious that the first result of ploughing up grass land was to many people a loss of several thousands of pounds. But apart from that, does he desire that the area of ploughed land should be continued under those conditions; or, if landowners and others are prepared to face the expenditure of putting their farms back under the best system of economic production, can they be assured that after their expenditure some further Order may not be made as regards ploughing up their grass land? It is very important that we should know that, because, as has already been stated by two noble Lords, we might just squeeze out enough, some of us, to try and put back our farms into their former economic condition of production if we were assured that we should then be let alone, as I think we ought to be.
The second point that I want to ask the noble Lord a bout was dealt with by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe. I am afraid that I differ from him entirely in the suggestion that a Royal Commission on Agriculture should be manned by Judges, which I understand was his suggestion. I do not think that is a purpose for which Judges ought to be used, and I do not think you would have your Royal Commission best manned if you had on it persons skilled in the law but many of them knowing nothing at all about the agri-

509
cultural industry. I do not know how it it proposed that the Royal Commission should be manned, but taking an opposite view from that expressed by the noble Lord who spoke last, I hope that a large proportion of the members will be people of actual experience in farming and of the actual questions which arise in connection with the farming industry. I believe that if the representation of the Royal Commission is to carry weight it can only do so under that condition. If it is to be merely a Royal Commission the Report of which is to be pigeon-holed, it will do no harm, but also it will do no good.
Another point upon which I hope that the noble Lord in his reply will be very explicit is this. Are we to have an era of artificial prices and artificial wages in the future or not? My experience amongst agricultural labourers shows that artificial prices and artificial wages, so far as they are concerned, leave them very much in the same condition in which they were before. If you increase wages two-fold and increase prices two-fold you practically come to the same condition so far as the agricultural labourer is concerned. But what about the future? Is it really probable in a country like this that we shall be able to maintain these artificial prices in future? If the noble Lord can give any assurance on that point it may meet the difficulties as regards wages at the present time. I do not in the least desire that wages should be in any way reduced. I am only speaking as to what has taken place in my own district. I know, and I am certain none of your Lordships will come to any other conclusion, that if you sought to impose the obligation of the present rate of wages and at the same time what might be a natural price of products owing to foreign competition, the agricultural industry must inevitable come to grief in this country. You would then have artificial wages on one side and natural prices upon the other, and if you must have your wages based on natural prices—I do not say how they are to be ascertained; it is a very difficult question—then you must have some guarantee not only for one year or two years—because in my country the rotation is a five year rotation—but you must have a guarantee for an adequate time that those prices shall be maintained.
I do not want to go into the policy of artificial prices, but I have a belief myself that natural prices and natural wages would be the more proper solution.
510
That, however, is a question which I do not intend to go into at the present moment. What I say is that if you are to have wages at this artificial height you ought to have a guarantee over a period of years that the price of produce shall be such that those wages can be paid without ruining the industry. Let me give an illustration upon that point. As regards the Corn Production Act, to which reference was made, when the Act was before your Lordships' House I endeavoured to point out that even at the pre-war rate of wages the guaranteed prices were quite useless, because they were too low. Wheat after a certain time I think was to be 45 s. I entirely agree with what my noble friend said that in order to encourage production, if it is to be encouraged under the conditions which have been started from the Board of Agriculture, you must have at least a minimum price of 65 s., and it may be pointed out that with all labour saving appliances—I am talking of places where tractors are used to a very large extent indeed—to suggest an artificial price which is so low that it is of no value whatever against the artificial high wages is not only a mistake but is a very misleading factor indeed. It is uncertainty and unrest on points of that kind that create so much difficulty.
May I say a word, arising out of my practical experience, on the question of wages? I think that comparatively high wages can be paid if you do not interfere too much with the methods and hours of employment in agriculture. Agriculture in this respect is entirely distinct from the ordinary factory business. You may have months together—it has been so almost since the first of January this year—when as farmers have said to me, they would rather that their men stopped in bed than came on the land, because there was really nothing to be done of true producing value. But when you come to harvest and hay-time every hour is of enormous importance. Therefore I contend that this is an industry in which great latitude in regard to the fixing of hours is almost a necessity. The farmers about me at any rate say, "We should not mind the higher wages; we would do our best with the higher wages if we only had greater freedom in our methods of employment, and were not tied down to the factory system as regards hours, because they are totally unsuitable for au industry like agriculture."

511
It has been a custom, at any rate in my country, to train up boys in agriculture until they become men interested in the industry. That is what we want; but under the regulation of wages at the moment that is almost impossible. Lately I have had six or seven boys who have reached the age of eighteen. At the age of eighteen they are now entitled to a man's wages. What has been the result? It has been impossible to keep them on at a man's wages, because at the age of eighteen they are not worth the wages that you can afford to pay to a skilled man whom you could trust in the management of cattle. The mothers of these boys have come to me and said, "Cannot our boys stop on; their brothers always did." I said "Oh no, it is impossible. You cannot pay these high wages to boys of that age." They then suggest, "No one would know if you paid less. Then you could let them stop on, because we want them to learn to be skilled in agriculture." One has to point out that that is impossible. The moral is that if you want to encourage skilled agricultural labour you must not put on a maximum wage until the youth has arrived at a time, and has had an experience, which makes his labour approximate in value to the wages he has to be paid. If you have a period between the two I do not think that anything could be worse for the prospect of agricultural labour, because you would drive the growing boy away just at a time when he ought to be going on and becoming a skilled labourer. That is an important factor in my own district.
There is one other point to which I would ask the noble Lord's attention. The noble Duke referred to Schedule D. What is the result of Schedule D? The accounts from my farm—I am bound to give it as an illustration—have always been kept by an accountant on what I may call accountant's methods. The time came when these accounts, which were, I believe, properly kept, had to be submitted to the officers of the Inland Revenue for purposes of Schedule D. For the last year, ever since that has been done, every official on my farm has been pestered with questions which have very little relevance to true matters of accounts but which are official questions that the Inland Revenue officers seem determined to ascertain, or to exploit. Surely that is wrong. Surely, if you are to have the advantage of Schedule D, and particularly if a farmer is to have the advantage of it (because it is intended for
512
the advantage of the farmer) the Inland Revenue officers ought not to impose conditions which put the advantage of Schedule D practically out of the reach of an ordinary farmer at all.
That is, of course, a question of detail, but the noble Lord will know, as well as all those who have been engaged in judicial work and other work of that kind know, that the income-tax requirements may be made unduly expensive and unduly troublesome, and, in the case of farmers at any rate, you ought to see that, if the accounts are properly kept and give adequate information, meticulous information ought not to be asked for, because in that case you purport to give an advantage with one hand which you take away with the other. After all, I think far the most important point is that we should know the views of the noble Lord as regards the future of agriculture—what we ought to do, and what is best to be done; and, if he can give us information, that would go a long way to solve our difficulty and a long way to remove the unrest which undoubtedly exists among farmers at the present time.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, I should like to say one word on a sentence which fell from my noble friend on the Cross Benches (Lord Parmoor). The House knows that my noble friend is a farmer on a very large scale. He has often told us in the House that he farms 1,500 acres of land, and we are very proud of him in the County of Bucks, and look upon him as a very fine specimen of an up-to-date, Saturday-to-Monday, forensic Cincinnatus. And we all remember the Homeric contest he had in this House with the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture with regard to ploughing up a piece of land which he described as "very fine pasture." We remember the wriggling and the attempts that he made to get out of doing what was supposed to be his public duty—
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think that was so.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: But he obeyed orders and ploughed up his field. He told us, I remember, that he did not expect to get more result out of his field than the amount of corn that he put into it. But I am glad to say that that was not the case. I had the opportunity of having the noble Lord's field photo

513
graphed just before rite harvest, and the photograph showed a very fine crop of oats; we put a man into the crop, a fair sized man, and the crop reached up to his shoulders. I take the liberty of publicly congratulating my noble friend—
LORD PARMOOR: I am very interested in. this. Would the noble Marquess say where this beautiful crop was that was photographed? It is the first -f have heard of it.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: I do not know the number of the field on the Ordnance map, but I have, the number of the field and can give it to the noble Lord any time he wishes. Also, I shall be very proud to send him a copy of the photograph with the bumper crop. I respectfully congratulate him on the success of his farming.
LORD HINDLIP: My Lords, if I might be allowed to make a few remarks, possibly the President of the Board of Agriculture may not be sorry to find that there is at least one farmer in this country who is not in a state of wailing and weeping, and who does not see the future as black as most people are attempting to paint it. I suppose I am probably thoroughly unorthodox. But the only really black shadow which I see in front of us to-day is the shadow of Government control—the deadening hand—and once we can get away front that to as great an extent as possible I for my part do not see why we should not go ahead and do very well. I am certain, as far as I am concerned, that when free from control—and I do not so much mind control from London as I do control locally—one can improve one's ground, one can increase one's produce and sell a good article at a reasonable price, and one can produce, if one likes to take the trouble to spend the money, a luxury for which one can get a high price.
Everybody is crying out to-day in one way or another for high prices. I look upon high prices with the greatest possible distrust. They are bad for everybody. There is no section of the community except the middleman, for whom I have no regard, who is getting any benefit out of it at all. It only increases the friction and bad feeling between town and country, and in dealing with prices for agricultural produce we have to remember that we are an industrial country, and that the
514
population to the extent of something like 70 per cent. live in the towns. I do not believe that they will stand high subsidies in any form, or protection for agricultural produce.
We must remember that we are living in an island, and that the sea is a very great protection to many articles that we produce. Milk can only come brought in a can, potatoes are protected more or less by the amount of water they contain. And meat to some extent is protected by natural means, and can be protected by natural means a very great deal more. The value of a beast on the hoof and the value of a dead beast with its by-products are two very different things, and when once the farmer begins to find out what an animal really is worth I think he will be very much more careful in the way in which he deals with his cattle.
The noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, I think tittered one or two rather dangerous words. He doubted whether a man ought to be allowed to extend his farming. Well, a man can only improve his farm to a certain extent. During the process of doing it he has to extend, he has to get more land in order to house his young stock in the winter, or to enable it to run about in the spring, or for many other things, and really to improve his holding he must increase it. After all, we know the money that is made on the produce grown by the small cultivators outside Paris and in Belgium and Denmark, but we cannot exactly take that as a precedent for what we are to do here. Then the noble Lord also complains—most people are complaining—that the Government have no plan. If the Government had a plan they would probably try and make us follow it; and we have had some experience in the last three or four years of Government plans. We have heard of pigs and many other things. I have not a very large experience in business, but I should be very glad to know of anyone in business who really wants to follow a Government plan.
Farmers have the ball at their feet to a very much larger extent than they think they have. If they will not combine, if they will not co-operate, if they will not do things for themselves that they are capable of doing if they will only take the trouble to do them, I look upon those men as unprogressive; and it they go to the wall I think they have only themselves to

515
blame. At the present moment every one is asking for too much. As I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, said, there is an artificial atmosphere. The labourer asks for 50 s. a week and the farmer asks for 80 s. for his wheat. Both of those are impossible at the present time; but the more the farmer yells for high prices the more the labourer will shout for higher wages. Take the agricultural produce of the country. I am afraid I did not hear the commencement of the remarks of the noble Duke, but I gather he talked to some extent upon wheat. Wheat has always been able to be grown in this country in the wheat-growing districts—namely, in the eastern parts of the island where you have large expanses of land and where you can utilise cheap methods of cultivation, steam tackle, and so on; and it always has been successfully grown in large quantities since the days of the very bad depression. The same applies to potatoes. I see no reason why the form of cultivation which has gone on in those parts of the island should not continue as well after the war as it did before the war. Without any protection or subsidies or fixed prices there are a great many things which can be made. Works are making farina, which is largely made out of potatoes; and other works could be started in England which would provide an outlet for that class of produce without putting anything on the town taxpayer that he will resent.
The same applies to milk. The farmers all over the country to-day are complaining about and striking over the price of milk. I am a milk producer. I do not think I am going to make much out of the wholesale price of milk, but I am perfectly certain that, if I went into the retail trade and sold my milk, over and above what I made on the wholesale price I could make in the year between £6 and £8 per gallon of milk. I believe the price to the consumer is high enough to satisfy the farmer provided the farmer will carry on his work in a businesslike way and with modern methods. I am of opinion that, provided the farmer will produce his milk properly and of good quality and take the proper precautions to sell it at the best advantage to himself, there is no reason for the price of milk to be put up. But if the farmer will insist upon going entirely on his own and not taking advantage of modern methods he is going to have a very difficult time. The consumer is not going to pay more than a
516
certain amount of money for home-grown products. He is not going to pay more than a certain amount of money for his milk. And I am certain that if the farmer will take advantage of what is offered to him he can supply his milk, and many other products, to the consumer at a price which the consumer will pay and which will leave a. reasonable profit to the farmer out of which he can pay wages sufficient to get men. There is only one shadow in connection with the milk trade, and that is Government control. No one knows whether the Government will take over the milk supply of the country, or, if they do take it over, how they are going to manage it; and until that shadow is dissipated I think there will be a certain amount of dissatisfaction and unrest among the milk-producing community.
The noble Duke spoke about binder-twine, petrol, and paraffin. He wanted to know whether the farmers could get those articles at reasonable rates. As long as the farmer will not do very much to help himself I do not think he will get anything at a reasonable rate. The same remarks apply to binder-twine, petrol, and paraffin, as those I have made in regard to selling. I do not see why you should not get binder-twine through the farmers' societies and make it up for the use of the farmers. All these things could be done, and the cost of what the farmer requires could be materially reduced. The same applies to getting manure from the towns. You hardly ever see a barge now on the canals, and the canals could be used to a very much greater extent. There are a number of light railways in the hands of the Ministry of Supply which could be used to run up to certain points. I tried to get some from the Ministry of Supply, but I have about as much chance of getting it from them as I have of making it myself out of nothing. The difficulty in these matters is getting the things. I am anxious to hear what the noble Lord has to tell us this afternoon.
I want to ask the noble Lord whether he can tell us two things, about which I spoke to him the other day—namely, Can we be told what stocks of cheese and meat will be held by the Ministry of Food when the control comes off? If the Ministry of Food are going on hoarding up cheese and meat right to the last moment, we have the suspicion that they are going to dump this on the market to our dis

517
advantage at some time or another; and I think it would be only fair both to the milk and to the cattle people if they could have some idea of the stocks of these commodities which will be held by the Food Controller at the end of September.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD ERNLE): My Lords, I feel that the amount of material before me which. I ought to answer is such as would tax the debating skill and experience of a man who is far more skilled and experienced than I have been able to become in my very brief Parliamentary career; but sifting all the various questions that have been asked me, and trying to answer those which seem to me essential, I think the great point which the Horse wants to know is what is the Government's policy towards the land of this country. The Government for the last two and a half years has adopted the policy of encouraging, both by pecuniary and material assistance, the agricultural industry to the utmost of its power, subject to the paramount necessity of bringing the war to a successful issue. There have been, as the noble Lord who has just sat clown has said, an immense number of controls. Agricultural labour was controlled; wool, straw, hay, fertilisers, feeding-stuffs, and all the prices of human food were controlled; there were many other controls and in all those cases the Board of Agriculture had only the right to be consulted—the final decision rested with the authoritative executive Department.
Those conditions necessarily exposed the Board of Agriculture to a great deal of criticism and some misunderstanding, and I think they may possibly have undermined the influence of the Board in the country. On the whole the Board has never complained and never explained, but it has gone on, I think, doing its best in those very difficult circumstances. Three points seem to me to stand out. One is this—that agriculture has obtained a better range of prices from the Minister of Food, because he was mainly the representative of the consumers, than could possibly have been obtained by the President of the Board of Agriculture, as the representative of the producer. The public supported the one but would not have supported the other. The next point which stands out is this—that in every detail (and there have been numerous controversies) the farmer ap-
518
peared to have been defeated in the first instance, but in the long run he got a reasonable compromise. The third point is that the policy has succeeded. It has succeeded to a remarkable extent. You cannot increase the nation's food without treading or trampling on the corns of many people. I am afraid that we have trampled on the corns of ninny of your Lordships in this House. One or two signs of the pain have made themselves manifest this afternoon. But we alone among all the belligerent nations of the world have been able to increase our output of human food, to increase our dairy herd, and to maintain at its pre-war level our stock of beef cattle. We have done that although we lost a third of the skilled permanent men in the employment of agriculture, and although we have had two of the most adverse seasons which we have had for many years past—seasons which in ordinary times would have sopped something like disaster.
I think that that part of the Government's policy has at least been successful, and the policy remains the same to-day as it was then. There are two ways of treating' agriculture. One is to say that agriculture is a private enterprise which must sink or swim like every other private business. The other is to say that agriculture is a great national industry which, because it touches the national life on so many sides, some of them social, does require special support under special conditions. That is the policy which His Majesty's Government since the end of 1916 has adopted towards the agricultural industry, and it is the policy which as far as I know it means to continue. That is the meaning of the phrases which have been used when the Government has emphatically pledged itself to stand by the industry and sec it through the hard times that probably stand before it.
So far as I personally am concerned, I am entirely opposed to a. system of high artificial prices. I think that they give an element of unreality to the whole of the position throughout every branch of society, that we have got to get back to market prices, and that anything short of that means that we have fictitious wages based on fictitious prices. But I believe that the real solution of the difficulty lies in carrying out the Corn Production Act of 1917. I am surprised to find that Lord Bledisloe has given up his support and

519
adherence to that Act. It was the principle recommended by a Committee over which the noble Earl opposite presided, which reported in January, 1917, before the Corn Production Act was fully drafted, and the principles that that Commission recommended—the noble Lord and I were members—were these: that a minimum wage should be fixed, that a guaranteed price for wheat and oats should be paid, and that as a condition of that guarantee increased production should be insisted upon; and I would remind the noble Lord that he was himself a member of the Government that introduced that Bill and of the Government by which it was passed—that he was also summoned to at least two meetings of the Cabinet when that Bill was under discussion. I can imagine the noble Lord saying, "Experience has proved that I was wrong." That is a reasonable thing to say, but that was not quite the line which he took in his speech, and I feel bound to point that out. I myself realise that the Corn Production Act, in certain respects requires to be amended. Of course, the scale of guaranteed prices is now totally inadequate to wages; and what has been pointed out, I think, by one of the speakers this afternoon is a point which is clearly established—that there must be an adjustment of the relations between wages that are fixed and prices that are guaranteed. I think that is an amendment which must be carried out, and I also think that some provision ought to be made for the periodic revision of that Act.
There is a feature in the agricultural situation which has not been touched upon and it is what I may call the big national question affecting agriculture as a national industry and not as a private enterprise. If we look back we shall find that in 1841 agriculture was feeding 24,500,000 people out of the total population of 26,000,000. In 1914 it was feeding 17,500,000 out of a total population of 46,000.000. I know the standard of living had risen, but the broad fact remains that in 1841 the British housewife filled her larder and her store for every meal of every day in the week except the Sunday supper, with home grown food, hut in 1914 she depended upon the foreign importer for every meal of every day in the week except from Friday evening to Monday morning. Agriculturally, we had become a nation of week-end suppliers. What is the effect of that position? I am not going to open the hitter question
520
of fiscal controversy, but we all know what the result of that was. It was this—that a change was made in the nation's policy towards food which, from 1875 to 1914, laid down 4,400,000 acres to grass.
This meant, of course, that farmers, with great skill and at great cost, adapted themselves to that changed policy and, as men of business, grew the produce that paid them best; but it meant an enormous decrease in food production. The quantity of food that can be grown from 100 acres of grass, whether it is put into meat or milk, is not sufficient for nearly one-third of the number of people who can be fed from 100 acres of arable land, whether it is in corn or potatoes. Consumers in the towns have been complaining for years with increasing vehemence that the land of this country is not growing the amount of food that it can grow and ought to grow, and is not giving the amount of employment that it can give and ought to give. They therefore say that the land is not being put to its best use for the national welfare. The conclusions that they draw from that complaint are highly dangerous—highly dangerous to the farming industry and highly dangerous to the existence of property in land—and all the more dangerous because the complaint on which they are based is a fact.
The land is not producing what it ought to produce and what it might produce. What these consumers do not realise is that the condition of farming to-day is what they themselves have chosen to make it, and that they alone can supply the remedy. The consumers of this country—and it is probably a bold request—are asked on national grounds to adopt a new policy, and on national grounds (national safety, national health, national employment, national finance) to support the Government in their policy of maintaining arable farming in this country and so developing the latent resources of the soil and giving a larger scale of employment. That policy is not going to give farmers easier lives or larger net profits. Quite the contrary. But, in proportion as it succeeds, it will reduce the amount of our dependence upon the foreigner for food; it will increase the output of food from this country; it will maintain upon the land a larger rural population; it will relieve the possible congestion of the labour market.

521
If the consumers are not prepared to support the Government in their proposal then, as it seems to me, there are two alternatives, and they are these. One is to lay the land down to grass and to lay it down in large additional quantities; but if you do that these consequences follow. You reduce employment; you reduce your output of food; you increase your dependence upon the foreigner, and—for things are very uncertain still—a possible effect would be that in 1920 there might he a shortage in our command of cereal food. Another result, as it seems to me, will necessarily follow. Every step that is taken towards that laying down of grass brings nearer to us the other alternative which lies before us, and that alternative is in my opinion the far more costly and the wholly impracticable scheme of nationalising the farming industry. We have that choice before us. It may be that some of us may hesitate to take the long view. Those who take the short view, I think, must admit the strength of this argument. At the present moment everything is uncertain. Prices are uncertain; wages are uncertain; the recovery and expansion of our trade, to which we look to absorb unemployment, are uncertain; and although for the 1919 harvest our wheat supplies seem to be absolutely secure, after that date our supplies are uncertain. In all these uncertainties it is to the farmer's interest, and it is, if I may say so, his correct game, to play for safety in grass. I think we should all admit that; but surely in the nation's interest it is necessary to maintain, for a time at all events, the maximum capacity of the land to give employment and grow food—that is to say, to maintain our arable farming in this country.
It is, of course, in the main a question of prices; but it is not so altogether. There is something else to be considered. Farming is riot worth the national support unless it is good. If national support is given, the nation has the right to say that the farming shall be of the best. We have in this country farmers of skill, energy, and enterprise, who have no superiors in the whole world, but it has been a revelation to many of the men who have sat on our agricultural committees to know how much of the farming of this country is moderate, indifferent, and even positively bad. Therefore the Government intend by means of the Executive Committees to press forward with energy the attempt to bring the
522
farming of this country up to the hest standard of the district in which it is being carried on. That is another part of our policy.
I do not know whether your Lordships would wish me to deal with the other side of our policy—I mean the educational and scientific side. I think farmers will want all the help they can get. We propose to supply for the benefit of all agriculturists and all horticulturists a readier means to the best technical instruction, a readier access to all the resources of science, greater facilities for research into all the problems of agricultural life, and a greater command of the best technical expert advice. We intend to do that in a number of directions. I notice that Lord Selborne has placed on the Paper a Question to me for this afternoon,*and in what I am going to say now I will give him the answer to his Question. We intend to support additional colleges and agricultural institutes and to establish rural institutes with an education of quite a new class. I have been myself the chairman of a secondary education committee, and concerned for many years in rural education. What has really killed rural education of a higher kind has been this, If you take a boy away and put him in a college or institute for a year he does not go back to the land—he goes elsewhere. What we propose to do is to give winter courses of three months in the dead winter months, so that in three years' time the boy will have completed a continuous course. He will be all the time actively employed on the land. I believe that this will enormously improve our labour; and I am sure of this, that every scrap of knowledge of the why and wherefore of agriculture you can teach these boys will add to their interest in their work and enhance the dignity of their labour in their minds. This increased expenditure will not fall upon the rates to any large extent. It will be considered as part of the national education, and will be in the main defrayed by the State.
*The Question on the Paper in the name of the Earl of SELBORNE was as follows: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries whether His Majesty has been advised to issue an order in Council under section 4 of the Board of Agriculture Act to transfer to the Board of Agriculture from the Board of Education the responsibility for all agricultural education except that provided in elementary and secondary schools as recommended in paragraph 127 of the Report of the Agricultural Policy Sub-Committee of the Reconstruction Committee.

523
The noble Earl has asked me whether we have brought in an Order in Council to legalise the understanding which at present exists between the Board of Education and the Board of Agriculture as to the limits of agricultural education. My answer to him is that we have not. We have had no difficulties whatever with the Board of Education. The coucordat between us was arrived at in perfectly clear terms. It has been running now for something like nine years, and if we were to bring in an Order in Council putting down in so many words the surrender by the Board of Education of what it considers to be its privilege in the counties I think we should have great difficulty in carrying such an Order through. The noble Earl will see in the Land Settlement Bill that there is a provision which carries our relations with the Board of Education rather closer than what they were before.
We propose also to establish demonstration farms. The noble Duke in his speech laid stress upon the fact that we had to bring our scientific expert knowledge in London down to the War Executive Committees, and down to the man whose farm these Executive Committees more or less control. We intend to do it by demonstration farms, by an increased staff of technical advisers; and we hope that such matters as the waste of farm-yard manure, or the application of the wrong manure to a particular soil, will become a thing of the past—that education will make it impossible. We have numerous other plans in view. We have the reclamation of certain selected areas of land which we believe can be brought into cultivation, and among them I can assure the noble Lord we have our eye on considerable portions of Yorkshire where we hope to create really valuable pasturage out of land which is at the present worthless. We have in our minds schemes of drainage, surface drainage both large and small, which will be of the utmost value. I should very much like to have undertaken the task which Lord Bledisloe suggested to me of drainage in the ordinary sense of land, but there is one practical reason why that is at the present moment absolutely impossible. You cannot get the drain pipes. It may not sound so conclusive as it is, but with the tremendous demand upon brickworks for bricks at the present moment it is an absolute prohibition on our attempting any big scheme of drainage. Wherever it is possible to adodt the more simple
524
and ancient means of drainage we have recommended them to the farmer. Besides that, we have in view the establishment of certain new experimental crops which we believe may prove to be invaluable to this country. Hemp, flax, sugar-beet, and the farina factories which have been set up for potatoes have, I think, already been mentioned in the course of the debate. In addition we intend to try and set up—and this is a point that was mentioned by the noble Duke—a better system of marketing intelligence. That is a thing that is much wanted. Au attempt is also being made to open up a new market organisation.
Another point that I might mention is that of transport facilities. I quite agree with the noble Lord—I am sorry to say that I have forgotten who it was—who said that what the farmer wanted was not a light railway but a motor service. We had put before the Treasury—when the Minister of Ways and Communications was established he took over this particular plan—experimental schemes for trying in selected districts, where if it will pay at all it must pay, a motor scheme on a considerable scale, and also a trench railway scheme which is different from the light railway scheme and far less expensive, and I believe will be one that will be found to be extremely valuable. Further, there is the matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, commented. We mean to push forward strongly the promotion of co-operation in all directions. I feel absolutely sure that if a number of those excellent farmers who are striking against the milk prices to-day were to combine and send their milk into market, not in five carts with five horses and five drivers, but with one cart, they probably would make a very handsome thing out of the milk price, which I do not desire to discuss but which is at the rate of 2½d more than last year. Those are the things that we have in view.
As a means to these ends we intend to reorganise the Board of Agriculture both inside and out. Inside we are adding a considerable number of branches. We are adding, for instance, a technical branch which will deal with education and instruction and various forms of research. We are adding also a much wanted commercial section, and a horticultural section, and certain other sections. Outside, the principle change is to link up the Board

525
of Agriculture with all the local organisations. The County Council will be asked to form an Agricultural Committee which, through its sub-committees, will administer all the powers of the local authorities with regard to agriculture. Out of that County Committee will be drawn the bulk of the members of a National Agricultural Council which will be set up by legislation and will meet at certain intervals, and out of that National Agricultural Council will be considerably drawn the members of an Advisory Committee to the Board of Agriculture which also will have stated meetings and will advise the Board on all points of agricultural importance.
Those, my Lords, are the main outlines of the policy of the Government towards the agricultural industry. The Government recognises the extreme danger of the fact that the land of this country is producing so little and employing so few, and we recognise also the strength of the movement which lies behind that complaint, and we have tried to meet it by the Corn Production Act, which on the one hand provides the corn-growing farmer with a guarantee, and on the other gives the Government power to enforce the best kind of production. It will be a. difficult and a very irksome path to follow—of that I have no doubt—but I also, so far as I have any right to speak on that subject, am convinced that it is the only path to follow to safety and to prosperity generally for the agricultural community.
We promised when the Corn Production Act. was brought in on February 23, 1917, that the Act should be revised in 1920 with a view to its prolongation, amendment, and so on, but the hands of the Government have been in a certain sense forced. A demand was put at one of the labourers' conferences for a Commission to inquire into the relation between prices and wages. The moment that demand was raised by the workers it put the Government—it would put any Government—into a very dangerous position. We could not from that moment announce our intentions as to prices under the Corn Production Act, because with the demand for an inquiry before us it was open at once to say, "Why you are fixing these prices before you know what the demands are." From another point of view it is dangerous. Supposing that the workers. Land a conference and the farmers will not have it. The answer is, "You are afraid of it." I do not think that farmers
526
need be afraid of it, but the Commission is appointed now to do what would have been done, as I think, better a year hence when we had got a little further away from the present uncertainties and when we knew somewhat where we stood. But we shall have to do it now, and I hope that there will be in the revision of the Act provision made for the establishment of a relation between the guaranteed prices and the wages that are offered. I should like to add on that point that the principle of the Corn Production Act—and I say it because I think the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, still misunderstands the principle of the Corn Production Act—is not to fix selling prices for produce, it is not fixing profits to farmers: the whole object of it is to guarantee a man against reasonable, substantial loss—that is the point. And therefore it does not appear to me so difficult to do that as it would be to fix prices generally.
If I might pass away from that to some of the points which the noble Duke has made, it would enable me from time to time to illustrate some of the things that I have just now said. I have alluded to his point about the waste of manure. There are other economies that we might effect. One is in the use of seed of highly prolific and disease-resisting qualities—I rather think the noble Duke mentioned it. There could be no greater saving than that. The prospect in that direction is very bright. We are using our best efforts to encourage the work of Professor Biffen and his colleagues at the Cambridge Institute, and we have also set up a commercial side to it on the lines of the Svaloff Institute in Sweden, which brings the seed rapidly into the market on a commercial scale.
Another source of waste is the purchase of seeds which are impure and wanting in germinating qualities. It is almost incredible that in England up to two years ago we had no seed-testing stations, and that, though this country has one of the biggest export trades in seed of any country, its seed was sold on the Continent with a certificate from Zürich. We have now got a seed-testing station, and it is so extensively used that it is already practically self-supporting, and the Order by which during the war we were able to enforce it has been so well accepted by the seed trade that I trust we shall be able to make it a permanent thing.

527
Another source of waste is the purchase of fertilisers which are not what they profess to be, and I might add, perhaps, in deference to what Lord Bledisloe said—of compound cakes that are riot what they profess to be. During toe last two years we have been able to get an Order that every compound fertiliser has to state the unit values of the ingredients which it professes to contain. That has been of the utmost value, and I very much hope that we shall be able to make that also permanent. We have set up, and connected it with the University of Leeds, an Institute dealing with agricultural machinery, and among other things with tractor machinery and I hope that that in course of time will mere the point of the noble Duke.
The noble Duke has rightly laid stress upon fertilisers. I can tell, I think for certain, that the supply of sulphate of ammonia and of basic slag will be plentiful. During the war—the last two years, at all events, of the war—the State has helped the farmer with his fertilisers, and it has cost the State something like £1,600,000 in the last year. That is, perhaps, one of those things which agriculturists have never given the Government credit for, any more than they have for the Government's accepting a liability on behalf of the taxpayer far in excess of what the Corn Production Act said—a liability which may cost the taxpayer something like £25,000,000 of money. Those things are forgotten very rapidly by the agriculturists to whom they were given. But, so far as fertilisers are concerned, we have subsidised fertilisers. We can no longer subsidise them; and, although it might very well be a question whether the prices should in some form or other he controlled, I cannot promise that any steps of that kind will be taken. We hope that the price of sulphate of ammonia may be kept down by the nitrates which compete with it scientifically as nitrogenous manures—that they will come in considerable quantities, because they are no longer required for explosives. But the price at which they come in must depend on freight.
Potash we shall obtain in considerable quantities from the Stassfurt deposits in Germany, and it will be distributed so far as possible by the Board of Agriculture. Superphosphate will, I am afraid, he scarce. There are labour troubles in the Tunisian
528
quarries, and that probably will be scarce. We have made our best efforts to increase the supply of lime. Coal and labour are the two difficulties. We have provided a cheaper substitute in ground limestone; we have experimented with machines which grind the limestone, and I hope we shall have a cheap output. In fact, I think, in many ways the Board has been trying to look in every direction to cheapen the cost of production as far as it can.
As to the feeding-stuffs situation, I fear that they will be scarce. I entirely agree with what the noble Duke has said that the policy at the present moment is to use fertilisers and grow all the homegrown feeding-stuffs that you possibly can. Palm kernel oil will probably be plentiful, but linseed will be scarce and probably dear, and in that case I entirely agree with the noble Duke that the best substitute is beans and, of course, leguminous crops generally. I hope the noble Duke will forgive me if I do not pass in review all his many other points. His rotation of crops seemed to me admirable for a war rotation; it is, in fact, practically that which was employed in Germany. The peace rotation also seemed to me admirable, and it provided for a larger percentage of corn crop than is the pre-war average in this country.
When the noble Duke asks me to tell him what the various costs will be a year or two years hence, I am afraid that he is asking us to calculate the incalculable and define the indefinable. I do not think that it is possible to prepare such careful figures as will give us any line as to the produce of future years, either in this country or in foreign countries. Look, for instance, at foreign countries. Who can tell when Russia or when Hungary is going to be producing corn again on the old scale? Who can tell when Germany, which is said to be something like 50 per cent., below her pre-war level, will recover her output of food? Who can say what will be the effect upon America of the great drop in corn prices which is anticipated in 1919? It is true, as the noble Duke said, that the Royal Institution at Rome collects most useful statistic and publishes them in a useful compendious form. But it is not quite, if I may say so with respect, in the direction which the noble Duke indicated. The information which they collect is of production and not of prices; and they do not deal in any

529
way with forecasts. One has only to read any of the criticisms of their publications to see that men of the same wide experience from the same facts form perfectly divergent conclusions. I think, therefore, that demonstrates the impossibility of prophesying about the future in those kinds of ways.
Now, if the Government is able to obtain a return of confidence in the agricultural industry, if the agricultural industry will take the Government's support during the past two years, the Government's acceptance of a huge liability for the harvest of 1919, as an earnest and a pledge of their intentions, then I hope very much that the agricultural industry will resume all its former courage and tenacity of purpose, and that it will exercise the right of private judgment awl face the financial risks which are inseparable front the maintenance of the industry as a private enterprise. If they are not prepared to take private risks—and, after all, that is the meaning of a minimum price, and underlay, perhaps, the noble Duke's demand for accurate figures—if they are not prepared to take the risks of old times, then again I say that they are coining a step nearer to the nationalisation of the industry.
In concluding what I fear has been an intolerably long speech nay I say a word on the labour question which dominates the whole horizon? If labour makes such demands upon the farmers that to create any guarantee at all is wholly out of the question, then I should admit that the Government proposals must prove a failure. I myself trust that saner counsels will prevail. Up to the prospective rise made in wages the labourer was no better off than he was before the war. At an average wage of 33 s., the Wages Board proved to the satisfaction of both farmer and labourer that it left a margin, to a man with a standard family, of 7d., a week. We have to remember that we are not likely in these days, when labour in every industry has new visions and new dreams before it, to get agricultural labourers to work on the land for a margin of 7d. a week. Nor do I personally think that we ought to ask them to do it.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD ERNLE: I think it would be short-sighted and suicidal of us to do so.
530
To my mind it may be a man's lot to be an agricultural labourer, but he is also a man and "a citizen of no mean city"; and unless you find the agricultural labourers the means and opportunity of leisure, and the means and opportunity of making a wise and patriotic use of that leisure, I believe we are heading in this democratic country straight to destruction.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Lord began his speech by stating with perfect good humour that in the past his Department had been subject to considerable criticism both in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, and he made a defence of its past action during the war which I think appealed greatly to the House at large. It certainly seemed to me that, although we were not always able to understand the precise relations which existed between his Department and that of Food Control, the noble Lord was able to explain to us that it was the Food Control Department which, in the particular circumstances of the war, necessarily had the last word. The noble Lord has given us a most interesting account, in answer to the noble Duke on the cross-benches, of the general efforts which are being made and are going to be made to encourage production in the country. I am certain that whatever may have been the criticisms levelled at his Department Ionic have been levelled at the noble Lord himself—
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Because every one both here and elsewhere knows his full grasp of the whole subject of agriculture and his devotion to the interests of the whole agricultural community. I am not going to attempt to follow the various prospects—many of them most alluring—which the noble Lord held out to us on this matter of securing a greater output. I listened with great pleasure to what the noble Lord said of the wide encouragement to be given to agricultural education, because I have always felt that upon a reasonable system of agricultural education at its different levels depended more than anything else the future of the agriculture of the country. In particular I heard with gratification of the proposal to institute agricultural courses to be combined with the actual practice of the industry by lads who intend to become

531
farmers. That is a system which, as I believe, can be and might to be profitably applied to a great number of other trades besides agriculture, and its application is peculiarly suitable to the circumstances in which lads of sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen in the farming community find themselves.
The only point on which I desire to say a few words is that of the future policy in connection with the Corn Production Act—the policy which, as the noble Lord observed, remains the same as it was. He described that policy as one of special support to the farmers on special conditions, and I gathered from him that the Corn Production Act, although obviously subject to reconsideration and amendment in some of its details, still represents the considered policy of His Majesty's Government. In connection with that comes, of course, the main consideration of the relation between prices and wages. The noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, made a most powerful speech on this subject, anti indicated the dilemma in which His Majesty's Government must naturally find themselves placed if the policy of the Corn Production Act is to be continued. In one respect I do not think Lord Bledisloe was entirely accurate. He seemed to argue that the fixing of a minimum wage of itself necessitated the fixing of a guaranteed price. That, I take it, is not the case Minimum wages are fixed in a number of industries in which there is no guaranteed profit or scale of prices. What I think the noble Lord meant to indicate was that if the minimum wage is fixed at a certain figure, then, unless you guarantee a price, the industry cannot be carried on. He went on to point out that, unless a. price of 65 s a quarter for wheat was guaranteed, in the case of the least productive land the industry could not be carried on at a profit. He did not mention one difficulty which occurs in that connection—although I know he is well aware of it, and so is the noble Lord opposite—and that is the difficulty arising out of the fact that those on the most favourably situated and most productive land are bound to make what would be considered an excessive profit if the occupier of the poorest land on which wheat can possibly be grown is guaranteed an adequate return. That is a difficulty for which there may be some solution, although I confess I have never heard of one which can be considered complete.
532
But apart from that, assuming my noble friend Lord Bledisloe to be right in concluding that a 65 s guarantee must be forthcoming, the question arises at once, as the noble Lord opposite indicated, whether the consumer and the taxpayer are going to stand having to find annually the great number of millions' of money which that figure means. What view the consumer and taxpayer will take, even when the case is set before them so persuasively as it was by the noble Lord, it is very difficult to foresee; and it is, of course, the main difficulty of His Majesty's Government in this connection that, however strongly they may state their intention to persevere in this policy, they are naturally unable to promise the farmer that a future Government or even a future Parliament may not take a. different view. The question, therefore, really will be how far the farming community will be able to absorb the idea that the country is so set upon this matter of production from arable land that it will be willing to make itself responsible for this vast subsidy in future years.
The noble Lord stated that if the country was not willing to undertake this task one of two things must happen—either a great proportion of land would go back to grass and a smaller amount of food would actually be produced, or we should be-advancing a step nearer the nationalisation of the land and presumably of the industry. I have always felt myself that what brought the possible nationalisation of the land and of the farming industry somewhat nearer was the institution of the system of control, inevitable though that may have been during the circumstances of the war. If I were asked to prophesy what is likely to happen in future years, although I do not know that my opinion is worth anything in particular in the matter, I do not myself believe that the citizens of this country will consent to make themselves responsible on a very large scale for a subsidy for the growing of corn. The noble Lord spoke of the undesirability of being dependent on the foreigner. That, of course, is a disadvantage of which something can be made, but we must remember in this connection that the so-called foreigner includes India, Canada, and Australia; therefore the particular argument of dependence on the foreigner does not arise. What does arise, of course, is dependence—as the noble Earl (Lord Selborne) reminds me—on sea transport; and we

533
have all freshly in our recollection the anxiety which that dependence caused us up to a short time ago.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Ernie, used the expression that we were in fact a ''beleaguered island," and it was then true to say so. The question, however, really seems to rue to be largely this. Although we are now, happily, no longer beleaguered, shall we have to frame our agricultural system on the probability of our being beleaguered again? If the country does entertain that fear—a fear which was set before us so forcibly by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, in the course of former debates in this House as being within the bounds of reasonable probability, apart from the League of Nations and everything else, it may agree to encourage artificially in this country the growing of wheat on a very large scale. Personally, I question whether it will, although I do not pretend that my opinion in this matter is worth more than that of anybody else
What I think will persist to some extent is a considerable expansion of arable fanning as distinct from wheat-growing. To that, I imagine, the country will in a measure be disposed to adhere, but I also think that there will be some desire to go back to grass to a certain extent in some parts of England. Whether that will be a wise course or not, I have no desire to argue at the moment. I did not precisely gather from the noble Lord's speech what is to be the actual degree of control and of compulsion exercised on farmers in this matter of ploughing. I quite understand—in fact, it was most dearly stated by the noble Lord, and has been stated before—that those who do not farm their land to advantage, who farm badly (to put it simply), will be subjected to penalties, whether they be the owners or the occupiers of the land. But will those penalties be continued to be exacted in respect of the proportion of arable land on a farm, or wilt they merely have reference to the cleanness or foulness of a farm keeping the drains clear and matters of that kind? We have not, I think, been told how far the farmer is to regard himself in future as a free man, subject to a good deal of inspection and even to penalties if he does not come up to a reasonable standard in the conduct of his trade, on the ground that his trade is a national and not merely a private concern; or how far he is to be actually controlled and made to
534
follow out a certain course of cultivation and system of farming, even though he prefers another.
The noble Lord mentioned the Royal Commission, but it was not entirely clear from what he said how far the carrying out of the policy which he explained so clearly depends on the Report of that Commission. Is this a Commission merely to ascertain the relation between prices and wages with a view to some amendment of the Corn Production Act when its present provisions are exhausted, or is it going to rove over the whole field of the agricultural future? And, it the latter, will the noble Lord's policy be hung up until the Commission has reported? That is a matter which is exercising farmers a good deal at this moment, and they have expressed the hope, even if the Commission is going to be long affair (as they assume it will be) and covers a great deal of ground, that it might at any rate issue some form of interim Report on which His Majesty's Government can take action. I confess I am not quite clear whether the noble Lord has to wait for what they say before he takes some of the steps which he indicated. I do not propose to touch on any of the many other interesting topics of which we have heard, but I should like to express what I am sure is the gratitude of everybody for the full statement of the noble Lord and for the manner in which he made it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I do not mean to stand long between your Lordships and the adjournment, but I should not like such a debate as the one to which we have listened to close without saving something on the subject, in view of my past connection with the Board of Agriculture and with the policy for which the noble Lord has spoken to-day. I congratulate the noble Duke warmly on having elicited such a. debate by a speech which, to my great regret, f only partly heard. If my noble friend the President of the Board will allow me to say so, his speech was courageous, eloquent, and deeply interesting. The time is too late to touch on that sketch which he gave us of the great work of agricultural reconstruction in the Office itself, in the framework of the Department and in its activities, especially in the sphere of instruction. All I can say is that there can be no better thing for agriculture in this country than that this work of reconstruction should be guided and directed by my noble friend.

535
I should not like to pass without notice the noble Lord's reference to the conditions tinder which he has worked since he became President of the Board of Agriculture. I think the difficulties of those conditions have been very insufficiently appreciated by the farmers of the United Kingdom. As he has told us, agriculture was touched and affected by the Orders of half a dozen different Departments. In each case all that the noble Lord could do was to state his view to the Minister concerned. He could not change, if he wished to, the decision of that Minister. The utmost he could do on an occasion of sufficient importance was to demand a decision from the War Cabinet. I venture to say that those are circumstances of extraordinary difficulty under which to act, and the claim my noble friend made for the success of his policy under those conditions was very modestly stated and is absolutely due to him. Farmers do not know, they cannot know, how a Government works, more especially a Government of the wholly strange character such as that which was improvised in war time. I have no hesitation in saying that many times my noble friend has stood between the farmer and a decision which would have been most hostile to his interests and would have added greatly to the difficulties of his enterprise. The fanner has never known what my noble friend has clone to avert that danger.
I will only briefly allude to the dilemma which has been so fully and plainly stated by the noble Lord, and by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe. I wish to bring the House back and remind them, because our memories are short, how the new policy of the Corn Production Act came into being. The public and the consumer cannot be too often reminded of the facts. This policy was never asked for by the farmer or the landowner. They never asked for any Government help or interference at all. They had learnt from experience in time bitter struggles of the last thirty years. The State had done its worst for them by its neglect. The last thing they asked for was the interference of the State at the moment when they were once more beginning to feel their feet. But the State had to intervene for reasons of national safety. The beginning of this policy was the reference to the Committee over which I had the honour to preside, given to it by Mr. Asquith when he was Prime Minister. If you read the
536
terms of that reference you will notice two things—first, that it had no reference whatever to war conditions; it was postwar and peace conditions to which alone it referred. The second thing is that the man who sent that reference to the Committee must have thought at the time that our past dependence on overseas food supplies was no longer consistent with the safety of the country in time of peace. You will also find, in almost the last page of the Report, a statement in black and white by the Admiralty, that in the future—not during the war only but in the future—it was not compatible with national safety that this country should remain as dependent as it had been on supplies brought from overseas. And the Admiralty told the nation that in any future war the danger was going to be far greater than it had been in the existing war. Those were the paramount reasons of national safety that demanded a reconsideration of the attitude of the State towards agriculture.
But there was another reason, and it was the one touched upon by my noble friend. "Was the land to become the plaything of the nation, or was it going to be used to produce all that it could of food or timber? Was the rural population to be allowed to dwindle away and the country to become a wilderness from the point of view of the manhood of the nation? Or was it essential for a healthy national state of society that the rural population should be increased as much as possible?" Those are still the questions which the taxpayer, the consumer, and the nation have to decide. What the nation cannot have is this—it cannot have it both ways. If the nation wants those things, then until the industry is thoroughly established in a position of permanent stability, obvious to all who consider its economic condition, there must be a permanent guarantee to the farmer against ruin. If, for reasons of national safety and welfare, the fanner is asked to plough land which he would not otherwise plough, then he must be guaranteed against loss from that which he does solely because the nation asks hint to do it.
That sum has been stated in rather alarming figures by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition. He may be right, but I am quite sure he does not claim to be a prophet, and none of us can know what that sum is really going to be. It is impossible to tell what the price of corn is

537
going to be in the years which lie before us, and the sum which the taxpayer under this policy will be asked to find in a given year will be the difference between the average price of corn and the guaranteed price. It may be a very small sum; it may, be a large one; it may be none at all. The whole question depends on the wise and fair adjustment of the guarantee to the economic conditions under which the industry is going to act. It is perfectly true, as the noble Marquess (Lord Crewe) has said that the fanner is not going to be asked to grow wheat on land which is not suitable for wheat. What he is going to be asked to do is to keep that land under the plough and grow oats or something of that kind, so that in the time of national emergency the land under the plough can be used, if necessary, to grow wheat. That is a different proposition from telling him to grow wheat on land which can only well carry oats. I return to the dilemma. If the nation, for reasons of national safety and national welfare, require so many more million acres to be under the plough than were before the war, then they have got to give the farmer that reasonable guarantee.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: By a permanent Act.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, by a permanent Act. I was just coining to that. Of course, the unrest among the farmers, which is absolutely true and of which no one is more aware than the noble Lord, in my judgment arises from two causes. One is that the present Corn Production Act is not permanent, the second is that the increase of wages by the Wages Board has taken a form for which the farmer was not prepared, and it has alarmed him. Just as he had become accustomed to the way of settling in every district, quite unexpectedly to him he is suddenly told that he has to add 6s.6d. per week to that wage. I make no criticism of that decision. It is a very large and intricate question which it would be very unwise to attempt to deal with at the end of a debate like this. But the farmers did not expect this additional demand to be made upon them for wages, and it is that fact, coupled with the temporary character of the Corn Production Act, that is mainly responsible in my judgment for their present state of unrest
538
If the nation is not prepared to take this action, then these results follow as surely as night follows day. Millions of acres will go down to grass—many more than before the war—the rural population instead of increasing will still further decrease, and the wages of the few remaining labourers will not be maintained at the level to which the Wages Board has raised them. There is no possibility of multiplying in this country a great race of agricultural labourers, well paid and therefore contented with their lot—a reservoir of great strength to the nation—and maintaining those men at a high rate of wage. There is no chance whatever of that if the farmer is again to be submitted, as he was before the war, to the competition of the world without any kind of assistance from his own Government. You can make what regulations you like but you cannot force the farmer to continue to farm, and no man can be expected to farm if he is likely to be ruined by his farming. Therefore if be sees ruin staring him in the face, as it met his grandfather and his father forty, years ago, he will realise his capital and retire from the business, and there will be no employment at any wages for those labourers who, under the policy of my noble friend, may be multiplied and become one of the greatest strengths and the glory of England.
We know that at one time, though their condition was a very miserable one compared to that of the agricultural labourer to-day, the peasantry of England were called their country's pride. We know how, owing to a variety of causes about which there is much controversy, they dwindled in number till they reached their lowest level a few years before the war. There had been a slight rise again in the months immediately before the war, but their level was a miserably low one for the acreage of this country and for its powers of food production. When the war came we missed those men. It is no disparagement to the men from the industrial centres to say that we missed those millions of agricultural labourers who under other conditions might have been on our soil and in our villages.
It is not only a question of national defence; it is a question of national health. In every country in the world the men in the villages and the country districts are the reservoir of health for

539
the men in the manufacturing industries in the towns, and this problem which confronts us to-day is a problem which confronts not only every country in Europe but one which confronts the United States of America at this moment. I was reading only yesterday an address by one of the leading agricultural authorities in America, and the title of that address was "Wanted: A National Agricultural Policy," and there was hardly a sentence in the first half of the address which; with slight adaptations, could not have been applied to the problem we are discussing to-day in England. Therefore I sincerely hope that my noble friend will not falter in that courage which he has displayed so conspicuously to-night, that he will take his fellow-countrymen into his confidence, that he will show them without flinching the choice that lies before them, and what the consequences will be in the future of a rejection of the policy that he advocates.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ST. JUST (FALMOUTH) OCEAN WHARVES AND RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
A Witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (SUPER- ANNUATION) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed
PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of May 6.]
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the Table.

LONDONDERRY PORT AND HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Petition for additional provision, of the Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners, under their Common Seal, together with proposed amendments and clauses annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments
540
had laid upon the Table the Certificate front the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Bournemouth Gas and Water.
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for Additional Provision in the following Bill:
Manchester Corporation.
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:
Birmingham Corporation Tramways.
The some were ordered to lie on the Table.

HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Order made on the 25th of February and the 2nd of April last discharged, and Bill committed.
POOLE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Order made on the 25th of February and the 2nd of April last discharged, and Bill committed.
NEWARK GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Order made on the 27th of February and the 2nd of April last discharged, and Bill committed.
MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
(Petition for additional provision.)
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL.
(Petition for additional provision.)
CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY.
(Petition for Bill.)
LLANELLY RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL.
(Petition for Bill.)
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION (RATES).
(Petition for Bill.)
SHOREHAM-BY-SEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
(Petition for Bill.)
LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY.
(Petition for Bill.)
WEST HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION.
(Petition for Bill.)
DOVER GAS.
(Petition for Bill.)
EAST HAM CORPORATION.
(Petition for Bill.)
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION TRAMWAYS.
(Petition for Bill.)
BEDWELLTY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
(Petition for Bill.)
WALSALL CORPORATION.
(Petition for Bill.)
WORKINGTON CORPORATION.
(Petition for Bill.)
LEICESTER CORPORATION.
(Petition for Bill.)
SWINTON AND MEXBOROUGH GAS BOARD.
(Petition for Bill.)

ROTHERHAM CORPORATION.
(Petition for Bill.)
Examiners' Certificates of noncompliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Wednesday the 14th instant.

FEE FUND OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid on the Table the Annual Account of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords: The same was ordered to lie on the Table and to be referred to the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices.
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.