Sitting of 11 November 1919

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

  STANDING ORDERS.
  THE CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I think it will be convenient if I explain the nature of the changes which I propose in our Standing Orders. The first two, which I now move, arise out of changes which have taken place in local government, and they are with the object of saving expense to promoters of Bills by leaving out the unnecessary reference in the deposit of plans to "parishes, townlands, and extra parochial places" which have now become obsolete.
  Standing Order 4 read, and amended, in line 6, by leaving out the words "parishes, townlands, and extra parochial places, "and inserting the words" boroughs, urban and rural districts, and in the case of rural districts the parishes" instead thereof; and, in line 24, at the end, by adding the words "The provisions of this Order relating to boroughs shall apply in the case of London to Metropolitan boroughs and the City of London."
  Mr. WHITLEY: The New Standing Order—(Endorsement by Chairman of Ways and Means in the case of certain Petitions)—which I now move will take its place as Standing Order 198 a. It deals with Petitions for leave to bring in late Private Bills and Petitions for Additional Provisions. I propose this in order that the Chairman of Ways and Means may be able efficiently to carry out the duty which the House places on him of supervision over the whole of our Private Bill work. Unless proposals for late Bills come before the Chairman it is not possible for him to have that control which the House wishes. This of course does not apply to Bills which are brought in the ordinary way, but only to Bills and provisions for which special facilities are asked.
  Sir W. PEARCE: May I ask if this means doing away with the necessity of going before the Standing Orders Committee.
  Mr. WHITLEY: Not at all. The proposal, as is always the case if the Standing Orders have not been complied with, will have to go afterwards before the Standing Orders Committee.
  Captain O'GRADY: Will the Standing Orders Committee still have the right, although the Standing Orders have not been observed, to admit the Bill?
  Mr. WHITLEY: Certainly. This proposal does not derogate in any way whatsoever from the existing powers of the Standing Orders Committee.
  New Standing Order 198 a agreed to.
  Ordered (Endorsement by Chairman of Ways and Means in the case of Certain Petitions), That,—
  "Every Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for a Private Bill and every Petition for a Private Bill which has not been deposited in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 32 and Standing Older 194 b, and every Petition for an additional Provision, shall require the endorsement of the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means before it is deposited in the Committee Office."
  Ordered, That this Order be a Standing Order of this House.
  Mr. WHITLEY: I do not propose to move the Amendment to Standing Order 205, of which I had given notice. It was suggested as a matter of economy to promoters, but I find that the object can be secured by means of instructions to the Private Bill Office.
  Standing Orders 33, 34, and 34 a refer to the date on which copies of Bills must be deposited in the various Government Offices. My Amendments give three days longer to the promoters and bring the practice of this House into line with that of the House of Lords. At present it is found that the 18th is rather too short a time for promoters, and it is for the convenience of all parties to have the practice uniform in the two Houses.
  Standing Order 33 read, and amended, in line I, by leaving out "18th," and inserting "21st" instead thereof.
  Standing Order 34 read, and amended, in line I, by leaving out"18th," and inserting "21st" instead thereof.

  209
  Standing Order 34 a read and amended, in line I, by leaving out "18th," and inserting "21st" instead thereof.

INDUSTRIAL COURTS BILL.
Copy ordered, "of Amendments proposed to be moved by the Government on Consideration, as amended, of the Industrial Courts Bill."—[Sir Robert Home.]
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 202.]

NATIONAL DEBT.
Return ordered, "showing, for each financial year commencing the 1st day of April from 1875 to 1919, inclusive:

(1) The total amount of dead-weight Debt outstanding on the 1st day of April; the amounts which were made available in each year to 1918-19 inclusive, for reduction of Debt, distinguishing the sums expressly provided for service of the Debt, the old Sinking Fund, and miscellaneous receipts; the gross amount of Debt redeemed; the amount of Debt created; and the net increase or decrease of Debt in the year;

(2)A similar Statement in respect of other capital liabilities; and

(3)A similar Statement in respect of the aggregate gross liabilities of the State."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  RUSSIA.

    BRITISH PRISONERS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been a declaration of war between His Majesty and the Russian Soviet Government; and what is the position in international law of British soldiers and sailors who may be captured, while fighting on Russian soil, by the Soviet forces?
    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
    210
    is in the negative It would be difficult for me to define the position in international law of the sailors, soldiers and airmen who have been captured by the Soviet forces; but they are as far as I know considered by the Soviet Government to be prisoners of war.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask, as there is no declaration of war, under what international law of equity and justice are we executing a formal blockade against the Soviet Government?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is a legal point of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman should give notice.

    NORTHERN CAUCASIA.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the protest made by the Parliament of the North Caucasian Republic to the Allied representative, Colonel Haskel, against the invasion of their territory by the so-called volunteer army under the orders of General Denikin, K.C.B.; whether he is aware that charges of murder, violation of women, and defiling of mosques have been brought against these volunteer troops; and what steps it is proposed to take to test the truth of these allegations and to make certain that British munitions are not being used to maltreat the people of Northern Caucasia?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The attention of His Majesty's Government has been drawn, if not to this particular protest, at least to many others of a similar nature. I must add that we have received quite as many in the contrary sense, alleging intrigue with the Bolsheviks, Germans and Turks, and interference with General Denikin's communications on the part of some of the inhabitants of these regions. With the concurrence of General Denikin, a British Officer has been sent to the territory of the so-called North Caucasian Republic, the independence of which I must remind the House has not been recognised either by His Majesty's Government or the Peace Conference, with a view to arranging a settlement.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this British officer acting for the War Office or for the hon. Gentleman's Department, the Foreign Office?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have not the information, and I must ask for notice.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware or threats made by the British Military Mission with General Denikin to the insurgents against Denikin in the North Caucasus that unless they submit British tanks and munitions will be used against them; is this suppression of non-Russian and non-Bolshevik races part of the War Office policy in Russia; and does it apply also to the Kuban Cossacks and to Georgia?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The answer is in the negative.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say exactly what the policy of the Government is towards the North Caucasian State and whether it is regulated by his Department or the Foreign Office, and whether we have a representative in that country at all?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, there is a representative in the North Caucasian State, and one of the representatives of the British Government is General Denikin; as my hon. Friend knows, an hon. Member of this House, Mr. Mac-kinder, is going out as High Commissioner to cover the affairs of both the Denikin area and also of the North Caucasian State. The policy of the British Government may really be summed up in trying to make sure that there is no collision between them, if it can possibly be avoided by our good offices.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Can he say what are the powers of this High Commissioner?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It certainly does not arise out of this question, but a full statement could be made if it were raised at a proper opportunity.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that nothing that may have been said elsewhere will in any way alter the policy of the War Office?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no such thing as the policy of the War Office; it is the policy of the Government.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is there any such thing as the policy of the Government?
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Would the right hon. Gentleman, if a question were put down, give us particulars of how many wars we are supplying munitions for?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend is a reader of the newspapers, and I think they contain all the information.
    Mr. J. JONES: Seeing that all parties in this House are equally interested in the foreign policy of the Government, would it not be well that a joint commission should go to Russia, and not an individual supporter of the Government?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The question of the appointment of a High Commissioner to look after British interests and British policy in a particular part of the world is a matter which rests with the Executive Government as long as the Executive Government retains the confidence of the House of Commons.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the policy which he has enunciated of preventing collisions between these nationalities applies to the Ukraine, and are we using our good offices there also?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I was speaking of the North Caucasus, to which we had to go when the Turks were driven out, and where, consequently we acquired certain responsibilities which we are endeavouring to discharge. We have never at any time had any representative in the Ukraine.

    BRITISH ARMY (EQUIPMENT).
    Mr. A. SHORTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the total cost up to date of the British contribution to the equipment of the Polish Army and the nature of such contribution?
    Mr. FORSTER: Such military stores as have been supplied from this country for the Polish Army have been bought by the Poles. Until now the French have been responsible for supplying equipment and munitions to the Polish Army, but the question of what surplus munitions can be supplied from British stocks is at present under consideration.

    EXPEDITIONS (COST).
    Mr. SWANasked the Secretary of State for War whether the statement of

    213
    cost of the Russian Expeditions since the Armistice includes pay that is accumulating at home for the officers and men with the military missions in Russia?
    Mr. FORSTER: The answer is in the affirmative.

    BRITISH AND RUSSIAN RECRUITS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information to the effect that British and Russian subjects are being recruited by the Russian Embassy for military service in Russia; and, if so, whether the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act are being carried out?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): The Prime Minister has no information to this effect.

    FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS.
    Mr. SWANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the item of £568,000,000 given in the recent revised Financial Estimate as the amount of Russian obligations includes advances to Koltchak, Denikin, and other anti-Soviet Governments; and, if so, what is the amount of these advances?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Financial Secretary to the Treasury): No, Sir. The figure in question represents only the obligations of the former Russian Government.

    HUNGARY.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of M. Friedrich at Budapest has been recognised; Whether he is aware that M. Friedrich has recently declared himself in favour of a restoration of the monarchy in Hungary; and what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards an attempt at a restoration of the monarchy in Hungary?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government have not yet recognised any Government in Hungary, where they are acting in concert with the other Principal Allied and Associated Powers. It is the policy of the Supreme Council, whose Envoy, Sir George Clerk, is now at Budapest, not to allow the return of a Hapsburg dynasty to Hungary. M. Fried-
    214
    rich, the head of the present Provisional Government of Hungary, fully understands the attitude of the Allied and Associated Powers towards this question.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me, in connection with this question, whether them is any truth in the rumour that a British Prince has been invited to ascend the throne in Hungary?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I never heard of the suggestion myself.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the Supreme Council also express their determination not to tolerate the Crown Prince of Roumania or any Prince of Roumania ascending the throne of Hungary?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    EGYPT.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the number of casualties to date among the Egyptian population and among our soldiers in Egypt in connection with the riots at Alexandria?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Official telegraphic reports received indicate that as the result of the disturbances in Alexandria on the 24th and 25th October, forty seven members of the Egyptian police were injured, whilst amongst the crowd seven Egyptians were killed and twenty-one injured. No casualties have been reported among the British troops, who were stoned by the crowd and appear to have suffered only minor injuries.
    During the riot on 31st October, British troops were not called upon to intervene, but several Egyptians are reported killed or wounded by bullets fired by three native soldiers, now under arrest, who fired some ninety shots from an Egyptian Government motor car. On night of 3rd November some British soldiers were attacked near Hadra Hospital and a sentry fired on their aggressors, causing some casualties.

    WAR DECORATIONS.
    Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the decision of the Government

    215
    AS to the issue of a special decoration to those who have been mentioned in despatches during the present War?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The matter is still under consideration, and I regret that I am unable to make any announcement at present
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Can my right hon. Friend indicate any probable date when a decision will be arrived at, as the matter is some time under consideration?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot give a date.
    Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to redeem the late Lord Kitchener's promise to the Devon Territorials, which was to the effect that they would not lose anything of the War's rewards by going to India instead of France in 1914; whether he is aware that whereas even non-combatants who were in France at any time up to the end of 1915 are entitled to the 1914-15 Star, yet the Devon Territorials who went to India In 1914 and saw service later in Mesopotamia, and many of whom are still abroad on service, have been declared ineligible for the Star; and whether, with a view to bringing the men concerned within the scope of the Army Order dealing with the subject (Appendix A of Army Order 20, 1919), he will declare India to have been a theatre of war, or, if this is impossible, he will adopt some other means of awarding to these men the Star to which they are entitled, or award them a special medal in lieu of it?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The 1914-1915 Star is a commemorative token to show that the recipient has fulfilled certain specified conditions of service in a war zone. India as a whole was not a theatre of war, and men who served in India during 1914 and 1915 have not earned the Star unless they participated in the operations referred to in paragraph 5 (f) and (g) of Appendix A to Army Order 20 of 1919. Those who served in Mesopotamia between the 6th November, 1914, and 31st December, 1915, have earned the Star. The men referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend have earned the British War Medal, which is a commemorative token awarded to all who rendered approved service overseas, and those of them who served on the estab-
    216
    lishment of a unit in a theatre of war, within certain specified periods, have earned the Victory Modal also.
    Captain TUDOR-REES: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered, or will be consider, the suggestion in the last part of the question?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; no decision has been taken on that point. It will take about four years—possibly five—to give medals to the men who have actually fought in the War, and therefore I am regarding as altogether in a secondary category the case of medals to men who did not have the opportunity of serving in a theatre of war.

    BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (GERMANY).
    Mr. LEONARD LYLEasked the Secretary of State for War how many men who were British prisoners of war in Germany are still unaccounted for; and whether the responsible German authorities are now available to answer for the position?
    Mr. FORSTER: The number of officers and men known to have been prisoners of war in Germany who are still unaccounted for, inclusive of British Army, Colonials, Royal Navy, and Royal Air Force, is:

    Officers

    12

    Other ranks

    391

    The German authorities have placed all records at our disposal, and continue to render assistance in tracing the eases still outstanding.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

      WAR GRATUITIES.
      Mr. STANTONasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that discontent prevails among the demobilised sailors and soldiers with the disproportionate allotment of war gratuities to the rank and file who have served during the War, and that they demand that the Government shall take immediate action to increase the war gratuity paid to men on the same basis as that paid to officers under Article 497, Royal Warrant, such increase to be calculated upon present rates of pay; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
      Mr. FORSTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Aberavon on the 6th November.

      EXTRA ARMY PENSION.
      Colonel ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is the intention on the War Office that the increments to pension of 5d. at the age of fifty-five and 4d. at the age of sixty-five are to be in all cases additional to the maximum rates laid down for the various ranks in Army Order 325, of 1919?
      Mr. FORSTER: These additions at ages fifty-five and sixty-five are irrespective of the amount of the man's pension, and are not covered by the maxima in paragraph 2 of Table 5
      Colonel ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is proposed that the extra Army pension of 5d. a day which is to be granted at the age of fifty-five, and 4d. a day at the age of sixty-five shall be granted forthwith to all veterans who may be eligible by age, whether they served in the great War or not?
      Mr. FORSTER: The answer is in the negative.
      Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask why men who served in a former war and did just as good service have been left out?
      Mr. FORSTER: It is part of the general decision of the Government.
      Colonel ASHLEY: Do I understand that there is discrimination against men who fought in former wars and those who fought in this War?
      Mr. FORSTER: It means that the advantages of the new Warrant are confined to men who have given service in the recently concluded great War.

    ARMY OF OCCUPATION (BRITISH TROOPS).
    Mr. TOOTILLasked the Secretary of State for War whether the 50th Battalion, King's Liverpool Regiment, are under orders for a destination on the Danish frontier; whether he is aware that the men of this battalion allege that a promise was made that they would be sent no further than the Rhine; and whether,
    218
    in view of the dissatisfaction prevailing, he will have inquiries made into this matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: Presumably the 52nd Battalion, Liverpool Regiment, is referred to, as there is no 50th Battalion. The unit in question, together with others, is required for special duties in Germany, and will continue to be based on the Army of the Rhine. No promise has been made to these men that they will be sent no further than the Rhine, and, so far as is known, there is no dissatisfaction among the men on this point. The movement of this personnel will in no way prejudice their eventual demobilisation, which will be carried out as soon as Regular units are available to relieve the units in which, they are now serving.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it do any harm for the War Office to make a public announcement as to what regiments are going to Silesia, Dantzig, and Denmark, in view of the fact that we all have an enormous number of complaints from soldiers who have been ordered to those areas?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will willingly consult with my right hon. Friend to see if anything of the kind can be done.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for War what has been the cost of the Army of Occupation in Germany, and of the British forces in French and Belgian territory, from the beginning of the current financial year to the latest available date?
    Mr. FORSTER: Roughly estimated, the costs from the 1st April to 31st October last are:—

    Army of Occupation in Germany

    £28,000,000

    British Forces in France and Belgium

    £44,000,000

    Sir F. HALL: Is it necessary that we should keep so many men in France at the present time?
    Mr. FORSTER: We are doing our best to demobilise them.
    Sir F. HALL: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the enormous amount of money that is being expended in France, considering that the whole of the operations are finished? Will every step be taken to expedite the demobilisation?
    Mr. FORSTER: Of course we realise that, but the House must remember that you cannot demobilise an Army of the gigantic size which we had at the conclusion of hostilities in a few months. As I explained the other day, the expenditure cannot be terminated at once. You are bound to feed, pay, and house the men.

    ROYAL ENGINEER SIGNALLERS (TERMS OF SERVICE).
    Mr. TOOTILLasked the Secretary of State for War whether Royal Engineer signallers who were with their draft at Tortona, near Genoa, had pressure brought to bear upon them to extend their term of military service; whether this pressure was exerted about mid-September; whether those men who declined to extend the period of their enlistment were sent to Budapest, Hungary, before the end of that month; whether the compulsory transfer is a punishment for their refusal to continue their military service; and what bearing their removal has upon the official promises?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am informed that no pressure was brought to bear upon any men to extend their term of military service. Three men were sent to Budapest, of whom one was a volunteer, while the other two were ineligible for demobilisation and had been given leave during the previous six months. There is no basis whatever for the suggestion that these men were sent to Budapest as a punishment for refusal to continue their military service.

    ARMY (COMMISSIONS).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for War what is the number of commissions in the Regular Army which, during the six months ended 30th September, 1919, have been given to men who served during the late War and who have not passed through Woolwhich or Sandhurst; what is the number which have gone to Woolwich and Sandhurst as cadets; and whether, in view of the value of the training and experience which has been gained by those who took part in the War, and the importance of securing employment for those who have no other occupation and who wish to take up the Army as a career, he will arrange for ex-Service men to be given a preference in granting further commissions?
    Mr. FORSTER: The answer is rather too long to read, and, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the statement referred to:
    The following permanent commissions in the Regular Army have been given during the period stated:

    To men who served during the late War, and who have not passed through Woolwich or Sandhurst.

    Four commissions have been given from the ranks.

    Commissions in these cases have been approved, but, owing to the individuals having been prisoners of war, appointment was delayed until the circumstances of capture were proved satisfactory.

    Four commissions have been awarded to non-Regular officers. Of these, two who were recommended some time before the Armistice were wounded before "Gazette" action could be carried out, and it was necessary to delay appointment until they were passed fit by medical board. The other two cases were prisoners of war, whose appointment was delayed until the circumstances of capture were proved satisfactory.

    Three commissions have also been awarded in the Household Cavalry. These are special nominations.

    The grant of permanent Regular commissions to non-Regular officers was, with the exception stated, suspended on the declaration of the Armistice, and, though the question has received very close attention, no definite policy can be laid down until the future organisation and strength of the after-war Army is determined.
    The following commissions have been awarded to cadets:

    (a) From the Royal Military Academy 70

    (b) From the Royal Military College … 159 These numbers represent approximately 25 per cent, less than the output from these establishments prior to the War.

    The valuable training of the many officers not holding permanent commissions in the Regular Army who have been registered for such commissions is fully realised, but, as stated in my written reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Abing-don on 27th October last, of the officers at

    221
    present serving in the Regular Army 4,500 at the lowest estimate are surplus to establishments.
    It will be seen, therefore, that at this stage it is not possible to foreshadow what number, if any, of further permanent commissions can be awarded, though it is most probable that the necessity will arise for granting a certain number of Regular commissions in Technical Services, such as the Tank Corps, Machine Gun Corps, Royal Army Ordnance Department, and technical Royal Engineer Services.

    BASE COMMAND, BOULOGNE (ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF).
    Captain R. TERRELLasked the Secretary of State for War whether the base commandant at Boulogne is occupying either in whole or in part a large hotel in the town for office purposes; and, if so, will he give its name, the rent paid, and the date at which it will be returned to its proper uses?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Princess Hotel, Boulogne, accommodates the large number of different Military and Disposals Departments necessary for the administration of Boulogne and the Boulogne district, which covers an area of approximately 1,000 square miles. I am informed that at the outbreak of War the hotel was barely completed, and had never been finished or occupied. It was hired by the War Department in November, 1914, and used as a hospital until February, 1919. The terms of lease allow for indefinite occupation with a month's notice at War Department option. The rent is 7,000 francs a month. Prior to February, 1919, the offices, now accommodated in the hotel, were scattered in some twelve hired buildings about the town, and this involved serious administrative disadvantages and the employment of a large additional number of personnel. The French authorities were also pressing for as many hired buildings as possible to be given up for reoccupation by their owners. The hotel will be surrendered next month, when demobilisation will be further advanced, and the Base Headquarters and Ministry of Munitions Disposals Staff will then occupy a camp which is to be vacated by troops this month.
    Sir F. HALL: How many members of the staff are housed at this hotel?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot give the numbers of individual staffs, but if my hon. and gallant Friend wishes I will make inquiries.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Is it necessary to keep on this hotel, which, I think, from the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gives, costs about £3,400 a year in rent alone?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have tried to explain to my hon. and gallant Friend that you cannot administer a district of 1,000 square miles without a considerable staff. There is, in addition to the military staff, the staff of the Ministry of Munitions Disposal Board; they are accommodated together. I hope we shall be able to close the whole thing down at the end of the month.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL COUPS (NORTH PERSIA).
    Major Sir KEITH FRASERasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that many 1915 men, including A/Sergeant R. W. Gee, No. 73128, Royal Army Medical Corps, are still with the North Persian Forces at Kasvin; and will he expedite their return home?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Army Order 243 of 1919, as supplemented by Army Order 264 of 1919, authorised the dispatch from their stations overseas by the 28th August, 1919, of all demobilisable men enlisted in 1915, but this was subject to the necessary transport being available. Every endeavour is being made to expedite the dispatch of demobilisable men who, owing to lack of transport, have been retained in theatres overseas, and it is hoped that all such men will arrive home at an early date.

    BOYS UNDER NINETEEN.
    Major ENTWISTLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether boys who joined the forces under the age of nineteen years are treated, for the purposes of demobilisation, as conscripts; and whether he will consider the desirability of treating them as favourably as men who attested under the Derby scheme and joined the Colours after July, 1916?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Boys under nineteen years of age are released according to their class, i.e, as conscripts or volunteers,

    223
    as the case may be. With regard to the later part of the question, I regret that special treatment otherwise than as laid down in current instructions cannot be accorded to them.

    ROYAL ARMY SERVICE CORPS (EGYPT).
    Major O'NEILLasked the Secretary of State for War whether Private James Warwick Thomson, No. 180122, 1032nd Company, Royal Army Service Corps (Mechanical Transport), is still serving in the East; and how soon this voluntarily-enlisted soldier will be demobilised?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that Private Thomson was demobilised at Prees Heath on 25th October last.

    ARMY EDUCATION.
    Major GLYNasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the absolute necessity of establishing a first-class system of education in the Army, he can state what steps have been taken to carry out the proposals stated on the introduction of the Army Estimates; how much money is to be devoted to this object as an annual charge; and what inducements are being offered to attract the best men to become Army school-masters?
    Major McKENZIE WOODasked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to the prevention of waste arising out of the existence of both the old Army school system and the new Army educational training scheme side by side, he will expedite the decision regarding the permanent personnel for Army education?
    Mr. FORSTER:It is recognised that the existence of the old Army school system and the new educational training system for the Army side by side is unsatisfactory and must be terminated as soon as possible by the formation of a single body, unifying and retaining the best features of both, and I hope to be in a, position to make a statement shortly.
    Major WOOD: Have we not had the same answer for six months? When shall we get a definite answer on this point?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have just said I hope to be able to make a statement shortly. I am afraid I cannot name a precise date.

    ALDERSHOT FIELD STORES (DISCHARGES OF WOMEN).
    Mr. J. JONESasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that women employed by field stores, Aldershot, including women employed there before the War, are being discharged; whether, in view of the buildings which have been erected at Alder-shot, he can state the reason for the work being transferred elsewhere; and whether he will have inquiries made with a view to obviating these discharges?
    Mr. FORSTER: The women referred to are employed on the overhaul and repair of tentage blankets, clothing, and textile stores. This work is now greatly diminished, and, in the interests of economy, reductions in establishments are naturally being made in consequence. The buildings at Aldershot which are being vacated are required for the storage of mobilisation equipment. No women who were employed at the field stores, Aldershot, before the War are being discharged at present except at their own request.

    WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS DEPARTMENT (MARRIED WOMEN).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for War if any married women are now employed in the Contracts Department of the War Office who are not necessarily dependent for their means of livelihood wholly or in part upon their earnings from such employment; and, if so, will he take steps to discharge such persons and to fill the positions with ex-Service men, in view of the number of them still without employment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): I have been asked to reply, as the Army Contracts Department has been transferred to the Ministry of Munitions. There are no married women employed in the Department in question who are not dependent, wholly or mainly, upon their earnings therein. The whole question of the employment of ex-Service men is engaging the earnest attention of the Minister, and steps have already been taken to dispense with the service in other Departments of the Ministry of married women not dependent upon their official

    225
    earnings, and to replace them, where necessary, with ex-Service men, preference being given to disabled men and others who have served overseas.

    INDIAN ARMY OFFICER (PRISONERS OF WAR PAY).
    Colonel YATEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why officers of the Indian Army who were taken prisoners of war should be treated differently from officers of the British Army and deprived of half their staff pay after the expiry of the first two months; and, considering that these officers are being deprived of the pay they are entitled to, will he cause the present orders on the subject to be modified?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. and gallant Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. These officers have received the full benefits to which they are entitled under the Regulations of their service, the effect of which, in comparison with British Regulations, was described in the answer on this subject given to the hon. and gallant Member for Honiton on 6th March last.
    Colonel YATE: What Regulation is there in the Indian Army Regulations that puts a man on half-staff salary after he has been two months a prisoner of war?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think my hon. and gallant Friend, if He will refer to the answer I have given, will find the reason stated there.

    POLICE CONSTABLES (RETIRED) PENSIONS.
    Colonel BURNasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any decision has been arrived at as to granting an increase to the pensions of the retired police constables to enable them to meet the present-day prices of the necessaries of life?
    Mr. A. T. DAVIESasked whether it is proposed to increase the pensions of ex-members of the police force who retired previously to August, 1914; and what measures have been taken to secure this?
    Major ENTWISTLEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a sergeant of the police force who retired in February last, and who had been detained two and a quarter years over his time through the War, is only receiving a pension of £2 Os. 1¼d. per week, whereas a sergeant who retired two months later with only twenty-six years' service will, under the new rates of pension, receive £3 15s. per week; and whether he proposes to take any steps to remedy this state of affairs, and particularly to make the increased rates in the pensions retrospective as regards men who served throughout the War?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The amount of the pension depends on the officer's pay at the date of his retire-ment, and cannot be increased beyond the proportion fixed by the Police Act, 1890, without alteration of the law. As I have already explained, the hardship from which police pensioners suffer owing to the rise of prices is shared by other pensioners and by all persons with small fixed incomes, and I am sorry that I cannot propose legislation for their relief.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that these pensions were granted with the idea or intention that for the work these men had done for the State they should be able to receive sufficient properly to house, clothe and feed them?
    Mr. SHORTT: Yes, and I believe that applies to all pensioners.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the value of these pensions having been depreciated by at least 50 per cent., these people are not in the position now to be properly housed, fed and clothed, and will he consider whether some provision could not be made to bring them up to the present level?
    Mr. SHORTT: That has all been considered.
    Mr. BILLING: Is it not a fact that a number of these pensioners were called out for special service during the War, and has the adjustment been made in this case to men who have served since 1914?
    Mr. SHORTT: That is part of the law which has been considered. We are bound by the law in that respect.

  ALIENS.

    RESUMPTION OF BUSINESS.
    Mr. GRATTAN DOYLEasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the widespread dissatisfaction at the fact that numbers of enemy aliens who have been interned since the commencement of the War have been allowed to resume their businesses in this country; and if he will state how many enemy aliens have been repatriated and how many have been allowed to resume their pre-war activities here?
    Mr. SHORTT: I think that any dissatisfaction there may be of the nature indicated in the first paragraph of the question is largely due to exaggeration or misunderstanding of the facts. There were at one time 32,200 alien enemies interned; at the date of the Armistice the number was reduced to 24,450. Of these, some 3,800 were after examination by Lord Justice Younger's Committee, exempted from repatriation and allowed to remain in this country. The rest, except a few who are now Poles or other alien friends, have been repatriated.

    AUSTBIAN SUBJECT.
    Lord HENRY-CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Home Secretary whether he will state the specific charges on which Jacob Milgrom, a Polish subject who has resided in England for thirty-two years and is married to an English lady, was arrested on 31st March and deported on 8th April?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am not aware that this' man is entitled to call himself a Polish subject. He was registered here as an. Austrian and was removed from this country as being an alien enemy. The rule is that alien enemies should be repatriated unless special reason can be shown to the contrary. I considered his case carefully, and could find nothing that he had done during the War and nothing in his general character that justified his being allowed to remain.

    EXEMPTION CLAIMS.
    Mr. REIDasked the Home Secretary what is the estimated cost of examining the claims for exemption from deportation of enemy aliens whose cases have not been considered by any advisory committee appointed after 1st January. 1918; whether it will be necessary to re-
    228
    tain or engage any temporary staff for that purpose; and, if so, the number of such staff and during what period its services will be required?
    Mr. SHORTT: I understand that this question relates to the proceedings contemplated by Clause 8 of the Aliens Restriction Bill. They will involve the engagement of a special staff for the new advisory committee of at least twenty-five persons for a period which cannot be less than six months. For that period, and assuming that all the members of the committee act without remuneration, the cost of the proceediings is estimated at £15,000 or upwards. This figure does not cover accommodation for the committee and its staff or the expenses of police and other authorities outside the Home Office, which I am unable to estimate.
    Major O'NEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if this Committee does its work thoroughly satisfactorily it will take at least two years to complete it?
    Mr. SHORTT: I hope my estimate is not so hopelessly wrong as that suggests.

    MISS DORA KOSTICH.
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that Miss Dora Kostich, who has been informed by the immigration officer that unless she is married within four weeks she will be deported, belongs to a good Serbian family and has a sister studying medicine at Belgrade university; that she is not impecunious but is employed in a good situation, receiving good wages, and resides with respectable people; and that she did not come to this country to be married but to secure for herself better economic conditions of life in this country; and whether, seeing that she is not an enemy alien, the threat of deportation will be removed and the girl allowed to remain in this country without the necessity of marrying to secure that privilege?
    Mr. SHORTT: There has been no threat of deportation in this case. Miss Kostich stated on her arrival in this country that her object in coming here was to marry an English soldier, whose name and rank she gave, and that she was proceeding to his mother's address. She was given leave to land on condition that within one month she produced to the proper authorities evidence that the marriage had taken place. When the month expired

    229
    without the production of that evidence, the lady's right to remain in this country ceased, but on evidence that she had obtained work here, and was maintaining herself in respectable surroundings, it was decided not to enforce her obligation to leave the country. While there is no question of Miss Kostich's good faith, it is clearly necessary to take precautions to prevent foreign women from gaining admission to this country on the pretence of marrying soldiers.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it the policy to subject Allies and friendly Allied women to this sort of treatment? What right have we to keep out Serbians or any other Allied women from this country if they are respectable?
    Mr. SHORTT: We have the right to control our own immigration.
    Mr. JONES: Why not control the Shah of Persia with his retinue of wives, when he came over? [After a pause.] Cannot I have an answer? There were twenty ladies accompanying the Shah, and we all know what they were doing here!

    POLICE (BAIL INQUIRIES).
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Home Secretary whether it is the custom of the police, when inquiring as to the status of persons offering themselves as bail, to send men in uniform to the private residences of such persons; and, if so, whether he will takes steps to protect law-abiding citizens from the annoyance caused by this practice by the employment in future of plain-clothes men?
    Mr. SHORTT: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative; to the second in the negative. I have no reason to think that the uniform is a cause of annoyance; on the contrary, it serves as a safeguard against deception, and an assurance that the inquiry is being made by proper authority, and is not a mere impertinence.

    PARLIAMENTARY UNIVERSITIES GRANT (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland how much money out of the new Parliamentary Universities Grant is being devoted to
    230
    increasing the salaries of theological professors in the case of Glasgow and St. Andrews Universities; whether he has reversed the policy which has been in force with regard to all previous Parliamentary Grants of prohibiting the use of any portion of these Grants for payment of salaries to theological professors; and whether it is proposed to make Grants of public money to increase the salaries of theological professors other than those of the Church of Scotland?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): In reply to the first part of the question, I am informed that in respect of the current financial year the figures are, Glasgow £1,279, and St. Andrews £350. As regards policy, I am not aware that any policy has been laid down except in the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, in relation to new Parliamentary Grants under that Act. I feel, however, in agreement with my hon. Friend, that it would be desirable that the spirit of the provision in the Act of 1889 should be observed in the administration by the universities of similar Parliamentary Grants. In reply to the last part of the question, I understand that future Grants will be made on recommendations from the recently-appointed University Grants Committee, which I am unable to anticipate.

    VATICAN (BBITISH MISSION).
    Sir SAMUEL HOAREasked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet have decided to continue or discontinue the British Mission to the Vatican?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject.

    MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (COSTINGS BRANCH).
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Prime Minister whether the successful work of the technical costings branch of the Ministry of Munitions has been brought to his notice; and whether, in view of the fact that £300,000.000 was saved to the nation in Government contracts during the War at the small cost of £75,000, he will take steps to continue and extend the work of the said Committee in relation to all future

    231
    Government contracts, and thus assist in furthering the work of national economy in all Government Departments?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are considering the best way of making use in future Government purchases of the experience gained during the War.

    EMPLOYMENT FOR DISABLED MEN.

      MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
      Mr. GRUNDYasked the Prime Minister whether he will advise the various Government Departments to refrain from giving any further contracts to firms who have failed to employ a percentage of disabled men, as requested in the Royal Proclamation?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is at present carefully considering the whole question, with a view, if need be, to submitting proposals to the House in the near future; but it is necessary to give employers a reasonable time to make arrangements for absorbing the requisite percentage of disabled men.
      Mr. GRUNDY: Are the Government Departments themselves carrying out the request of the King's Proclamation and employing their percentage of disabled men?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe so; they certainly ought to. If my hon. Friend will put down a question to the Minister of Labour, he will get a definite answer.
      Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman make the appeal stronger still by firms being allowed to stamp their business paper to that effect; then we should be able to discriminate between those who do and those who do not employ these men?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe that is already being done.

    COAL PRODUCTION (STOKE-ON-TRENT).
    Mr. FINNEYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to complaints made by ratepayers of the county borough of Stoke-on-Trent, and also by the council of the borough,
    232
    respecting the way that the Coal Controller's Department has disregarded their repeated applications for proper supplies of suitable coals for their gas and electricity works; whether he is aware that the quantity has been seriously reduced: that the supplies they had arranged to receive from local collieries have been diverted and taken elsewhere out of the district; that inferior coals have been brought all the way from Durham at an extra charge of 8s. 3d. per ton; and that this coal from Durham has been tested and proved much inferior and, for gas and by-product-making purposes, shows a further loss of 15s. 11d. per ton, making a proved loss of £l 4s. 2d. per ton; whether he is aware that the corporation is not allowed to purchase coals direct from the collieries and that the coals are supplied through agents appointed by the Coal Controller's Department, which entails a further loss to make profits for middlemen; whether he is aware that Stoke-on-Trent is a purely industrial community, already heavily rated, and that the loss due to the bad arrangements indicated above add to the burden of the rates and is causing discontent and unrest; and; whether he can arrange for the corporation to obtain their coal supplies front I cal collieries as before?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend's attention has been called to complaints with regard to supplies of coal for the Stoke-on-Trent Gas and Electricity Works, but I understand that both works are receiving supplies su cient to meet their requirements. I explained in reply to a question by the hon. Member on Tuesday last why it has been necessary to send occasional consignments of Durham coal to meet emergencies created by the insufficient output from local pits. I cannot, however, accept the statements made as to the inferiority of Durham coal. I may add that it has recent'y been possble to restore a substantial quantity of local coal to the Stoke-on-Trent Electricity Works, and that the engineer has expressed satisfaction with the efforts which have been made to assist the undertaking. It is not the fact that the undertakings are required by the Coal Controller to purchase coal through middlemen, but I understand that certain of the fuel for the electricity works passes, through a wasbery belonging to a firm which also acts as a firm of coal factors.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: When is this practice of going to Durham to get coal when there is quite as good coal, or Letter, in Staffordshire going to cease? And when is the Coal Controller going to cease to interfere with natural supplies?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The whole matter is kept under consideration. If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the answer given on Tuesday last he will there see the reasons actuating the Controller's actions.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is this a sample of the efficiency of the Coal Controller?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We must get coal from somewhere.

    CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS. (ASSESSMENT OF WAR PERIOD).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he is now prepared to recommend that all time served in the. War in any of the fighting services shall count towards assessment of Civil Service pension in the case of demobilised men who enlisted voluntarily and who have returned to their Civil Service appointments?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am not sure that I understand the meaning of the hon. and gallant Member's question. If it relates to pensionable Civil servants who, during the War, enlisted without permission from their Departments but who have nevertheless been reinstated, I know of no such case in which the period of service in the forces has not been allowed to count towards civil pension.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Would those, then, who enlisted voluntarily, with the approval of their Department, also be allowed to count?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Certainly.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      WHEAT (PRICES).
      Mr. LAMBERTasked the Food Controller what is the price paid to the growers of wheat in the United States and in Canada by the purchasers on behalf of the British Government; and what is the price paid to the British growers of wheat?
      The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): The British Government buys wheat in the United States of America and in Canada from the agents of the Government of the exporting country at prices covering delivery at the seaboard. The prices paid in the United States are based on the guarantee in respect of the 1919 crop given by the, United States Government, and although it is not possible to state precisely the sum which the individual producer receives it is believed that it averages for the whole country 2 dollars per bushel; which at the rate of exchange prevailing when the guarantee was given is equivalent to 67s. 2d. per 480 Ibs.
      The Canadian Government has guaranteed to its farmers a minimum price for the 1919 crop, and it is understood that the present seaboard prices secure for Canadian producers an average return approximately equal to that received by American producers.
      The British Government have guaranteed for the 1919 home crop a minimum average of 71s. 11d. per 480 Ibs., while the average price to-day as published in the "London Gazette" is 73s. Id.

    TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION.

      POTTERY INDUSTRY, STOKE-ON-TRENT.
      Mr. FINNEYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the great inconvenience and loss which is occurring in the pottery industry, Stoke-on-Trent, owing to a serious shortage of ball clay consequent upon the failure of the Ministry of Transport to provide transport facilities; whether he is aware that the clay is loaded into trucks at Newton Abbot and forwarded to Gloucester, where it is unloaded and then loaded again into small boats and forwarded by canal to its destination; that this method of transport cannot keep the factories supplied with clay; that the factories in consequence of the delay are being compelled to suspend operations, one important factory having already done so; whether he can say that the workpeople who are thrown out of employment for want of clay will be entitled to out-of-work donation; whether he is aware that the Ministry of Transport admit their failure to provide adequate railway transport facilities, although the railways are under the con-

      235
      trol of the Government and Minister of Transport; and whether any steps can be devised for meeting this difficulty?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Sir Rhys Williams): I have been asked to reply to this question. As I informed the hon. Member on the 4th November, I am aware that ball clay from Newton Abbot to Stoke-on-Trent is being conveyed by rail from the former place to Gloucester, and is then being forwarded to its destination by water. In existing circumstances it is to the general interest that wherever possible traffic should be conveyed by water, and I am not prepared to agree that the ball clay should be carried by rail the whole distance. If that course were adopted the additional wagons necessary could only be provided at the expense of other commodities, since the total wagons available are insufficient to meet demands under present circumstances. I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who informs me that probably the workpeople thrown out of employment for the reasons stated in the question would be entitled to the out-of-work donation, but the decision in each case must necessarily depend on the particular circumstances.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: If there is this shortage of !wagons cannot any of the wagons employed to bring coal from Durham to Staffordshire be employed to bring the clay from Gloucester?

  HOUSING.

    MILITARY AND MUNITION CAMPS.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the number of military and munition camps with comfortable and roomy hutments provided with electric lighting, gas and heating, water and drainage, play centres, and halls, and in most cases convenient to centres of industry, and the number of returned soldiers who have no houses for themselves and their families and would gladly now reside in these camps in preference to having the prospect of residing in subvented houses which will take long to materialise; that, notwithstanding these facts, the War Office persists in pulling down these camps, as does also the
    236
    Ministry of Munitions; and whether lie will supersede the War Office and the Ministry of Munitions in reference to these camps and put the housing authority in control of them, and so prevent the waste of national resources and find homes for the soldiers?
    Dr. ADDISON: Arrangements have been made whereby all huts and hostels which are no longer required by the Government Departments who have been in occupation during the "War, are held at the disposal of the Minister of Health, for housing purposes. Up to the present 961 huts and 26 hostels have been taken over by local authorities, and 536 huts in addition have been offered to local authorities. It is anticipated that these huts and hostels will provide accommodation for nearly 2,500 families.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that something like 300 of these camps, together with the huts, are being pulled down and taken away, and perhaps they never will be re-erected?
    Dr. ADDISON: I shall be much obliged if my hon. Friend will give me the cases he has in mind.

    STATE SUBSIDIES.
    Sir PHILIP PILDITCHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the estimated annual cost to the Imperial Exchequer of the housing subsidy agreed to be made by the State under the Housing Act of this year for each of the seven years contemplated under the Act and subsequently; whether he can similarly inform the House as to what the annual cost of the portion of the loss to be borne by the local authorities throughout the country is estimated at; if he is in a position to inform the House what amount of capital it is estimated that the local authorities will require to raise in order to carry out the provisions of the Act; and has he been made aware that many local authorities, large and small, are finding great difficulty in raising the money on the market?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the White Papers presented to the House in connection with the Housing Acts and to the estimate of £10,000,000 recently given as the probable cost of the housing subsidies in a normal year. Sufficient progress has not yet been made by local authorities to enable an accurate estimate to be made of the amount of the

    237
    subsidy or the charge on rates in each of the next seven years. I am aware that some local authorities find difficulty in raising money in the market, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently appointed a Committee to consider what steps can be taken to assist them to do so.
    Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that municipalities find it impossible to build houses at anything like an economic rent, and what steps are the Government prepared to take to assist them to do so?
    Major LANE-FOX: Have any of these authorities applied for or received a subsidy?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot answer that question without notice, but it should be addressed to the Minister of Health.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many houses have been built or how many are in process of being built? [An HON. MEMBER: "Two!"]
    Dr. ADDISON: I have answered that question four or five times. The other question as to the camps I will go into.
    Mr. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer is simple. Until the houses are built and it is ascertained what the cost has been you cannot say what the economic rent will be or whether the conditions when the rent is fixed will enable it to be paid.
    Mr. JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on the plans now being prepared we cannot build houses at a rent that ordinary workmen can afford to pay? Can I have an answer to my question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is rather hasty, and if his question is so important he should take the trouble to put it down on the Paper.
    Mr. JONES: Then I should find it is too late.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is very difficult to answer such questions, which are rather elaborate when they are put in this way, because they require consideration.
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, under these circum-
    238
    stances, you are prepared to rule that it shall not be in order for hon. Members to ask questions on behalf of other hon. Members who are not present? Many questions have been asked in this way today. The result is that a number of hon. Members who are present will find that their questions which are on the Paper will not be reached, and I wish to know if hon. Members do not take the trouble to attend and put their questions, should those questions be answered?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not really arise now, but I may state that the general rule is that hon. Members are not entitled to ask questions standing in the name of other hon. Members unless they have obtained their consent to ask them.
    Sir P. PILDITCH: Is it suggested that the sum mentioned is anything like an accurate one in view of the immense rise in the cost of building?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Of course, it is only an estimate, but I see no reason at present to depart from it.
    Mr. IRVING: Although this is a question which should have been put on the Paper, I think it is one which ought to have been in the mind of the Government, because it is apparent to every local authority that you cannot possibly build houses at economic rents, and I want to know what the Department has done in the way of trying to meet that difficulty which they know exists as well as we do?
    Dr. ADDISON: The matter has already been explained at great length to the House. I have issued regulations on the subject, and I will send the hon. Member a copy.

    BUDGET (DEFICIT).
    Mr. CHADWICKasked whether further borrowings will be necessary to meet the expected Budget deficit?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I will ask the hon. Member to refer to the explanation which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on this point in the course of the speech to the hon. and gallant Member for Norwich on the second day of the recent Financial Debate, where he will find the position clearly set forth.

    WAR LOAN ISSUES.
    Mr. CHADWICKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered, or is proposing to consider, the consolidation of existing War Loan issues; whether he is aware if France is now contemplating such a policy; and if he could explain the method by which such a consolidation would be effected?
    Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend does not think consolidation is at present either practicable or desirable. He has no special information as regards the intentions of the French Government.

    PREMIUM BONDS.
    Mr. CHADWICKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is able to state the chief features of the proposed French lottery loans; and whether he is able to say which of the Great Powers have adopted the principle of Premium Bonds or lottery loans for State purposes?
    Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend believes that the scheme for a French Lottery Loan has not yet been approved by the Government, but the scheme suggested was for an issue in 500 franc bonds, repayable without interest by drawings spread over twenty years. Every bond would be repaid at least at par, and those holders who gain prizes would receive sums varying from 1,000 to 1,250,000 francs. The prizes, taken as a whole, would be actuarially equivalent to about 3 per cent, on the capital.
    M. Lefevre, who made the proposal, put the amount of the issue at 60 milliards of francs, and the expenses of the issue at 10 per cent. The Budget Commission put it at 20 to 25 milliards, and the expenses at 2 to 2½ per cent. Particulars of former issues of Premium Bonds in different countries are to be found in the evidence given before the Select Committee of last year.
    So far as my right hon. Friend knows, no Great Power has had a State Lottery Loan in recent years, but he believes that proposals for such a Loan have been made in Germany.
    Mr. CHADWICK: Can the hon. Gentleman say when this House is to have an opportunity of discussing the whole question of Premium Bonds?
    Mr. BALDWIN: That question should be addressed to the Leader of the House.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is he aware that a similar proposal is being made in France at the present moment for Premium Bonds?
    Mr. BILLING: Is the cost of raising money in this way more or less than the cost of raising it through Treasury Loans in the ordinary way?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. J. JONES: Does the hon. Gentleman not think Derby Day would be a suitable day for discussing this question?
    Mr. BALDWIN: That is a Question for the House.
    Mr. JONES: Can I have an answer to my question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of his question.

    AMESBURY FARM SETTLEMENT.
    Mr. HUGH MORRISONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what sum, giving the various items, was paid to Mr. Allan Young, formerly of Watergate Farm, Bulford, for the purchase of his interests in that district; what will be the initial cost of establishing a small-holdings farm colony there; what is the estimated annual cost; and how many officials have been appointed and what are their salaries?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The Board acquired Mr. Allan Young's interest in his freehold and leasehold properties at Amesbury, Bulford and Durrington, for a perpetual rent-charge of £l,375 and a cash payment of £7,500. The initial cost of establishing the Amesbury Farm Settlement, which comprises 2,359 acres, is estimated at £30,000 farming capital and £35,000 for the erection of thirty-five houses and the provision of roads and other equipment. As regards the estimated annual cost, the settlement is expected to be self-supporting. The only officers appointed, or expected to be appointed, in connection with the settlement are the Director (who receives a salary of £700 per annum for managing this settlement and another at

    241
    Berwick St. James, eight miles distant), and an Assistant Director, who receives £350 per annum.

    SMALL HOLDINGS FOR EX-SOLDIERS, WILTSHIRE.
    Mr. HUGH MORRISONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what steps the Board propose to take to provide small holdings for the large number of ex-soldier applicants in the villages of Bulford and Sunnington; and why the Board did not consult either the chairman of the Wiltshire County Council on the small holdings committee, in accordance with Section I of the Small Holdings Colonies (Amendment) Act, 1918, before they decided to start a small holdings colony in the district?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is primarily the duty of the Wiltshire County Council (of the Small Holdings Committee of which my hon. Friend is Chairman) to acquire land for their local applicants, although, as has already been intimated to the Committee, the Board are prepared to accept for their Farm Settlement at Amesbury any local ex-Service men who are suitable for the holdings available. With regard to the latter part of the question, I am informed that at the vendor's express wish the officers of the Board regarded the early negotiations for the purchase of this land as strictly confidential. At a later stage, however, and before the purchase was completed, the matter was discussed with members of the Wiltshire Small Holdings Committee, but I regret to find that in this particular case it was not brought before the Committee formally.

    AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES (SECURITY).
    Captain FITZROYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to statements which have lately appeared in the Press regarding the proposals which the Government are prepared to make on the subject of security of tenure to the effect that the farmer should be secured in his tenancy unless the land is sold for public purposes or he is a bad cultivator accurately represents the policy of the Government on this question?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The statements to which my hon. and gallant Friend draws attention do not accurately represent the proposals which the Government are prepared to make on the subject of security of tenure. The whole question is now under consideration, but I am not in a position to make any positive announcement of policy at the present moment.

    COLONIAL SERVICE (APPOINTMENTS ABROAD).
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the Colonial Office service abroad is to a large extent manned by gentlemen who have to pass a qualifying examination entailing a stiff educational test, he will say whether on entering the service there is an implied understanding that such officers have open to them the senior appointments in the Colonial service as they fall vacant; if not, will he arrange that all candidates are so informed before becoming engulfed in a service with little or no outlook; and will he say how many Governors and Administrators are now serving under the Colonial Office, and how many of these gentlemen have entered the service through competitive examination?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): The Civil Services of Ceylon, the Straits Settlements and Malay States and Hong Kong are largely staffed by cadets selected by open competitive examination. With certain exceptions, which include the Governorships and Colonial Secretaryships, the senior posts in these Dependencies are filled by selection from the cadet officers. There is no other implied understanding as regards the prospects of these officers; and in Lord Milner's opinion, and that of previous Secretaries of State, it would not be possible, without grave injustice to officers of the still larger services of other Colonies, and without unduly narrowing the field of selection, to lay it down that these officers, who have good prospects in the Civil Services of their own Colonies, should also have a preferential claim to Governorships and similar senior appointments, there and elsewhere. Apart from the self-governing Dominions and three Military Governorships, the number of

    243
    Governorships and Administratorships in the Colonial Service may be stated as thirty-five, some of which, of course, would afford no financial advantage to officers from the Eastern Colonies. Four of these posts, namely, the Governorships of Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Leeward Islands, and Weihaiwei, are filled by officers who originally entered the public service as junior officers in the Eastern Dependencies. Of the remaining thirty-one, twenty-five are held by officers who have been selected from other branches of the Colonial Service outside the Eastern Dependencies referred to.
    Mr. STEWART: Am I to gather that officers from the Eastern Service arc ruled out for other Service appointments outside?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I said that four Governorships outside, including Governorships of such importance as Nigeria and Sierra Leone, are held by officers who originally entered the Service in the Eastern Colonies.
    Mr. STEWART: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the very small percentage of the number of appointments is a great discouragement to these officers.

    GOVERNMENT OFFICES (ACCOMMODATION).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOAREasked the First Commissioner of Works what progress has been made with the scheme for accommodating Government offices in the outer districts of the Metropolitan area?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): Such accommodation is being provided for 10,800 persons at Acton, Earl's Court and the Alexandra Palace, and the works are being proceeded with as rapidly as possible. At Acton sufficient progress has been made to house, almost immediately, about 1,000 persons. The works at Earl's Court are in a very advanced state, and a staff of nearly 400 has already been transferred. Accommodation for 750 persons has already been completed at the Alexandra Palace, and they will be moved in directly the Post Office telephone installation, which is nearly ready, is in working order.
    Captain R. TERRELL: Is it the fact that a large number of private houses are
    244
    at present occupied by Government Departments, which could be housed in the outer district?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the question on the Paper.
    Sir S. HOAREasked when it is proposed to remove the temporary buildings at Burton Court, Chelsea, and to restore the site to its former condition?
    Sir A. MOND: As these buildings are still required for the use of the Ministry of Pensions, and in view of the heavy expenditure which has been incurred in their erection and of the impossibility of finding other accommodation of sufficient size, I regret that it is impossible at present to give any date as to when the buildings will be removed.
    Sir S. HOARE: In view of the unsatisfactory character of that answer, I give notice that I will raise the question on the Adjournment on Monday next.
    Sir S. SCOTTasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is yet in a position to state a date upon which the St. Marylebone Town Hall will he handed back to the borough council?
    Sir A. MOND: The removal of the Ministry of Pensions staff from St. Marylebone Town Hall has already been commenced, and will be completed before the end of next week when vacant possession will be given to the St. Marylebone Borough Council.

  AIR MINISTRY.

    MAJOR-GENERAL SEELY.
    MR. BILLING: Have the Government received the resignation of the-Secretary of State for Air? Have any reasons been given for it, and, if so, what? And has the resignation been accepted?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would rather not make any statement to the House on this subject. It is possible the hon. Member's information is right. If so, I would rather the statement was made by the Undersecretary for Air himself.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ADAMSON: Will the Leader of the House state what the business will be on Thursday, and whether the House is to sit on Friday?
Mr. BONAR LAW: The business on Thursday will be report of the Aliens Bill, and other orders. We do not think it will be necessary to ask the House to sit on Friday.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  SIR SAMUEL ROBEKTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. Pretyman.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (COUNCILS, ETC.) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The Bill to which I am asking the House to give a Second Heading is really what I may call a machinery Bill. The question of agricultural policy, about which, I hope an announcement will be made later, does not arise on this Bill, which is really a machinery Bill, the object of which is to improve the organisation of the State for assisting agriculture—our oldest and greatest industry—and for the general reestablishment of rural life. It is perfectly true that for years and years agriculture was neglected by this House and by the country generally. Farmers were allowed to go as they pleased, or not to go at all except in the sense of leaving their holdings, and the general attitude of the country was that so long as we bought a sufficient amount of imported food from abroad it really did not matter whether the country went out of cultivation or not. We all know that for a long period agriculture was in a very poor condition, and we have heard of the terrible time in the 'eighties and nineties when so many farmers had to give up their holdings, and we know, too, that a general attitude of neglect was characteristic towards agriculture throughout the whole country.? Now the War has altered all that. We learned from the War the necessity of maintaining cultivation at home. We learned the great danger of being so entirely dependent as we wore on the foreign importation of food, and we appealed to the farmers, with a wonderful response, and for the first time for many years agriculture obtained that recognition that it ought always to have had at the hands of the State. Now there is a danger, as the immediate submarine menace is over, that agriculture may be allowed to slip back again, but, having regard especially to the difficulties of our foreign exchanges, to the importance of producing as much as we can at home in the way of food products and everything
  268
  else, to the fact that we are now importing vast amounts of food which could be produced at home, we realise still, as we did in the War, the importance of assisting agriculture.
  The attitude of neglect which characterised the country as a whole towards agriculture reflected itself in the constitution of the Board of Agriculture when originally established. It was not regarded as a very important Department, It, was largely regarded as a sort of negative Department to administer certain Acts of Parliament, to do certain police duties, to look after such things as the muzzling of dogs—a most unpleasant duty with which I have had a great deal too much to do lately—or the stamping out of animal diseases, such as foot-and-mouth, of which, unfortunately, we have a serious outbreak to-day. But the idea that the Board of Agriculture was to take an active part in a sort of reconstruction of agriculture, in assisting agriculture, in developing agriculture, and in looking after the possibilities of rural life, was entirely absent from the minds of those who originally formed the Board of Agriculture for England and Wales, and it is in order that we may remove that misconception of the position of agriculture and the duties of the Board that I am bringing in this Bill. We have a broader aspect of the position to-day, and the Board is expected to do very many things which no one expected them to do when it was first formed. We are supposed to look after and stimulate production. We control cultivation; we look after land settlement; we take cognisance of small holdings and allotments, two movements which have gone ahead tremendously of late, and which I desire to see pushed to the utmost extent. We attempt to assist in the reclamation of land which now cannot be cultivated, but which may be cultivated; we assist in land drainage, thereby increasing the production of parts of the country now water logged and producing very little; and last, but not least, we are endeavouring to take an active part in research and education—a most important matter. By gaining additional knowledge we can create far more production than existed before, and by disseminating that knowledge through administration, plots, farm institutes, and so forth, we can teach the cultivators of the soil in a manner which is likely to make them far more efficient in their work than they used to be. All these duties are thrown on the Board,

  269
  and what we want to do is to get all the local advice and all the assistance, both locally and centrally, that we can. As my late chief, Lord Ernle, used to say, we want to get our ears to the ground to ascertain what the best minds and the most practical people are saying and thinking about agriculture to assist us adequately to carry out the great duties which are now placed upon us. That is the object of our Bill—to improve our machinery, to give us the best advice, and to stimulate interest in agriculture and rural life generally from one end of the land to the other.
  In the Bill we make two sets of provisions. I may call them, first of all, the local administrative provisions and the central advisory provisions. I will deal with the local administrative provisions first, because upon them all the rest depends. We propose that in every county there shall be set up a County Agricultural Committee, a standing statutory committee of the county council, formed under a scheme to be approved by the Board of Agriculture, and we propose that every matter of an agricultural character and the Acts of Parliament which county councils now administer relating to agriculture shall stand referred to this County Agricultural Committee. It will be, indeed, something like the local education authorities which exist to-day. Just as you have a local education authority which takes cognisance and administers all questions relating to education—and which, I think, has very largely Stimulated interest and enthusiasm for education—so, if this Bill is carried, there will be a local agricultural authority to stimulate interest in agriculture and to administer those Acts which relate to agriculture, and for which the councils are now responsible. The committees will be formed under schemes. The schemes must provide that at least a majority of the members are chosen by the county council, but the- Board will also nominate at least one-third, so that we may be closely in touch with the local agricultural authorities. Then there will be sub-committees. The county council may delegate any of its agricultural powers for executive action to the County Agricultural Authority, which may, in its turn, delegate any of its powers for action to the sub-committees. The powers delegated will be county council powers. For example, there is now under the county council a Diseases of Animals Committee with county council powers. A sub-com-
  270
  mittee of the local agricultural authority will take over those duties, and the powers may be delegated to them. Then there is in each county a Small Holdings and Allotments Committee at present—a very, important body. In future that body will be a sub-committee of the County Agricultural Committee, and the County Agricultural Committee will be allowed to delegate its powers to it.
  4.0 P.M.
  These Small Holdings Committees have undertaken a very big work. They are settling ex-Service men whom we desire to sea settled on small holdings, but at present their position is really anomalous. They are committees of the county councils, but for seven years they are not spending county council money — any, money that goes on the rates. They are spending exclusively the taxpayers' money, because the cost of small holdings—the annual deficit—is paid for out of the taxes, and at the end of seven years the cost of the small holdings will be written down to what is then a self-supporting basis and handed over to the county council. We think that is an anomalous position, because the Board, which represents the taxpayer, has no representation on these committees, and we propose under this Bill that in the ease not only of the County Agricultural Committees, but in the case also of all sub-committees to whom power is delegated, the Board shall have a right to nominate at least one-third of the members, thus in the case of the small holdings committees giving us that representation which is necessary in view of the fact that the money which is being expended is entirely the money of the taxpayers. There will be other sub-committees. For example, under the Corn Production Act a body which is now called the Agricultural Executive Committee of the county assumes the duties originally undertaken under the Defence of the Realm Act with respect to cultivation, in that case using powers which belong, not to the council, but to the Board. This Agricultural Executive Committee will now become a sub-committee of the County Agricultural Committee, and will exercise those powers derived from the Board under the Corn Production Act and taking directions from the Board of Agriculture. Similarly, the committees set up under the Land Drainage Acts of two years ago, again using the powers of the Board, will also become sub-committees of the County Agricultural Committees — although in

  271
  this case again taking its directions and powers from the Board of Agriculture itself. In fact, what we are aiming at is to sweep up all agricultural business, all agricultural administration, and all the work connected with agriculture into this one local county agricultural authority, which, we believe, will be of the greatest value in stimulating interest in agriculture, even in the most backward counties—I am glad to say most of the counties are not backward— and will stimulate that interest everywhere and assist the Board very greatly in the carrying out of its work.
  That is the local plan. On that we proceed to build an edifice of what I may call the National Advisory plan. We propose to set up three bodies, first, a Council of Agriculture for England, secondly, a Council of Agriculture for Wales, and thirdly, a much smaller body called the Agricultural Advisory Committee. I would like to point out that we set up not only a Council for England but a separate one for Wales. We do that quite deliberately, because we think it is only right that so far as Wales goes it should have its own Council of Agriculture. There is already at the present time a body called the Welsh Agricultural Council. It is non-statutory; it is voluntary, but it has done very good work. I had the privilege only ten days ago of going to one of its meetings and I was greatly struck by the work which was being done. We think it only right to decentralise, so far as Wales goes, as much as ever we can, and that for several reasons. The conditions in Wales are very different from those in England. Wales contains a vast amount of land which is mountain and heather in much greater proportion than exists anywhere in England. Secondly, Wales is predominantly a grass country unlike the greater part of England. Thirdly, there is the Welsh national sentiment, which I think is a priceless possession and which we wish to encourage to the utmost of our ability. Therefore, so far as Wales goes we set up a separate Agricultural Council for the Principality. We have gone further, we have decentralised the Board's administration for Wales. We have lately set up a separate Welsh office at Aberystwyth which undertakes, subject to due limitations, all the Welsh business of the Board. I am pleased to think that the President
  272
  has asked me, as having some hereditary connection with the Principality, to be specially in charge of the business of the Welsh office.
  I will speak now of the duties and composition of these Agricultural Councils. As regards their composition, each County Agricultural Committee will have a representative. As the Bill stands, each county borough which sets up an Agricultural Committee will also have a representative. There will also be representatives of the Agricultural Wages Board. Inasmuch as the Agricultural Wages Board is, in a sense—though it is not fully developed—a sort of Whitley Council of Agriculture, we think it most desirable that we should associate it with every movement towards the betterment of agriculture throughout the country. Lastly, the Board of Agriculture will have representatives, some of whom must be representatives of labour, women, horticulture and of educational research. In that way we hope we shall get a body representing all interested in agriculture which will meet together from time to time, the. duties of which will be to consider all matters of public interest relating to agriculture and to other rural industries. I am quite convinced from my experience of the Welsh Agriculture Council, which exists to-day on a non-statutory basis, that these meetings will be very valuable and that we shall be able to gather experience, advice and especially local knowledge which will be of real value to the Board in carrying out its work. One word about the composition. I have had some criticisms brought to my knowledge that the Bill as drafted gives undue prominence to what are called urban interests in contradistinction to rural interests. It has been pointed out that there are forty-eight councils in England, and each one of them has a member, and that there are sixty-eight county boroughs. [An HON. MEMBER: "Seventy-eight!"] No, sixty-seven if you exclude Monmouth, and Mon-mouth goes to Wales. If every county borough appointed an agricultural committee and each claimed a representative on the Agricultural Council in England the result would be that the rural elements would be outnumbered entirely by the urban. I think that is a just criticism, though it is very improbable that every county borough will appoint an agricultural committee. I think the number that will do so will be very small.

  273
  In any case, I admit the justice of the criticism in full, and when we reach the Committee stage I shall be prepared to move an Amendment limiting the number of borough representatives to twelve, so that the county element will be in no danger of being overshadowed as it exists in the Bill at the present time. The Welsh Agricultural Council, its composition and its duties, will be on precisely the same lines as the English, with the necessary changes.
  We come to the smaller body, the Agricultural Advisory Committee. That will be a body on which both England and Wales will be represented. It will be a very much smaller body than the others. It will have altogether only about twelve members, of whom four will be representatives of the Council of Agriculture for England, whose members have been nominated by the agricultural committees. Four of the members of the same body will be nominated by the Board. Here again the Board will have to have regard to the interests of the workman, women and educational research. Two will be nominated by the Agricultural Wages Board and two will represent Wales. This smaller body will meet much more frequently. It will be a Statutory Advisory Committee to the President of the Board. I must lay stress on "advisory." We do not propose to give it any executive power, as we cannot divest ourselves of Ministerial responsibility. We must take our decision ourselves, and if we are given advice we must have the liberty of refusing to take that advice and be answerable to this House like any other Government Department. Therefore, it must be a purely advisory body, but as such, meeting at least four times a year and perhaps oftener, considering every important question which arises, considering all questions put before it by the President, giving advice itself on other questions upon which it may wish to give advice, and containing the best and most representative people of the industry in all its aspects, it will be of great value in helping to keep us in the straight path and assisting us in the work now put upon us by the country and this House.
  There is one particular Clause to which I would call attention, because it will affect both councils and the advisory committee and also the county committees, although primarily it deals with the duty of the county committees—I refer to Clause 8 (4) which puts upon county com-
  274
  mittees, in the first instance, the duty of formulating schemes for the development of rural industries and social life in rural places. A great many of us hold that one of the difficulties of agriculture in connection with village life is the dullness and stagnation of country life. The want of life in the villages, the difficulty or stimulating corporate interests, and so on, is one of the worst effects of agriculture, because it draws the best of all classes to the towns and tends to leave only the worst to remain behind in the villages. If anything can be done to stimulate social life in the villages, to reawaken country life, to promote schemes of social improvement, and so forth, and the re-creation of those rural industries which used to cover this land, we hope it may be done through the operation of this Clause. At any rate, we put this duty upon the County Agricultural Committees, and that duty will devolve also in its turn upon the councils and upon the Advisory Committee of the Board of Agriculture.
  Those are the main provisions of the Bill so far as agriculture is concerned. There are two other points to which I should like to refer. The first is in connection with Clause 9. That Clause contains a charge upon the State, and therefore cannot be proceeded without a Financial Resolution in this House. The effect of that would be technically to raise the Board up to a first-class office, and the actual effect would be to increase the salary of the President and incidentally also the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary. We do not propose to proceed with that Clause. After this Bill was introduced, another Bill was brought in raising not only the Board of Agriculture, but several other Departments, to first-class rank, but the reception which that Bill received was such that, though I cannot speak for the other Government offices, I very much doubt whether the Government intend to proceed with it. At fill events, we do not feel that we could proceed on our own, so to speak, with regard to the. Board of Agriculture. Although we fully intend to be a first-class office in every sense, both in the importance of the work and in the high character and ability of the occupants of the office, we do not intend to ask the House to give a single additional farthing to ourselves.
  The Bill, as drafted, relates not only to agriculture, but also to fisheries. It has to be remembered that this Board is not only the Board of Agriculture for England

  275
  and Wales, but it is also the Board of Fisheries—a thing which is sometimes forgotten. We attach the greatest importance to that side of our work. We believe that there is a great development possible in the capture of fish, the marketing of fish, and the general production of fish as food, and we do not wish it to be understood that we in any way put on one side as unimportant the fishery side of our work. On the contrary, I earnestly hope before many months are gone that I may be in a position to bring into this House a much bigger Bill dealing generally with the policy of the Board as regards fisheries. In the meantime, this Bill simply proposes to set up a Fisheries Conference and a Fisheries Advisory Committee on all fours with the Agricultural Council and the Agricultural Advisory Committee. Since it was drafted, I have been in communication with the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association, and they are very doubtful as to whether they wish to be included in the Bill or not They do not altogether like the composition of the Advisory Committee. It includes representatives of the local sea fisheries committee, which some people maintain have done their work, and ought possibly to be replaced by bodies more truly representative of the industry. I understand also that in all probability the attitude taken by those who best represent the fishery industry in this country in all its aspects will be that they would sooner be excluded from the Bill altogether. At this stage, I cannot say definitely precisely what line we are prepared to take except that I hope to meet representatives of the fishery industry again in the course of the next few days and before the Bill gets into Committee.
  Mr. IRVING: May I ask whether that committee includes representatives of the Sea Fisheries Board, or only of the Protection Association?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I was referring particularly to the Protection Association, but I have also been in communication with the local sea fisheries committee. I have been trying, as far as I have been able, to obtain the best advice that I could from every source and quarter that represents the industry, and I have no desire to do anything except that which is best for the industry as a whole. I shall give the fullest weight to any representations which may be made to me by
  276
  those who are qualified to speak for the industry outside, and also to any suggestions which may be made by hon. Members who are interested in the fishing industry. I am convinced, as I think is very likely to be the case, that our friends who represent the industry will prefer to be left out of this Bill altogether, and to have whatever councils or committees are set up under another Bill dealing with the industry as a whole, and if that is the general wish of the industry and it is generally advantageous, I shall not hesitate to omit these Clauses in order to meet the views of those who represent the industry. I cannot, however, make a definite statement to-day, nor would it be germane until we get into Committee. With these few observations, I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading, and I ask the House also to assist me to get it through as quickly as possible. Great and new duties are being put upon us. A sense of the great responsibility which we owe to the country is realised now by the people at last. Agriculture can be no longer neglected. We, as a, Board, want to get the best advice that we can, we want to stimulate local interest, and we want to receive information from people both practical and theoretical. It is because we believe that this Bill, although it does not go very far, would provide us with adequate machinery for carrying out our great duties that I hope the House will pass it into law as quickly as possible.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board has introduced the Bill in a very lucid speech, and everyone will recognise the deep and intense interest that he takes in the subject which is before the House for discussion this afternoon. I regard all Bills setting up councils and committees with a certain amount of suspicion, considering the amount of Government control that we have had during the last four years. My hon. Friend has dissipated somewhat my fear that this Bill will go further to rivet Government control on to the industry of agriculture. For my part, I do not believe that the Government will make agriculture prosperous any more than any other industry. They have meddled with coal and with railways, and disaster has resulted. I hope, therefore, that this Bill will not mean too much meddling with agriculture. Any industry—I do not think this can. be too often emphasised—can only prosper by

  277
  the initiative and enterprise of those individuals who are engaged in it. My hon. Friend has stated that this is a Bill of machinery. It is a Bill to stimulate interest. Any Bill that is introduced into this House ought to be not so much to stimulate interest as production. Machinery is all very well, but where is your machinery going to carry you? What is the policy of the Board with regard to agriculture? We really ought to have that question answered before we set up the machinery to carry it into effect. I do not quarrel with the Bill, but it would be immensely more valuable if we could have the whole policy of the Government with regard to agriculture before us before attempting to set up the machinery.
  My hon. Friend has explained with great lucidity that there are two councils to be set up in England to discuss questions of agriculture and that their expenses are to be paid by Parliament. According to Clause 2, each Council of Agriculture shall meet at least twice a year for the purpose of discussing matters of public interest relating to agriculture and other rural industries. We can always meet and discuss matters of public interest relating to agriculture. It does not require an Act of Parliament in order to enable us to discuss matters relating to agriculture. This Council of seventy-six, however, is to be set up and it will meet twice a year. The President of the Board is to have the casting vote. I do not envy him if he ever goes down to a Council of Agriculture and decides anything by his casting vote. It is a kind of Sanhedrin of agriculture. Well, I wish it well. Then there is a Welsh Council, of which my hon. Friend is to be the special patron. I do not know whether he is going to address it in Welsh or not. I do not know if that is one of the qualifications. We are also to have an Advisory Committee, and my hon. Friend has clearly told us that it is to be only advisory. It is not to take away any Ministerial responsibility. There are a large number of Committees now advising the Board of Agriculture. The Board has its own inspectorate, it has its agricultural correspondents, there is the Agricultural Wages Board, there is the Agricultural Commission now sitting, and upon whose decision apparently a very large proportion of the agricultural policy of the Government will demand; there is the Farmers' Union, and there is the Central
  278
  Chamber of Agriculture. There are a good many advisers of the Board of Agriculture at the present moment. This is. an experiment, and I wish it well. I do not attach the greatest possible importance to it, but still there it is.
  My hon. Friend went on to deal with the organisation of the County Agricultural Committee, and I must say that to my mind he introduced a somewhat unfortunate illustration when he referred to the County Education Committee. I remember full well when the County Education Committee was set up in the country that many of us prophesied, and I am sorry to say that the prophecies; have only come too true, that there would be a very heavy increase in the Education Rate. I am one of those who look forward with fear and trembling to the precepts that the county councils will have to issue with regard to the rates. The rates, I think, will play a very important part in the agricultural and rural districts. By whom is the Committee going to be paid? Is it to be paid out of the rates or out of the taxes?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It will carry out the functions now performed by the county councils under certain Acts of Parliament. All those duties relating to agriculture now carried out by the county councils will be done by this County Agricultural Committee.
  Mr. LAMBERT: So long as it does not add to the rates, I am content. If it does, there will be a considerable amount of criticism. I observe that the county councils are to appoint at least a majority and that the Board is to appoint one-third. There are to be two sub-committees, one a Small Holdings Committee and the other a Diseases of Animals Committee. Do the Board anticipate that this will add to the officials which the county councils will have to appoint? I hope not, because one of the questions which we had at the last meeting of our county council was the raising of the salaries of all the staffs due to the high cost of living, and this question of rates is coming up very acutely. I hope, if this Committee is appointed, that it will go thoroughly into the question of the provision of small holdings, not only for ex-soldiers but also for agricultural labourers. It is to have that power, and to my mind one of the solutions of the agricultural problem is to attract more people and to place them on the land. A

  279
  good deal has been said about the limitation of the hours of agricultural labourers. My own impression is that it would be far better to induce the agricultural labourer to earn as much as he possibly can and then give him an opportunity of being able to go into a small farm of his own and raise his social position and status. That would be far and away the more preferable plan. Therefore, I hope that these committees will deal not only with ex-Service men but also with agricultural labourers, giving them some little hope in the future of becoming small farmers themselves. The expenses of the committees are to be paid. I do not object, but how will that affect the other county council committees? If you pay the county councillors on two subcommittees, the Diseases of Animals Committee and the Small Holdings Committee, how will it affect the other county councillors who have to attend the Agricultural Committee? I am not sure that you are not infringing a principle here which is of some importance with regard to local government. I am very glad that the proposal to increase the President's salary has been dropped. This is not the time for it. I am glad that the Government have seen fit to bow to the opinion of the House that Ministers' salaries should not be increased.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I only spoke in regard to this particular case. In any case the provisions of Clause 9 will have to be put into a more general Bill. All I said now, so far as this Bill is concerned, is that we do not propose to proceed with the provision at the present time; but I can give no pledge in regard to the general proposals of the larger Bill.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Does the hon. Member speak for the Government or for the Board?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I only speak for the Board.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Then are we to understand that this proposal is to be withdrawn from this Bill and put into another. Bill?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: When we had introduced this Bill containing this proposal, what I may call an omnibus Bill was brought in, including this proposal and others relating to other Government Departments. It therefore became necessary for us to withdraw the proposal from this Bill. I think I said when the other Bill
  280
  was brought forward that it got a generally favourable reception. I do not know whether or not the House will proceed with the proposal, but I can only give a pledge so far as I am concerned in regard to this particular Bill.
  Mr. LAMBERT: My hon. Friend cannot commit the Government to a change of policy, but only to a change of procedure
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That is it.
  Mr. LAMBERT: When this proposal to raise Ministerial salaries came before the House it did not get a very favourable reception. Dealing with the general question, the Prime Minister, speaking on the 21st of October, the day before the Session opened, said, "You must have a settled policy with regard to agriculture." That, I think, is indisputable. The essential thing about that settled policy for agriculture must be based upon the future prices that agricultural products will bring to the producer. It is no use talking about stimulating interest or machinedy or anything else. What the farmer will look at is the price he is going to get for the products when he takes them to the market. That question is being discussed to-day by a Commission.
  Mr. CAUTLEY: Not on those lines!
  Mr. LAMBERT: I am not a member of that Commission, and, as my hon. Friend knows, that Commission is sitting with closed doors. As a fairly old Member of this House, I know full well that any policy for using the taxpayers' money to maintain agricultural prices will excite a very great deal of interest in the House and in the country. There fore, I should have liked this Commission to have given the fullest publicity to the whole of their proceedings. The cost of the production of agricultural products to-day is very high, and the agricultural policy of the Government must take that into account. Any agricultural policy passed by this House must have the general consent of the community, because you cannot ask farmers of others to engage in an entirely new system of husbandry without an adequate and almost a permanent guarantee. There is more nonsense written in the Press and sometimes more nonsense spoken in this House upon agriculture than upon any other one subject. Farmers cannot change the whole method of cultivation in a year or two. For the last thirty years land has been going down to

  281
  grass. As I understand it, one of the objects of this Bill is. to increase corn production in Great Britain. If that be so, there must be permanency. It cannot be done without. I hope that this Bill will be postponed when it has passed the Second Reading until the agricultural policy of the Government is announced. It is not a question of machinery, but the question of price that must dominate the whole agricultural situation in future.
  Mr. F1TZROY: The general policy of the Government in regard to agriculture scarcely comes within the four corners of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has received the Bill somewhat grudgingly instead of giving it his wholehearted support. He complains of the control which is now exercised over agriculture by the Government. So far as I can see this Bill rather operates in the opposite direction. Instead of increasing control by the Government over agriculture it brings into the control of agriculture in this country representatives of the different agricultural counties. It decentralises the control from the central Government control and puts it into the hands of those who really represent agriculture. It appears to me that one ought to give this Bill a very warm welcome. It is very much overdue. I regard the suggestion that the Government ought to hold this Bill over until they are able to announce the whole of their agricultural policy as wrong. This Bill is more in the nature of a preliminary to the Government's agricultural policy, which I have full confidence, after the Prime Minister's speech, will be introduced at no very distant date. This Bill is a preliminary to this extent, that it is a proposal on behalf of the Government to put the Department which is responsible for the administration of agricultural policy in this country in order and on a new footing, and to bring it more into touch with agricultural feeling throughout the country. To that extent it must be a very necessary preliminary to the introduction of a general policy.
  As regards the Bill itself, I assume that the Government propose to introduce some other Bill to continue the policy laid down in this Bill. This Bill to a certain extent is disappointing in that it does not give the Government the large increased powers which I should have liked to see them have in regard to the administration of many things affecting agriculture. The last thing we want to be is a spoon-fed Indus-
  282
  try. We are often accused of desiring protection. We do not want anything of the kind. We do not want Government Departments to exercise any policy towards agriculture of a spoon-feeding nature. What we want to do is to get a Government Department to whom we can look for assistance and for guidance in carrying on our business. When I say assistance and guidance, I mean in the nature of research work and so forth. So far as I can see, this Bill gives no additional power to the Agricultural Department of the Government to undertake greater research work than they do at present. That is one of the most important duties that a Government Department could possibly engage in. I think I am right in saying that this country suffers more than any of the other civilised countries of the world as regards the assistance that the Government Department of Agriculture has given towards the industry in the way of research work. Figures have been given as to what this country looses per annum from diseases of animals and plant diseases through want of proper knowledge, and assistance and instruction from, the Government in the way of treating these, diseases. The figure is enormous. A little wise expenditure in that direction in providing research in regard to diseases of animals, and the various diseases affecting corn and potatoes, which the Government ought to undertake, would producer results of incredible value. Up to now most of that work has been left to private enterprise, and although they have done it very well so far as they have been able, I do think the time has come when money, might be very wisely spent and most economically spent in that way. There would be a great saving to the country if work of that character was more largely undertaken by the Board.
  There is another thing which the Bill does not do which it might do. There has been great complaint among agriculturists during the last four or five years that a great many things that affect their industry have been done by other Departments and not by the Board of Agriculture. Often questions were put to the late President of the Board of Agriculture to which he was compelled to give the answer that although it was a question deeply affecting agriculture it was not his fault, because the Government had taken certain action and the matter was dealt with

  283
  by another Government Department. Consequently, it is fitting to take advantage of an. opportunity such as this Bill affords to put in some Clause enabling them to give to the Board of Agriculture any duties now done by any Departments, and likewise to hand over to other Departments any duties of the Board of Agriculture that are not directly connected with agriculture or rural industries. That is what the Bill does not do I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider whether he cannot introduce into this Bill some means of carrying out the suggestions which are mentioned.
  The Bill brings the Executive, through this Department, more closely into touch with representatives of agriculture throughout the country—that is to say, the councils which it is proposed to set up under this Bill. That is a great step in advance. Let us be quite sure when we appoint these councils that they shall be so constituted as really to represent agricultural opinion. I was very glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman proposed to introduce into the Committee stage some Amendment so as to make the representation of the county boroughs not so great as it is at the present time in the Bill. It would be ridiculous to have an agricultural council, a large proportion of whose members represented county boroughs as opposed to the districts represented by the county councils. At the same time, I attach extreme importance to the representatives of boroughs and urban districts being brought more directly into touch with agriculture than they have been, and although a majority of the councils should not be representative of the boroughs and urban districts, I hope that when he considers an Amendment as to the constitution of those councils he will take into consideration that these urban districts should have ample representation. I am certain this would be for the good of the urban districts, and will not do any harm to agriculture.
  There was a great deal said, and rightly said, by the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lambert) with regard to these agricultural committees set up under this Bill. These committees will have enormous powers. They will practically be responsible for the cultivation of the farms within their district, and as they will have these enormous powers I hope that the President of the Board of Agriculture will take the greatest pos-
  284
  sible care in looking into the scheme submitted to him by the councils. The machinery should go slowly at first. They should not be given too many powers at the outset before this scheme gets on its legs. Otherwise you may have disaster where you want simply to extend the cultivation of the soil. There is one other point on which probably I shall not find myself in agreement with most Members of the House. In the constitution of the councils we still maintain a bad system, which has been in use for the last two or three years. That is stereotyping, as it were, the different classes who would be represented on these councils. We have examples of it in the Agricultural Wages Board and the Agricultural Royal Commission. You have laid down that there shall be so many representatives of Labour and in the. same way representatives of employers.
  In theory that may be a very good thing, and one might imagine that these two bodies would meet together to discuss things and try to find out the best solution of difficulties. But in practice—take the Wages Boards—instead of doing that, according to human nature, it must come to this: One party goes into the discussion trying to get as much as he can, and the other goes in trying to give as little as he can. It is a very bad system to put the different classes engaged in these industries into water-tight compartments, accentuating the fact that there are two classes, instead of trying to draw the classes much nearer together, so that the interests of one might be the interests of all. It would be much better if the Bill said that due regard should be given to the representation of such and such a class, instead of fixing the numbers to be put in to represent a particular class. I am sure that, when this Bill goes into Committee, the hon. Gentleman will be willing. to consider any reasonable Amendment brought forward to make it a better Bill. It is the first step in the Government policy as regards agriculture which was promised by the Prime Minister at the end of last month. As such, I give it my very warmest welcome, and I only hope that it will do as it is intended to do, and bring agriculture into closer touch, especially the Government Department of Agriculture, with the general community, and by that means be one step towards making the people all over the country realise the supreme importance of the agricultural industry to the community as a whole.
  Mr. CAUTLEY: Like my hon and gallant Friend who has just addressed the House, I wish to say a few words in commendation of this Bill. If this Bill becomes law, then for the first time in this country we shall have statutory bodies which are really representative of agricultural opinion. In particular I welcome the Clause which gives to the Advisory Committees powers not only of advice, but also powers of initiation in matters of policy concerning agriculture. There was, undoubtedly, one great blot on the Bill, and the lion. Gentleman has not entirely removed it. The value of the Bill is the means of arriving at agricultural opinion, and I can see no reason why the county boroughs should be represented on the Agricultural Committees at all. So far as agricultural opinion is concerned, whether that of farmers or workmen or landowners of agricultural property, the views of the townsman can have no weight, and by giving power to the borough inhabitants to take part in what is a purely rural matter you tend to make the powers of these committees less effective.
  5.0 P.M.
  Another matter requiring careful consideration is the composition of the councils and of the advisory committees. I particularly want to call attention to the extensive power of nomination by the Board of Agriculture that is taken under this Bill. The Council of Agriculture is to consist, first, of a member from each agricultural committee. In so far as rural counties are concerned they will number forty-eight members. I hope that the proposal as to borough committees will not be proceeded with, but, according to the President they will not number more than twelve. Then he proposes to have twelve members of the Agricultural Wages Board. The members of the Wages Board are nominated by the President of the Board of Agriculture. The Wages Board consists of thirty-two members—sixteen representatives of employers and sixteen representatives of farm workers. Of each sixteen the President nominates himself, personally, no fewer than eight—that is to say, sixteen of the industry representatives are directly nominated by the President. The remainder of the Wages Board consists of seven persons who, I believe, represent the people outside the industry. Every one of these is nominated. So no fewer than twenty-three out of thirty-nine of the Wages Board are directly nominated by the President. Twelve of these have to be
  286
  nominated by the Wages Board from those representatives who have already been nominated by the President of the Board of Agriculture. Then we have, in addition to one member of each committee and twelve members of the Wages Board, twenty-four members nominated by the Board of Agriculture. So that if you do away, as I hope will be the case, with the twelve representatives of the boroughs, and then if you leave twelve members of the Wages Board, it would make a committee of sixty, of whom twenty-four would be nominated by the Board of Agriculture, that is to say, more than one-third of the Board will be nominated by the Board of Agriculture. Look again at the Advisory Committee. There are four members of the Council of Agriculture who have been nominated by the Board. Then you get two members of the Wages Board —and I have already shown that they are mainly nominated by the Board of Agriculture—and two members of the Council. In other words, you have one-third of the Advisory Committee directly nominated by the Board of Agriculture.
  Look again at the Agricultural Committees. You find express power taken to provide that one-third of each Agricultural Committee throughout the country shall be directly appointed by the President of the Board of Agriculture. For my part, I see no reason for the President of the Board of Agriculture taking to himself these very large powers of nomination. I should very much like to see the measure left on a much more democratic basis. I should like to see the members of these committees elected in some way or other by the locality, which will have much more knowledge of the capacity of particular persons than the President of the Board of Agriculture can have. Another point I will refer to is one to which attention has already been drawn, that is, Clause 8, wherein it states that the County Agricultural Committees shall formulate schemes for the development of rural industries and social life in rural places. For that purpose they are to spend the taxpayers' money, I gather, and not the ratepayers' money. These words are abstruse and very dangerous. Is it really intended that committees elected in this way are to run kinema shows, or that sort of thing, in our country villages, and that they have not to find the money for it? It seems to me a very risky thing to give these

  287
  committees this power. On the whole, I receive this Bill with great satisfaction so far as I am interestd in agriculture and know anything about it. It provides machinery for bringing the feeling of agriculturists to bear on the Board of Agriculture in an effectual way.
  Mr. ROYCE: On the whole, I think I can re-echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) with regard to the character of the Bill, but I should like to join issue with him at once on the matter of representation. If Labour representation is not definitely stated in the Bill, I fail to see how Labour can make its voice heard in connection with the Councils to which he has referred.
  Mr. CAUTLEY: I raise no objection at all to the representation of Labour.
  Mr. ROYCE: In the matter of the selection of Committees, which I think is the same thing, if it were left an open question, Labour would get no representation at all. Then, with regard to the urban or county borough representation on the Council. I agree with the hon. Member for the Daventry Division (Captain Fitz-Roy) that a larger representation than twelve would be advisable, for the reason that it would bring urban views to agriculture and agricultural views to the urban representatives, and that could not fail to be of advantage. In industrial circles and on the part of the members among whom I sit, I think there is failure, perhaps, to realise the position of agriculture, and more especially the position of the agricultural labourer. At any rate, the representation that is now given seems to me to be quite satisfactory. I want to make only one remark in regard to Labour representation, and that is this: Except in the case of the Small Holdings Sub-committee, I find no special reference to payment for time lost and for travelling expenses on the part of Labour representatives. It ought to be definitely stated in every case where Labour representatives are called to sit on any of the boards that they shall receive payment for time lost and for travelling expenses; otherwise you will not get them there. It is an absolute necessity that this should not be left as a matter or consideration by the President of the Board of Agriculture or any section of the various councils.
  There is another matter I should like to have some light upon. The Secretary
  288
  to the Board of Agriculture, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, made mention of the reclamation of land as one of the duties of the Board of Agriculture. I should like to know under whose direction the actual work of reclamation is to take place? I know that at the present time some initial steps are being taken to reclaim land. Along the shores of the Wash, more especially, there is ample opportunity for reclaiming very large tracts of land. Is it the intention of the Board of Agriculture to place the work of reclamation under the direction of the county council or the county agricultural committee, or will they delegate it to one of the numerous new boards now being brought into existence under the Land Drainage Act? So far as I am able to learn, the work that is already being done would hardly meet with my approval. I have a very high opinion of the attainments and character of the Board to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his opening remarks, but I am not sure that the Board is in a position to direct the reclamation of land from its offices in Whitehall. I hope I shall have some assurance that the inception of the plans for this work will be placed in the hands of some of the local authorities who have accurate knowledge of the circumstances and the uses to which the land can be put. I noted one remark by an hon. Member that the taxpayers' money may be used in connection with the Bill. I presume that in the administration of work of this description the expenditure of a certain sum of money will be necessary. He referred to the use of public money for the increase of agricultural produce. That might be necessary some day. But at present under the Corn Production Act— that is the only Act under which the proposed county agricultural authorities can take any action with regard to the cultivation of the land—there has been no payment of any description out of national money. Indeed, it has been a case of a very considerable contribution on the part of agriculture to the National Exchequer, inasmuch as if the same price had been paid for cereals that the Minister of Food had to pay abroad, it would have cost the country many millions more during the period that the Corn Production Act has been in existence. I am not at all in agreement with the too close limitation of representation from the county boroughs. They have a very considerable agricultural and horticultural

  289
  interest. I would urge on their behalf that a larger representation than twelve should be permitted, for in addition to any agricultural land they may have to administer they all have very considerable allotments, and most of them, I believe, now have Horticultural Committees set up by the Board of Agriculture. If the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture will be good enough to assure to that Labour will receive adequate remuneration for the time lost in the service of the various Boards, and if he will inform me how the reclamation of land is to be administered, I can assure him on behalf of the Labour party that they will assist him as far as possible to get the Bill through.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Second Beading of the Bill may congratulate himself on the reception which the Bill has had. On the agricultural side of it I would like to associate myself with what has been said by my hon. Friends behind me and by other Members. We thoroughly understand that this Bill is only machinery and that it would not be opportune to discuss the agricultural question generally upon it. The Bill proposes to set up three bodies: a council, an advisory body and County Agricultural Committees. The last is by far the most important. I say that because they are to do work of which we have already had some actual experience through the machinery which has been created under emergency circumstances during the War. The other two bodies are on their trial. I do not personally attach very much importance to the Agricultural Council which would be a body which would meet probably twice a year and where no doubt there would be discussions of considerable interest, though I do not think very much would come from it. The advisory body is much more important, and I think it is desirable that the Board of Agriculture should have available to it agricultural opinion in the more concentrated form of one advisory body. The County Agricultural Committees would have very important work to do and work which in past times could be done more effectively than now by landowners themselves. The landowner is no longer really in a position to bring that pressure which he might wish to bring on the occupier to cultivate his land satisfactorily. It is much better that pressure, if it is to be
  290
  applied, should come from a public source such as an Agricultural Committee than that it should have to be applied by the landowner. There are two reasons which may adversely affect the cultivation of the land and the County Agricultural Committees only deal with one of them. One is that the general policy of the country and of the community may result in farmers feeling that their chances of successful cultivation are so small that they cannot afford to cultivate the land as it should be cultivated. The other reason is that although the conditions are sufficiently favourable if people put their backs into it, particular individuals are slackers and do not use proper measures to cultivate the land. With the latter reason the county committee will and ought to be able to deal, but it would be rather difficult to decide which of the two causes really operates to the detriment of cultivation I hope the House will bear in mind that it is beyond the power of the Agricultural Committee to deal with the first of the two causes.
  What I really rose to speak about was the question, as far as this Bill deals with it, of fisheries. No doubt something has been said in this Debate about fisheries, but one would hardly think, from the atmosphere in which the Bill is being discussed, that the importance of our fisheries was fully realised, though I suppose if there is one industry which proved its enormous value to the country, not only in peace but also in war, it is the fishing industry. If the agricultural industry has been neglected by the State, and I do not wish to use the word in an offensive sense, the fishing industry as a whole has received less attention. If the affairs of the agricultural industry are in confusion, certainly the administrative side of the fishing industry is in far greater confusion. The fishing industry is glad to see at last that it has had some notice from the Government, but it does not think, as far as I am in a position to express an opinion—and I have authority from the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association to express their views—that the creation of certain councils and advisory bodies as proposed under this Bill, which have no sanction whatever by prior consultation with the fishing industry, nor are they specially modelled on the organisation of the industry, are a real foundation upon which it will be proper to build. I was extremely glad to hear the Parliamentary

  291
  Secretary, in introducing this Bill, say that he hoped within a few months to introduce a Bill which would deal in a comprehensive manner with the fishing industry. I submit to him, on behalf of that industry, that this particular machinery Cannot, at any rate, be said to have the sanction of the industry or to be based on any full consideration of the best means of obtaining the opinion of the industry or organising it. I submit it would be far better to leave those Clauses out altogether and in the forthcoming Bill to cover both the machinery and the powers which the Department should have.
  I do not think the House realises the enormous difficulties under which the deep-sea fishing industry finds itself to-day. It has no Department to which it can go to deal with the many difficulties with which it is constantly confronted. The Admiralty deal with policing, and the return of vessels under charter, and with wrecks and the clearing of the fishing grounds. The Board of Trade deal with survey, and the registration of fishing vessels, and certificates for skippers and mates and second hands, and with the signing on of crews and discipline, and with very important questions of fishery rights and many other matters. The Ministry of Transport deals with the transport and distribution of fish, and the Ministry of Health with pollution and the question of shell fish. When any representative of the different branches of this very important industry desires to lay any matter before the Government he has to go from one Department to another until the maze of confusion is perfectly hopeless. I hope that in the Bill to be introduced the relations of the fishing industry with the Government will be brought to one Department which will be responsible for it. It is quite obvious in such matters as transport and public health you cannot divorce, those Ministries from the regulation of those matters, but still I submit so far as they concern the fisheries, although you may not be able to give absolute power in that respect to the Fisheries Department, such powers should be given as far as possible to cover the needs of the fishing industry, and, in so far as the Department cannot have those powers, they should be made the official and statutory intermediary between the fishing interests and other Government Departments, so that those in the industry need only go to one Department to find what they require.
  292
  There has been a very insistent demand on the part of fishing interests that there should be a Minister of Fishing, but it is obvious that at the present time it would be undesirable to create any more Ministries than can possibly be avoided. That is a very strong feeling which I am sure everyone of us shares. Those interested in fisheries were very satisfied to hear the announcement made recently by the Leader of the House that certain steps had been taken within the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries which went some way in the desired direction, namely, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board has been detailed to take definite charge of all fishery questions in his Department. Therefore it is understood that all fishery matters will go to him and that the permanent secretary in charge of that part of the work will also report direct to him. This will, of course, be under the Noble Lord who is at the head of the Department and who will govern matters of policy. But so far as the fisheries are concerned there will be a different Department and a separate side with the Minister at the head responsible to Parliament, and who will answer fishery questions and will have some knowledge of them by contact with the fishing industry. That, the industry are glad to welcome as a step in the desired direction. They would, I am bound to say, prefer that the Minister responsible for fisheries should be a Cabinet Minister or have direct access to the Cabinet. The fishing industry is extraordinarily technical and when a Minister by long conferences has really got inside the particular questions which the industry desires to bring before the House and when the matter has to be discussed and settled by the Cabinet, it is rather unfortunate that those difficult technical questions which the Minister has mastered should have to go to the Cabinet through someone else who cannot with the same knowledge answer the questions which may have to be put to him.
  I am quite sure the Parliamentary Secretary will do his utmost for the industry. I can assure him that the fishing industry will do its utmost to give all the advice and assistance in its power. I do ask him to lose no time in getting the draft of the Bill which he hopes to introduce. The matter is extremely urgent, and particularly from the international standpoint. The deep-sea fishing industry is most vitally affected by such matters as the

  293
  three-mile limit and other questions of the sort which I do not want to discuss now and only refer to in order to point out that at this particular time international questions are very much in the melting pot, and while international agreements are in a liquid form the opportunity which this industry desires to obtain for further consideration may never recur. At present the Government Department which has to deal with international question on behalf of the fisheries, has no knowledge whatever of fishery questions, and it is impossible that those questions can be satisfactorily dealt with without actual technical knowledge. From that point of view alone it is of the first importance that my hon. Friend should confer with the responsible heads of the fishing industry and ascertain from them what those important questions are and how they desire them to be dealt with, and those representatives should have the opportunity of putting that opinion forward to the Government as a whole, and the Government should lose no time in acting upon it. If this opportunity is lost and more months are allowed to go by before the Government has even informed itself of the international requirements of the fishing industry and has taken some steps to give effect to them, I am afraid that the loss to this country and the fishing industry may be most vitally serious.
  The fishing industry brings enormous wealth to this country. There is no rent to pay for the sea. When fish are brought into this country they are different from any other import. If you see an import of timber brought into this country you do not know what proportion of the value of that timber has to be paid overseas to the country where it was grown, but if you bring a cargo of fish from the North Sea or the Atlantic into a British port, there is nothing to pay to anybody; you have the whole of that fish as a benefit to this country, and every penny of its value inures to the country, as a whole, to the men who catch it arid the men who eat it. Under the present organisation, the action of the State enters more and more into our daily life. I hope we may get rid of a good deal of the War interference, but I am afraid we shall have to have more State interference after the War than we had before the War, and it is, therefore, of the greatest importance that the Government wad the State, in relation to the fishing industry, should have as much knowledge
  294
  as possible and should take care to adapt their machinery to the needs of that industry and of our population who depend upon cheap fish, because there is no food which is more valuable to those with small incomes than cheap fish, which depends upon the organisation of the industry, and, above all, upon cheap transport. If all these points are dealt with — and I hope they will be—in a Bill which my hon. Friend will introduce, then he will have, I am sure, the support of the whole industry, both in framing a Bill and in carrying it through this House. In view of what I have said, I hope he will consent to withdraw this Clause from this Bill, because these councils and the Committees which the Bill proposes to set up are not founded in any way upon the organisation of the fishing industry. There are not, as in the agricultural Clauses, any statutory bodies which really represent the fishing industry. There are certainly the local fisheries committees, but they have nothing whatever to do with deep-sea fishing, and deep-sea fishing is about 95 per cent, of importance in the whole industry, and therefore, though the local fisheries committees have carried out certain duties with considerable advantage in certain cases, it is ludicrous to think that bodies of that kind should constitute a large proportion of the representation of the fishing industry of this country. Therefore; I hope my hon. Friend will give the matter consideration and withdraw this Clause, and deal with the matter in a new Bill
  Mr. IRVING: A great deal of what I wanted to say has been said by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill said that the Department were fully aware of the importance of the fishing industry. There has been a suspicion amongst those connected with the industry that the Department have not realised that fact, and if hon. Members will look at this Bill and see the amount of importance that is given to the fishing industry as indicative of the Departments' idea of its importance, I do not think that suspicion has been dissolved. I think on the whole it has been rather increased. I suppose we all of us know that we are some day or other to depart this earth, whether to a heavenly or any other kind of sphere is not to be ascertained at present, but really it does not impress

  295
  itself upon us that that is the fact. We most of us go on anticipating in our acts and thoughts that we are living for ever, and it is that lack of impression, at any rate, of knowledge on the mind of the Department that I want to try and help dispel. I happen to be a member, and have been for some years, of one of those ludicrous bodies that the representative of the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association referred to a moment or two ago, and hon. Members will note that in introducing the Bill the hon. Member referred to these bodies in such a way as to indicate that in his mind they are worth very little consideration. Indeed, ho said that in the opinion of some folk— he did not say whether he agreed with that opinion—they are about played out. In my opinion, they ought to be about to be played in, and if the hon. Member had paid consideration to the representations of these fisheries boards to a very much greater degree than he has done in the past it would have been better for the industry. Quite obviously he is not prepared to do so, because hon. Members will recollect that whilst speaking of representative bodies, he spoke of the heads of the fishing industry being called into consultation and very largely indicated that he meant the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association, who, so far as I know, have constituted themselves the heads of the industry, and so far as I have any knowledge at all are mostly representative of the steam trawling industry, which is in the main an organisation in the interests of the capitalist side of the industry; huge companies who employ men for wages and who do not in any sense represent that body of the fishing industry, the individual fishermen, who, owning their own boats and fishing the sea, have been the very foundation of most of that grit and determination which have served this country so well during the War. I would submit that the interest of this country demands, not the extension of the steam trawling and company owning part of the business, who are able to take care of themselves, but that the Department should pay very much more attention to the smaller fishermen owning their own boats, and, by the possession of their boats and fishing on their own behalf and not for wages, doing more to build up a larger army of men who in any future
  296
  difficulty may be at the call of the nation whenever they are required. If hon. Members notice again the estimate of the fishing side of this Bill placed upon it by the Department, they will notice that, whilst the councils to be set up for the agricultural side are specifically set out in detail, if they will turn to the one Clause dealing with the setting up of any sort of council for the fishing industry, they will see that it is just about as vague and as nebulous as it can possibly be. There is no specification at all as to what that council is to be, except that it shall be constituted in the manner prescribed by the Regulations to be made by the Board. Those. Regulations are not indicated in any way, and therefore may be good, bad, or indifferent, when we come to view them.
  I associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman opposite when I say that the treatment of the fishery side of this question as proposed in this Bill is of such a character as to warrant me in asking for its complete withdrawal. It is in no sense a recognition, not even in a temporary sense anything like an adequate recognition, of what the fishing industry stands for. The mind that could conceive that the setting up of a Fisheries Department, with a Minister of State at its head, is going to cost the country anything has got very little conception of the possibilities of the fishing industry at all. If you had such a Department, not over-weighted and over-awed by the agricultural side under a joint Board as exists today, but with a capable, responsible Minister at its head, whose sole duty it was to develop these fisheries to the greatest possible extent, the great asset that the fishing industry to-day is to this nation would be a mere bagatelle to what it might be in the immediate future, and the cost would be as nothing to the benefit which the nation would gain as a whole. I would, again, on behalf of these ridiculous boards that are nearly, in some people's opinion, played out, like to say a word or two from their point of view. They, at any rate, are not constituted to safeguard the interests of the steam-trawling companies, but where the antagonism comes in is, that although these boards do not regulate the deep-sea fishing, they do regulate fishing upon the-whole to such a degree that the huge-steam-trawling companies view these boards as a nuisance, because in the interests of making profit to-day irrespec-

  297
  tive of the future, but for these boards there would be scarcely any fishing industry left in this country for the hon. Gentleman or anybody else to supervise in future, and it is that antagonism born of the interests of private profit which has induced these people, so far as they have been able to do it, to belittle the work of the sea fisheries boards. From my own personal experience, I know —I am not merely asserting opinions—that in the scientific officials and the superintendents of some of our sea fisheries boards you have to-day men in the possession of knowledge and of capacity, dealing not merely with inshore fishing but with deep-sea fishing too, that no other body of officials in this country possess, not even the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries itself, and I say that it is suicidal on the part of any Department to try in any sense to belittle organised bodies who are representative in the sense that every man has been elected by various town councils, and urban, district councils, and associated bodies of fishermen to come direct to the various meetings to consult and, in so far as their limited powers allow, to further the industry of fishing as a whole. I would appeal to the lion. Gentleman to withdraw this Clause and introduce another Bill, but if on the other hand he thinks that not the best policy, I hope he will not only consult the Sea Fisheries Protection Association, but that he will give equal, if not superior, attention to these organised and representative bodies called the sea fisheries boards of this country.
  Mr. ACLAND: I should like to intervene now, because I also want to say a word or two about the fisheries, I suppose if we were really starting again to organise Government Departments, we should have perhaps four or five great Ministries covering a distinct field of subjects, such as production, transport, defence, education, and so on, and we should have either subordinate Departments or subordinate Ministries, like the Ministries of Agriculture and Mines, under a great Department of Production, but, undoubtedly, we are losing, and shall continue to lose, enormously in this country through having fisheries, for instance, divided between three authorities—England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland. If the tendency goes further, no doubt Wales will have a separate Department of Fisheries if it gets the self-government it desires. I suppose
  298
  the difficulty is that you cannot get back to first principles. It is not popular to talk about first principles in this country, because it is supposed to suggest German sympathies, and certainly it is difficult to get back when you have taken a step in devolution. I believe agriculture and fisheries probably first came to be grouped together because they were functions of the Privy Council, and were a sort of remnant that had not been allotted to any other Department. I think under one of Mr. Gladstone's Administrations a Department of Agriculture was set up and they said, "Let us put the fisheries on to the Department of Agriculture." Then you get, some years later, a demand from Scotland for a separate administration for agriculture, and although I do not believe there was such a demand for a separate administration for fisheries, agriculture and fisheries had then somehow got joined together, and so they were combined in that case. It is a handicap, and I do not suppose you can get back, so there it is.
  Fisheries are one of the services in which scientific investigation and research can do almost more than in any other Department of our national life. Questions connected with the North Sea, the Channel, and the Atlantic for that matter, are extraordinarily important in the long run to fishermen, and it would be of the greatest value if these questions could be handled, as they cannot now be, by some authority representing Great Britain as a whole, and, as my right hon. Friend says, the Admiralty is concerned, the Board of Trade is concerned, and the Foreign Office —as I believe he also suggested—is also concerned in the matter. When I was Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office I came up again and again against cases in trying to negotiate difficulties with the three-mile limit. Foreign countries were very much handicapped because the fisheries here were divided under three different authorities. And when one thinks how much research has got to depend on the day-to-day observations and intelligence of the fisherman who will record in his intelligent way what his experience is in regard to his catch and his grounds; when you think for a moment of that great herring fleet, moving, as it does every year from the coast of Scotland right round England and to our southern coast, it really is an absurdity that you should have this great fleet of herring boats coming from Scottish ports, like

  299
  Banff, Montrose, and Kirkcaldy, under one fishing department, and making reports, which are the raw material of scientific research, and then, as they come down the coast, they have to be sent into the port of Scarborough and other English ports under a different fishing authority, carrying on perfectly different systems of investigation and research, and so on. I ventured to give evidence once before Lord Selborne's Committee on Agriculture, and suggested that if it were not too late to go back, all the functions connected with fisheries might still be collected together and fisheries made a sub-Department of the Admiralty, which I think, at any rate, is a strong Department, and would be more active in seeing that fisheries got the just attention which they deserve from the State. Therefore, I think all are agreed with the Minister when, he announced his intention of not dealing with fisheries in the Bill, and desired to give the matter, which is a very difficult one, fuller consideration before legislating.
  To pass to agriculture, I suppose I am the only person in this House who will say frankly that he is sorry that nothing is going to be done with regard to the salaries to be attached to the Board of Agriculture. I know that high expenditure, quite rightly, is unpopular now, but you are leaving things with regard to these Ministers' salaries in an extraordinarily anomalous position. The Home Office, the Board of Trade, and the Local Government Board each carries £5,000 a year for its Minister, whereas the heads of the Board of Education and the Board of Agriculture still carry salaries of £2,000. That is not a satisfactory position. I should like to see something in the nature of pooling, but, at all events, no one can say that the relative importance of Education and Agriculture, compared with the other Offices I have mentioned, is to be measured by the difference in salary. It is all very well to say that any first-class man will always be glad to take an office of State without regard to salary, and I think that is true, but undoubtedly in the public eye, to some extent, the importance of a Department is measured by the salary that is attached to it, and there have been instances where Ministers have regarded such an important Department as the Board of Education simply as a place of passage in order to
  300
  lead on to something which was considered of first-class importance. In the long run that sort of disparity results in these two extraordinarily important services of Agriculture and Education being somehow regarded as of less importance than other Government Departments. I should not be surprised, of course, if Clause 9 were withdrawn, for this Government seems to me a Government of opportunism tempered by funk, and it may be wise of them to withdraw this Clause, though in the long run I think it would be a mistake.
  I do not expect very much from these agricultural councils. I do not expect very much good from any deliberative and executive body of seventy-six. It is too big for any real business. We all know what will happen. All the different bodies that are concerned with agriculture will be asked to nominate representatives-for the consideration of the President. They will all nominate their senior Vice-President, ex-President, and so on—all people really ten years out of touch with the subject when nominated, and who will rapidly become twenty years out of touch. We shall have these two meetings a year, and a clever President of the Board of Agriculture will be able to arrange his agenda so as to prevent, if he chooses, any useful business being done. You have always some little red herring, and when the whole thing has to be put into one day's deliberation, you can entirely prevent some other thing coming on you do not wish to have discussed. The most important point of the Bill is that dealing with these Agricultural Committees in the counties. Those are going to be, of course, the outward and visible sign in county organisation of the fact that the State does intend to undertake and carry through more responsible and more active work in the organisation of agriculture than in the past. It wants to have—and I think absolutely rightly—real responsible committees in our counties with whom it may co-operate, and with whom it may correspond, and who will be the local counterpart of the activities at headquarters. I am very sorry to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on this bench who thought the fanners would not be helped by anything but a guarantee of prices, and then leave them alone. I do think there is at the present time, particularly, a tremendous deal to be done in helping farmers all over the country by

  301
  Active efficient work—call it machinery if you like—by the county councils and the Government Department.
  6.0 P.M.
  It I may give an illustration, I happened to have been at home lately, and to have been trying to get a little move on by putting some old orchards in Devonshire into order, and trying to buy apple trees of good sorts to replace the wretched old stuff we have got. I found nearly all the local growers of apples still going on buying varieties with beautiful names, such as Fair Maid of Devon, which are all very well in Devonshire, but are absolutely no use whatever when trying to organise the sale of apples to meet the great central markets on which you must rely for your serious demand if you really want to run apple-growing as a business. I found it was quite difficult to get standard sorts which are known and bought, and enjoy a standard quotation, and so on, like Newton Wonder, Bramley's Seedling, Lane's Prince Albert, Rival, and others, and they know nothing about a coming apple like the Ollison's Orange. If I may give another illustration, I occupied this morning as chairman of what is called the Allotments Executive Committee of the Agricultural Organisation Society, which is not a Government Department, but does receive a Government Grant for the work it does in organising agriculture. We had to look through the reports of the fourteen —I think the number was—allotment organisers all over the country who are trying to organise co-operative allotment societies and to put them on a firm basis. The work that was being done by these men in every instance, explaining to clerks of local councils what the powers of those councils are under this new allotment charter which this House has passed this year in the Lands Acquisition Bill, is admirable, and is having effect in getting more land taken up for allotments, and in helping towards an understanding between rural farmers' societies and urban allotment societies, who often do not understand each other's point of view. I cannot at all agree with the idea that all that agriculture needs is fixed prices and no interference. I believe the work that the State is doing, and will be very much helped to do as the county council develop these Agricultural Committees, is of quite extraordinary value to the country. This Bill has a political value too. We shall come up, as the Minister in charge of the Bill said, to another question very soon,
  302
  the question of guaranteed minimum prices for agricultural produce. The Prime Minister soared up at last to that. In his address the other day he said that that would be his policy. I think that will be carried out, for the Government can have its way in this matter as in every other if they stick to their guns. There are, however, three sets of people in this matter. There are the people who want guaranteed minimum prices, and no interference. There are other people who do mot want any guaranteed minimum prices, but who are perfectly willing to allow the agricultural industry to rip, and be exposed to the full blast of foreign competition as before the War. And there are other people who are only willing to give these guarantees to agriculture if there is visibly at work, if this part of our local and national life, and agricultural administration shows, and makes absolutely certain, that the farmers of this country are giving the best return possible in their methods of production, trading and organisation, and in the advantage they take of educational research, to the State for the money which is going to come out of the taxpayer's pocket every year. No doubt under a Bill which will be introduced there will be a guarantee of minimum prices for what agriculturists produce. Unless a Bill of this kind, or something of the kind, was to be passed, and unless it was certain that the Board of Agriculture was going to go ahead in agricultural administration, and so going to set up in the counties really active committees, who would be the local administrative bodies carrying out its work, it will be found when the time comes, that these guaranteed minimum prices are far more difficult to get established than otherwise it would be. It is only if the State is determined to obtain from the agriculturist a real return—I think that this Bill is an outward sign of that— that those guaranteed prices can hope to remain, however much they may be set up now as a permanent part of our country's organisation. Therefore, I think the Government are very well-advised indeed in preparation for a policy of guaranteed minimum prices to establish the necessary machinery for a really progressive agricultural administration which I believe they contemplate.
  Major WHELER: I do not share the gloomy views of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down as to what may be

  303
  the utility, or lack of it, of these Agricultural Councils, but I am quite certain of one thing, that their utility or otherwise will be based entirely on the fact as to whether the Agricultural Committees as a whole hold the confidence of the public. If the representatives enjoy general confidence, then the Bill will, I believe, become a useful, working, practical measure. All I want now to say is this, while with others welcoming the introduction of this Bill, and also realising the feeling of gratification at the concession made with reference to the reduction of numbers on the council, and leaving the question of the county boroughs, I would urge the hon. and gallant Gentleman, when we come to the Committee stage, to give his consideration — I am sure lie will — to the views put forward (which are being put forward by many agricultural associations) which favour, as he already knows, the proposals put forward by the Agricultural Committee of the House of Commons, especially with reference to the details of the machinery of this Bill. I hope when we come to the Committee stage of this Bill he will have an entirely open mind as to the composition of these councils, arid will realise what many agricultural bodies feel. The Central Chamber of Agriculture to-day has passed a resolution, that, while welcoming the general policy of the Bill, and the machinery set up, it expresses the opinion that the proposals put forward by the House of Commons Agricultural Committee were more desirable in the true interests of agriculture. That is really the only point. I hope he will bear it carefully in mind. While we who are here are giving him united support in the introduction of the Bill we shall feel perfectly free in Committee to bring forward proposals having reference to the reorganisation and rearranging of the machinery under which these councils and county committees are going to work. I presume these councils will sit in public. Their discussion and decisions will be open to the general agricultural community, because, as I said, what we do want more than anything else is confidence. We all want to know, as agriculturists, what is going on. If we do not get that all these councils will be viewed, as in the past, with certain suspicion, and will be looked upon more as places for taking theoretical ideas more than practical points, which every agri-
  304
  culturist knows are so vital at the present time. When we come to the Committee stage I will urge the hon. and gallant Gentleman to give full consideration to the many proposals which will be put forward with reference to the alteration and composition of these various committees. He will realise, I trust, that they are put forward after careful thought by practical agriculturists who desire to see this measure a most practical and useful measure.
  Major LANE-FOX: Before I come to the Bill itself I want just to make reference to a remark which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), when he said that the value of the committees set up would be modified by the fact that under them we should get a guarantee that any subsidy going to agriculture would be properly discussed. I do not want to go out from an authority like the right hon. Gentleman any suggestion that any subsidy is being paid, apart from the guaranteed price. There are lots of people who know less about it than does the right hon. Gentleman, and they may be influenced by what he says, But, as the House knows, at this moment the Government are buying wheat from foreign countries at a higher rate than what they are paying for it in this country.
  Mr. ACLAND: I quite agree, of course, that at present we make nothing out of the guarantee. I was referring to legislation foreshadowed by the Prime Minister in his recent speech.
  Major LANE-FOX: I quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman means, but I did not want any diversion to be created in connection with this matter. As regards this Bill, the criticism made by the first speaker from these benches was that it would merely increase muddling Government control, which the farmers do not like. It seems to me the effect of the Bill will be to perpetuate that particular form of control which is an advantage to the farmer, and which the greater bulk of the farmers appreciate. The control which the farmer objects to is that exercised by the Food Controller, by the Controller who commandeers his hay, the control which says when he has or has not to thresh, and which tells him when he desires to thresh that he cannot get the coal. All these outside controls by people who do not understand the industry, and are not particularly interested in making it a success, the farmer objects to, and very naturally.

  305
  But the control, through these committees, I am sure, all the best and most advanced farmers realise is of great value to the industry. Nothing has been more remarkable throughout the War than the general. attitude of farmers towards this sort of control, which they have learned is good, and has helped to foster the general feeling that bad farming and indifferent attention to matters that make farming good are really a crime and very much against the interests of the industry. I am quite certain that the feeling now among agriculturists is very different to what it was before the War. There is a far more extended feeling that it is absolutely vital in the interests of the country that every effort should be made by the farming community to farm on the highest possible level. I hope all that will be helped by this Bill.
  It is easy to say it is a small Bill, and of no great importance. In a way that may be so, but let us be careful. It may be that this Bill may not make the Board of Agriculture a very live body or of necessity give it new powers, but at any rate it will establish a very useful connection between agriculturists and the powers-that-be, and so far from increasing the control of London over the local agriculturists it will act rather in the opposite direction, and give the local agriculturists a better chance of making their views known. I anticipate useful results from this Bill. The points so far made against it are mainly Committee points. Personally, I object to the undue representation of the Agricultural Wages Board. I do not think they are essentially a very practical body as regards agriculture. I would like to put some of them on to a small holding and see what the result was—see whether their cultivation would come up to the standard of the county committee. I very much doubt it. But what we particularly want on these committees to assist in working the Bill is "a matter-of-fact agricultural knowledge." I should like to have these words put in as some guarantee to the farming community that these bodies to be set up are not so-called theorists and people like that whom the farmer naturally distrusts, and who are of but little use, but men who understand the industry and who are able to give practical and, it may be, valuable assistance. I only hope that prospective activities will work out in increasing the amenities of rural life, and that these will be on practical lines. I hope, with one of the speakers, that the
  306
  idea of subsidising the cinema in the interests of agriculture is one that will be avoided. We all want to make agricultural life more attractive, and happier and better, and I hope in this direction the Bill will be useful, as well as in all the other directions indicated by those who have spoken.
  Lieut.-Colonel WE1GALL: On behalf of the County Agricultural Committees—one speaker gave unqualified approval to the work they have done in the country and are now doing—I most heartily welcome the Bill now before us. We look forward to an increased sphere of activity when the committees become statutory bodies carrying out the whole of the agricultural administration in the counties. I disagree from my right hon. Friend opposite that the councils that are to be set up under this Bill will, of necessity, contribute any useful work. I was extremely sorry to hear the account just given of Ministerial activities, and I must say that I have a very much higher view of them, and in spite of what has been said I still have a much higher opinion of the way Ministerial administrative duties are carried out. We are all agreed that in the counties you must have your live County Committee, but nobody seems to have provided the essential connecting link between the Board of Agriculture and those counties. I see no other alternative myself to the agricultural counties proposed under this Bill, but we must have a true mirror of agricultural opinion throughout the country on the Council. I do not want the House to imagine that the federation of County Agricultural Committees, the National Farmers Union, the Central Land Association or the Central Chamber of Commerce, all of them representative bodies in the country, approve of the constitution of the Council as laid down in the Government Bill, but they have all approved of the constitution which has been laid down by the Agricultural Committee of this House in a measure which my hon. Friend knows has been in the hands of his predecessor.
  I would urge for serious consideration the representation of all these associations. We might take, say, a couple of members of every Agricultural Committee in every administrative county to form the basis of the Agricultural Council. I cannot help thinking that that system would give you a more real representative agricultural opinion than the Government proposal, and it gets over the difficulty which

  307
  has been raised as to the representation of county boroughs. There is one school of thought which says that county boroughs have nothing to do with our rural life or the agricultural industry, while another school holds the opinion which is shared by the Government, which gives them twelve representatives, and it seems to me that both those schools of thought are wrong. For the reasons that have already been given it is essential that you should have some urban element or some urban point of view in order that the agricultural point of view and the urban point of view can be consolidated and assimilated for the good of all.
  If you are going to accept that theory I do not think you can include in such a large council such a small number of those representatives I have mentioned. I hope the hon. Gentleman will give us some more representative method assimilating urban districts in a way the Government proposal cannot hope to do. Whilst all these great organisations, some for whom I can speak as a representative, have expressed their views on this proposal, all of them give a hearty support to the general principle of the Bill, but at the same time they urge that in Committee the constitution of these councils and committees should be radically altered. I was astonished that when my hon. Friend was telling the House of the enormous amount of good that has been done by the National Council to which he refers he forgot to mention the National Agricultural Council in this country. I am sure that was an omission which was unintentional, and I agree with him that the two great national agricultural councils now in existence are purely voluntary, and it is possible that when these councils are made statutory it will be very much easier for future Ministers coming down to this House to feel that they have behind them the united and authoritative support of the whole industry. I think the Agricultural Council should be so constituted as to be truly representative of every single agricultural interest engaged in the industry, and on behalf of the County Agricultural Committee I give my hearty support to this Bill.
  Mr. W1GNALL: With regard to the general principles of this Bill I think we can all give it a hearty welcome, because it will provide a separate machinery which will be beneficial to the agricultural industry of this country. Through being de-
  308
  tained with other work this evening I was prevented from hearing the hon. Gentleman's speech who represents the Government, but I have read the Bill with a great deal of interest, and I was led to believe that it would contain some important and ample provisions for dealing with the fishery industry of this country. I read the Bill through very carefully, and I wondered when I was going to come to the fish section, and I find it is almost like a little sprat hidden away in Schedule 15. The Bill seems to dispose of the whole of this question in six or seven lines, although it certainly gives us some promise that something is going to be done, Rules are to be set up and committees arc to be called into existence, and all these things are promised, but there is not much finality about them. Much has been done for agriculture during the last few years and great interest has been taken in this question, and I believe that a great deal of good will result to agriculture.
  Let us take our mind back over any period you like during the War or previous to it, or even to the later stages. It is now twelve months since the Armistice, and we are glad to know that, and I hope none of us will ever see the horrors of another war. I would like to ask what has been done for the fish industry to develop it, or to protect the interest of all those who go down to the sea and risk their lives arid bring us the food that we so much need? I made a statement on this subject in August last in reference to the distribution of fish. I followed that statement up by personal investigation, and I think I may claim that I did not waste the time of the House in. reference to that subject; and I do not believe that all through my experience I ever got such a heavy post as I received during that period. Some of the letters I received were from fish buyers and they were too awful for words, and in the case of a man who could command such language as was committed to paper in one letter, it must be a natural gift or he could never have written it. I received letters from various fishermen's societies pointing out the difficulties they had to labour under and the need for reform, and all through my pilgrimage in Cornwall and Devonshire in the ten days following that night in the House of Commons I addressed numerous meetings myself, and in every instance I was received with great enthusiasm and resolutions were

  309
  passed calling upon the Board of Agriculture to prepare a Bill to protect their interests.
  I was hoping and thinking when this Bill was introduced that we should have something better than we have got in this respect, and so far as this Clause is concerned, although it contains a very important outline because it speaks of the distribution of fish, I can assure the House to-night that that is a very important side of the whole question. It is one thing to go out into the North Sea or the Atlantic or any part of our British waters and get your boat loaded with fish and bring it into port, but it is quite another thing to dispose of it in such a way that it can reach the consumer quickly and as fresh as possible. As one hon. Gentleman has stated to-night, fish is the main food of the working classes. They want it as cheap as it can be got and as fresh as possible, and the only way of doing that is to make provision for the efficient transport of it, so that the people who have invested their money and risked their lives in obtaining the fish may dispose of it to their benefit as well as to the benefit of the community. I join with the right hon. and hon. Members who have to-night suggested that it would be better to take out just the little crumb of comfort from this Bill; to take it out altogether and to pass a comprehensive Bill dealing with the whole fishing industry and doing so in an effective way, making provision not only for catching and storage, and preservation as well as distribution, but for placing it on the doorsteps of the people as quickly as possible.
  I am not hostile to the Bill as it stands. I give it a cordial welcome so far as its agricultural provisions, are concerned; but it does seem to me that the great and enthusiastic expectations which were entertained that the Government would deal with the fishing question in a bold and comprehensive way are woefully disappointed, and I am sure when the fishermen see this one little Clause in the Bill there will be some hot words uttered and some very strong language used. It will be looked upon almost as adding insult to injury to put one obscure little Clause into the Bill as a promise of something that is to be done by and by. It is like giving sweets to a surly and noisy child and asking him to "be quiet, and promise him something better by and by. Therefore, I say take the whole thing out, let
  310
  us have a comprehensive Bill dealing with the fishing industry, seeing that it is a most important part of our life. These men should be dealt with in an effective way so as to protect the interests of those who get their livelihood, and who thereby contribute so largely to the maintenance of the whole community.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I only have three points to make. I associate myself entirely with the last speaker in asserting that the fishing industry question involves not only the matter of distribution but also the question of fishery harbours, which are very congested, and, in many cases, quite inadequate at the present moment. Then there is the question of the cold storage of fish, and I hope that in the near future when aerial flight is quicker there will be aerial transport for fish. But that is too big a thing to be tacked on to this Bill in connection with agriculture. We want, in fact, a. separate Bill for the fishing industry. At the present moment we have a state of complete confusion with regard to the fisheries of the North Sea. I am speaking for a constituency which is especially interested in this matter. We have some hundreds of trawlers and drifters which were built for the Admiralty during the War and they are now available, but although a scheme has just been brought out for the disposal of them the boats are still hung up, and in the meantime there are numbers of unemployed fishermen who have done splendid service during the War and who certainly deserve better treatment than they are now getting. Therefore, I say let us take this Clause out of the Bill and have a comprehensive measure brought in.
  My second point is that I would like an assurance that the interests of the manufacturers of cattle foods will not be neglected, and that they will be given representation on the proposed agricultural councils. In my own Constituency there are a number of important mills connected with this industry, and the people in the trade are extremely sore at the present moment because on the Committee on Agriculture they have no representation at all. Every Member in the House interested in agriculture will agree that their interests are bound up with agriculture, and that cattle breeding cannot be carried on in this country without the aid of the cattle-food manufacturers. I hope we shall be given an assurance that

  311
  they are not to be neglected in this instance. My third point is in regard to the increase of officials and bureaucrats. I want to know if these various councils and Committees are to have a large secretariat. Will there be a number of fresh officials appointed over and above the present staff of the Board of Agriculture? I hope the House will resist any such step. We have heard a good deal about officials who have been harassing farmers during the War. These men are now looking for further jobs, and if they can make a fresh bureaucracy in connection with this matter over and above the present officials of the Board of Agriculture, we know from past experience that they will do it. Therefore, we must be very careful, and I do urge that we should have an assurance that these new councils are not to have an enormous secretariat attached to them—a clerical staff that will make work which really is not necessary and which, above all, will only add to the expense. I hope, when we see the Financial Resolution, we shall find that the estimate of expenditure has been very carefully drawn, that the amount asked for will be definite, and that it will not be too high. I imagine that these councils and committees are going to take a good deal of work now falling on the shoulders of the Parliamentary Secretary.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: I rise to draw attention to the position in Scotland under this proposed Bill. Scotland is specially excepted, and in most respects, indeed, the English Board of Agriculture has nothing to do with the administration of agriculture in Scotland. But there is one very important exception, and that is the administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act in Scotland. As the Parliamentary Secretary well knows that remains under the English Board of Agriculture. There is a good deal of feeling in Scotland on this subject, and there is a strong opinion in favour of transferring the administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act to the Scottish Board of Agriculture. But I do not say that that is practicable. All I suggest is that it is a subject of great interest to Scottish agriculturists and cattle breeders, and I received only this morning representations from the Scottish Pedigree Cattle Breeders Committee claiming to administer their own Contagious Diseases (Animals)
  312
  Act. But that cannot be done. I do not think that Scottish agriculturists would agree to an advisory agricultural committee being set up to advise the English Board of Agriculture on the administration of these Acts in Scotland without some connecting link so that the views of Scottish opinion may be brought to the notice of the English Board of Agriculture. I do not wish to press for any particular method of carrying this into effect. It is well known in Scotland that the Secretary for Scotland has set up, under a certain arrangement not embodied in legislation, an agricultural council for bringing to his notice agricultural opinion in Scotland. I suggest that perhaps two members of this council or two members appointed in some way to represent Scottish agricultural opinion should be added to the Advisory Agricultural Committee, the central body which is provided for in the Schedule of the Act, to take part in its deliberations and to advise the President of the English Board on questions coming up under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act. I hope before this Bill goes into Committee the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture will consult the Scottish Board of Agriculture on this subject.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We have had an exceedingly interesting Debate, and I wish to thank the House for the generally very kind reception which has been given to this Bill. I know, of course, that the Bill does not go as far as many hon. Members desire, but as I pointed out at the start it is really a Bill of machinery, a Bill of organisation, and it does not pretend to carry out any definite agricultural or fishery policy. With regard to agricultural policy, I hope that a Bill based on the Prime Minister's proposals may be brought forward before long, and as regards fishery, as I have already said, we have had under consideration proposals for dealing with this great and important industry, the value of which we fully appreciate, and we are now considering much wider proposals, which I hope may be brought in next Session Turning to the points on which there has been controversy, I think they are almost entirely Committee points. I will just say a word upon one or two of them. The first question is as to the payment of the members of county committees. One hon. Member suggested that they are going to be paid. It is not so. I never

  313
  suggested payment to these committees except to those members who represent smallholders and allotment-holders and who are specially put on to represent their interests on the Small Holdings Committee. On the more general question of payment of expenses and subsistence allowance of Labour members, I fully appreciate the point of view that these men cannot attend the meetings unless they are paid, and if the matter rested with me I should like to see general provision made with that object. But we are dealing with the whole question of the payment of members of county councils. No member of the county council or of any committee of the county council has his expenses paid at the present time; he only gets a subsistence allowance, and we can hardly propose that members of agricultural councils should be paid when members of county councils are not. But the whole question is under consideration.
  Mr. ROYCE: But you make provision to pay the Labour representatives on the Small Holdings Committees!
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No; only in respect of a very special class, namely, smallholders. The whole question, I believe, is under consideration, but could hardly be determined as a general principle in this Bill. There is no fear of anything in the nature of what are called subsidised cinemas in order to enliven the countryside. The sole expenditure which falls under this head has relation to inquiries which may be made as to the best way of promoting social well-being and rural industries in county districts. The outside expenditure will be something in the nature of the payment of people who are setting out to organise this sort of thing.
  I now come to what is by far the most difficult question, and that is the composition of the councils. I wish to consultion. Members' views as far as I can, but the advice, I get is so signally contradictory that it would be exceedingly difficult for me to know what advice to accept-That being the case, probably the opinion of the Board of Agriculture will be the best. For instance, on the question of boroughs, one hon. Member said, "Cut them out altogether." Another said, "Give them full representation." I certainly could not cut them out altogether. I want as far as possible to break down
  314
  the distinction as regards agriculture between urban and rural life. If by allotments, and by boroughs taking an active interest in the settling of the soldiers on the land, as some are, that sort of barrier was broken down, so much the better; but, on the other hand, we must not out-vote the country representatives by people who represent large towns, and I think the plan suggested of a limited number of borough representatives would be the best. However, I will favourably consider all proposals with a most impartial mind, and try to come to the best solution. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) suggested that special trades should be put on. We really cannot deal with special trades. If we put on cattle food traders. why not the makers of artificial manures and why not other trades? I got a letter yesterday suggesting that consumers should be put on. My answer is that all the members will be consumers, but I suppose what is intended is a special representative of consumers. We really cannot consider special trades, nor can we consider what we must call the general public outside, when we are dealing with a body which is specifically to represent an industry.
  Then there is the difficult question of fishery, I do not want to be misunderstood, and I think it possible that some of the words I used were misunderstood by the hon. Member (Mr. Irving). I did not say that local sea fishery committees were played out. I said some people thought so, and that is true. What I indicated was that when we are bringing in a bigger Bill it might be possible to introduce some new bodies on a wider basis more thoroughly representative of the whole industry than the existing body is. I recognise to the full the good work these bodies have done, especially the committee of which the hon. Member is himself a member. I do not want in any way to depreciate their worth for the benefit of the industry as a whole. I am entirely in the hands of the House, and I am quite willing to take the most impartial view in Committee. If I am persuaded that the fishery industry would sooner be left out of the Bill altogether I am quite willing to leave it out, and put it into another Bill.
  Mr. IRVING: Would the hon. Gentleman undertake in Committee to make

  315
  Clause 5 more definite, and then we could feel that we had something, however small? We do not feel that now.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am too old a Parliamentary hand to make a definite promise on Second Reading of what I will do in Committee. I am quite prepared to consider the matter in the broadest possible spirit; but if hon. Members ask me to drop this out of the Bill altogether they must not subsequently taunt me with having paid no attention to fisheries. Does the hon. Member want fisheries to be in or out?
  Mr. IRVING: I had sooner them be in in a comprehensive way.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Then probably the best way would be to deal with them in a comprehensive way in another Bill. However, I will consider the matter in Committee, but I cannot make any definite promise. The only other point is that raised by the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hope). I know there is a difficult over the fact that the Animals Diseases Acts are administered by the English Hoard in Scotland, and it may be necessary to have some channel of communication and advice from Scotland to the English Board. I anticipated this point being raised, and I have arranged with the Secretary for Scotland to try to devise means by which this may be accomplished. I cannot say more than that at present. I do not agree altogether with some speakers who have deprecated the value of the National Agricultural Council. My own idea is that it will give a corporate existence to agricultural opinion which will be very valuable. In my zeal in praising the Welsh National Agricultural Council I apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Weigall) for having omitted the English Council I realise what good work they have done. We now propose to give to bodies of that character a statutory existence. Having a real, live body to focus agricultural opinion in every county in the country is a most important part of the Bill, and if that was the only part of the Bill I should press it on the attention of the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time? and committed to a Standing Committee.

  AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES COUNCILS, ETC. [EXPENSES.]
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the expense of any council, committee, or sub-committee established, or of any fishery meeting convened under any Act of the present Session to provide for the constitution of councils and committees, in connection with agriculture and fisheries, and to amend the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1889 to 1909—(King's Recommendation signified)—To-morrow.—[Mr. Mcepherson.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  MONTENEGRO.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. R. McNEILL: At Question Time yesterday I gave notice that on the Motion for the Adjournment to-night I would call attention to some questions which I have asked and the answers I have received on the subject of Montenegro. For a long time past, throughout the War, I and other hon. Members have asked questions of the foreign Office on this subject, and until the present moment we have almost always failed to obtain any information at all. While the War was going on we invariably thought it our duty to respond to any appeal that was made to us from the Foreign Office not to press these questions. In February last, when the fighting was over, I thought the time had come when we might press the Foreign Office for some more information, and I gave notice that I would call attention to the question on the Motion for the Adjournment. Then, again, in answer to an appeal from my hon. Friend (Mr. Harmsworth), I refrained from doing so until yesterday, when I asked some further questions on the subject and was still told that as the matter was under consideration at Paris it was not thought right to give any information. In particular I want to call attention to my Noble Friend's refusal to lay on the Table of the House the Report which has been made by Count de Salis,

  317
  who was sent by the Government to make a Report on the conditions in Montenegro. In the time at my disposal I can only deal shortly with a story which is a long one, involving the whole treatment of Montenegro by the Entente since the beginning of the War, and there are certainly some very strange circumstances, some of which I hope my Noble Friend will be able to explain, because they are by no means creditable so far as my information goes, either to this country or to our Allies.
  7.0 P.M.
  Montenegro has a very special claim on the esteem of this country and of every lover of liberty. It is the solitary State in the Balkans which has never surrendered her independence to Turkey in the past, and she was acclaimed many years ago by Mr. Gladstone as "immortal Montenegro." That character she amply bore out at the very beginning of the War. Two days after we declared war she threw herself on the side of the Western Allies'—on the side of liberty—and flew at the throat of Austria. It was a plucky thing to do, having regard to the feebleness of her military strength and her geographical situation. The consequence was that she had to share with Serbia the misery of being overrun and devastated by the enemy. The curious thing—and this I believe to be the secret of all that has happened—is that from the very first, Serbia, instead of treating. Montenegro as a gallant little ally, and a kindred nation, has pursued towards her an aggressive policy and has had aggressive designs upon her which has been carried out through a long system of intrigue both in Paris and elsewhere. At a very early stage of the War reports began to be spread which can be traced to Serbian sources, discreditable both to Montenegro And especially to the King of Montenegro, and it was said these reports went so far as to allege that the King and his Government had been guilty of treachery to the Allies, and had been in correspondence with the enemy, and it was even alleged at one time that some secret treaty existed between Montenegro and Austria. In fact, a raging propaganda, was carrid out by Serbian agents throughout Europe during the War, the object being that when the ultimate settlement of that part of the world came to be arranged, Montenegro should be incorporated in the Kingdom of Serbia, losing her own dynasty and her own independence. When the Austrian invasion took place in the summer of 1915, both the Courts and Governments of these
  318
  two States had to go into exile. The Serbian Court and Government was established at Corfu, and that of Montenegro at Paris, and then a small subsidy was arranged to be paid by His Majesty's Government and the French Government jointly to Monte-negro to enable that little Kingdom to carry on its administration although in exile. From the very beginning, for some strange reason which has never yet been explained, instead of treating Montenegro as an honoured Ally, although of comparative feebleness in the Alliance, and treating her with respect and encouragement, the Allies, including His Majesty's Government, have treated Montenegro with studied slights. To begin with, she was the only one of the Allies who was never allowed to have a diplomatic representative in this country during the War. She applied for one and it was refused. I myself in this House asked the President of the Council, who was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, why a diplomatic representative was not to be allowed to Montenegro, and he replied very shortly that it was thought sufficient that her communications with His Majesty's Government should be carried on through on inferior official at the Paris Embassy. Sir George Grey. Up to the present moment she has never been allowed to have any representative in this country, and therefore no direct communication here with His Majesty's Government. Whether or not it was a substantial grievance, at all events it was a, marked slight. The same attitude was shown in another comparatively small respect. The House will remember that during the War there were anniversaries of victories and other occasions when messages of encouragement, hope and congratulation were exchanged between the heads of the various Governments. Our own Prime Minister sent messages, and he advised His Majesty to send messages to various representatives of the Governments of the Allies. I think I am right in saying that from first to last Montenegro was pointedly excluded from all such messages. Even on the conclusion of Peace she was excluded ostentatiously. When Siam and several other nations in both hemispheres who had been included in any sort of way in the Alliance received congratulatory messages, not one was sent to the Sovereign of Montenegro or to any member of her Government.

  319
  Here is a point to which I would especially call the attention of the House. It is an extraordinary thing that no explanation has been given of it. Montenegro was never invited to send representatives to the Peace Conference in Paris. She was one of the first States to spring into the Alliance and gallantly come to the assistance of the Western States, yet she was never invited to the Paris Conference. Although her destiny was closely concerned with the settlement of the Balkans, she never had a representative at the Paris Conference and has never been consulted from first to last one way or another with regard to that. I want to call the attention of the House to what happened when Austria was compelled, by the change of fortunes in war, to evacuate these States. The Serbian King and Government were restored as soon as possible, quite rightly and properly, to their own country, and every pains were taken by the great Powers who had fought for Serbia to see that the Government was restored and to bring relief and help to the devastated country and to the poor people of Serbia who had so desperately suffered in the War. Was the same thing done in Montenegro? Not at all. Why not? Why, when the enemy left Montenegro, was her Sovereign and her Government not immediately restored with such encouragement, assistance, and help as the Great Powers could supply? On the contrary, to this day the King of Montenegro and the Government of Montenegro remained in Paris, and the country of Montenegro was occupied by Serbian troops, and is so occupied to this moment. The Serbians owe a great deal to Montenegro, because in their hour of dire distress they were welcomed and given passage through Montenegrin territory. But when the enemy had to retire from the invasion the Serbians, instead of going back to their own country and opening the way to the restoration of the Montenegrin Government and. people, have remained there, practically as enemies, treating it as conquered territory to this moment, while the King of Montenegro and his Ministers are in Paris, are practically retained there as prisoners against their will, or if that is too strong an expression, it is not inaccurate to say that no facilities whatever have been given to them by the Great Powers to return to their own country and no steps whatever are been taken to clear out the Serbian
  320
  troops, who have been occupying Montenegrin territory. They have not only been occupying it, but committing excesses of the worst description. The Serbian troops there have been imprisoning the natives of the country, driving them as refugees into the mountains. Many of them have been butchered, and a good many more of them have been starved. Not only that, but a relief scheme was devised by private enterprise in this country just before the Armistice was signed. Montenegro was in dire need of such relief. On that subject I asked some questions last autumn, but without obtaining any information. The fact was that instead of facilities being given for this relief to be sent, every sort of difficulty was put in the way by the Government acting, I suppose, in concert with the Allies in Paris, though that I do not know, but I do know that every difficulty was put in the way instead of facilities being given. The consequence was that we had this excessive contrast soon after the Armistice was signed, that while the Allies were taking steps to send relief as quickly as possible to our enemies in Vienna, it was actually being denied to our Allies in Montenegro, who were very much more in need of it. At a very much later period, some months ago, when at last relief was sent under an arrangement come to by, I think, Mr. Hoover, and made by the Americans, my information is—and I believe my hon. Friend cannot contradict it—that 70 per cent, of the relief that was sent was consumed by the Serbian troops who were in occupation of the country, and the remainder was sold to profiteers, who disposed of it at enormous profits to themselves.
  The extraordinary thing which all these facts show is that while other parts of Europe have suffered from the ravaging devastation of a ruthless enemy, Montenegro has suffered almost as badly from devastation, not by an enemy, but by an Ally who ought to have been her best friend, and all this simply in pursuit of a policy which Serbia has had in mind from the first, to compel, if she can, in the final settlements the incorporation of Montenegro in her own territory. In other words, it is exactly the same thing which Italy is causing complaint about in regard to Fiume, while the Jugo-Slav States— quite rightly in my judgment—are complaining of the aggressive policy on the part of some sections of Italian opinion there, the Jugo-Slavs are carrying out

  321
  precisely the same policy on a much greater scale in the allied country of the Montenegrins. I have been told in answer to questions time after time—this is the important point of policy—that the Montenegrin people should be allowed an opportunity, by free choice, to determine their own future, that is to say, to determine whether or not they will join a great Jugo-Slav State. If they like they can do so, either under some federal scheme or, if they prefer it, by an organic union, or, if they prefer to stand out altogether, they can maintain their independence. It is no concern of mine to suggest one policy more than another. All that I ask the House to agree with me in is in asking that whatever policy Montenegro pursues with regard to a final settlement, it shall be her own free choice and shall not be forced upon her by a more powerful neighbour. All through efforts have been made by some Serbian elements to frustrate this free choice by Montenegro. First of all in 1916 we had a meeting, or rather an arrangement which was called the Pact of Corfu. That was a pact which was signed by a number of gentlemen, none of whom represented Montenegro— whose opinion, was never asked—but who decided by that instrument that Montenegro was to be part of the great kingdom of Serbia and was to own allegiance to the Karageorgevitch dynasty. There was what was called a Parliament held at Podgoritza. It was a. bogus Parliament. I should like to see the De Salis Report for that very reason. I challenge my hon. Friend to produce it, because I believe that if it were produced it would show that the Podgoritza Parliament was an utter fraud. There was no genuine vote of Montenegrin representatives as we were informed they were electing to throw in their lot with Serbia.
  While all this has been going on, whether it is owing to Serbian influence or not I do not know, but the very moderate subsidy which the French and British Governments undertook to pay to enable this State to carry on was stopped. It was stopped at very critical periods, and so far as my information goes the last time it was stopped was a few months ago. I want to ask my hon. Friend why at this moment when Montenegro is still unsettled, when her King and Government are still exiled, when she is in the occupation of troops which are not her own, this time has been chosen by the French and
  322
  British Governments to stop the subsidy upon which her political existence depended? As as matter of fact—I do not know whether it has any direct connection —it is noteworthy that on the 17th September M. Pasitch presented a Note to the Conference in Paris in which he made a very extraordinary request. The House will remember that he is a Serbian statesman owing everything in honour to this little Allied and kindred State. He made the request to the Conference in Paris that they should no longer recognise the Government of Montenegro as representing that country, and that the subsidy should be withdrawn—a generous attitude for an Ally to take up. What was his or the Serbian object. Obviously they want to reduce this little country to such a state of despair, and to strip it so naked before the world, that it will be compelled, having no other course to take, to accept union with Serbia as the only way out of hopeless misery and bankruptcy. It is a mean, despicable device to compel this little State to accept a policy which she would not do of her own free will. For all this, His Majesty's Government cannot escape a great deal of responsibilty. My hon. Friend tells me that they have to act in concord with our Allies in Paris. Of course they have; but have Ills Majesty's Government ever used any powerful influence in favour of this little State which Mr. Gladstone called Immortal Montenegro? Have they ever said that they will not be a party to any policy, such as has been carried out, of tyranny and of oppression?
  They will not produce the Report of Count De Salis. Why? My hon. Friend told me yesterday, in answer to a question, that it was not because they had received any communication from the Serbian Government. I accept that statement, but there are other methods of making known the wishes of powerful interests. I do not hesitate to say that the reason the De Salis Report is not given to this House is because there are Serbian influences and international financial interests in alliance with those influences which want to have it hushed up. My hon. Friend shakes his head. He will tell us, perhaps, why it is hushed up. It is not sufficient to tell us that the House of Commons and the country are to be denied all knowledge of it merely because of some general statement decided upon by the wiseacres of Paris. As long ago as February this year I asked that this State should be given freedom of choice.

  323
  My hon. Friend at that time said that it would be premature to make any statement. In April they sent out Count De Salis, and there again they treated Montenegro with studied discourtesy. They sent out this Mission without having the politeness to notify the Government of the country they were going to investigate. The Montenegro Government, naturally and properly, entered a protest against being treated in that way, and when I called the attention of my hon. Friend to it he said that he had not even heard of this protest, though afterwards he was good enough to inform us that I was quite correct. From first to last we have been told that they were going to send out to ascertain the true wishes of the Montenegrin people, and that we must wait until the Report of this Mission was sent in so that we might know what were the true wishes of the people. We have now ascertained Count De Salis has come back and has reported. He has found out everything that he wanted to find out in order to answer the question, and yet we are almost told that it is impertinent to inquire into this matter at all, and that at all events the matter is still under consideration in Paris.
  I can tell the House on this point what Count De Salis reports. I challenge my hon. Friend to deny it. Count De Salis reports clearly and unmistakably that in his judgment the wish of the Montenegrin people is to retain their own sovereign and their own independence. Not only does he do that, but he gives a valuable account of the proceedings of the Serbian troops in that country, and the inference that anyone would draw from the Report would be that unless some strong action is taken by the Allied Powers before the winter ends there will be, very little, if any, population left in Montenegro either to thwart or to satisfy the rapacity of their neighbours. Let me say that it is no pleasure to me to have to speak in these terms of a gallant Ally, which Serbia is, an Ally whose sufferings and sorrows in the War and whose steadfastness in the War won the respect and the sympathy of us all. In earlier periods of the War I myself spoke in this House in support of the legitimate aspirations of Serbia. I am a member of the Executive of the Serbian Society of Great Britain. All my sympathies are in favour of Serbia as a legitimate aspirant to the head of a yugo-Slav State. That idea of
  324
  a great Yugo-Slav State under the leadership of Serbia is one that has my entire sympathy. What I protest against is that in carrying out that desirable policy the independence of this gallant little State should be sacrificed against her will, and I do maintain that it is the duty of His Majesty's Government and of the Allies to tell us now what steps they have taken to carry out the pledge that they have so often given that this free choice should be secured for Montenegro and that they would give us full information as to position, of affairs in that country, especially by publishing the Report of Count De Salis and his Mission which went out under orders of His Majesty's Government.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I had intended to preface my few remarks this afternoon with some observations on the alleged undue reticence of the Foreign Office in the disclosure of information. If there had been a larger attendance in the House, I should have been very glad of such an opportunity, but I may perhaps be permitted to say, if some hon. Members think that the Foreign Office or those Ministers who are responsible for the Foreign Office have any jealous view as to the value of information that they possess, that, speaking for myself, I have no such views at all. I would most gladly and most willingly share—sometimes I feel it to be an almost intolerable burden—with hon. Members, and of course with the public at large, many of those confidential matters which unfortunately, so long as foreign affairs are to be conducted at all, cannot be bruited abroad at particular junctures. Yesterday it was suggested that the Foreign Office had been closer than formerly, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) took part in supplementary questions on that subject. I have taken the trouble to look back upon the questions asked in this House during the last twelve months and before, and, even on this particular subject, I can only say that there has not been any greater reticence under the recent regime than there was before.
  Mr. McNEILL: My hon. Friend must remember that the War was going on then, and that was quite a different thing.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. Friend perhaps will reflect that conditions with regard to foreign policy have been much

  325
  more difficult during the period of the Armistice than they were during the period of active hostilities. During the period of active hostilities it was permissible for anybody responsible for foreign affairs to express himself with extreme freedom about a very considerable number of States. At the present time that number is greatly restricted, and the affairs of a great number of States are yet in a condition of unsettlement. I deplore as much as any Member of this House the delay—I believe the necessary and unavoidable delay—in the settlement of some of these difficulties in Europe. What is the real trouble with regard to Montenegro? The trouble mainly consists in the fact that the affairs of the States on the Eastern shores of the Adriatic are not generally settled. The House knows, and my hon. Friend will agree with me, that we cannot pick out a little State like Montenegro from this difficult territory and say that we will settle the affairs of that State without any regard to those profoundly difficult problems which confront us on the Eastern side of the Adriatic.
  I have no complaint to make of the manner in which my hon. Friend has dealt with this question. He has been throughout uniformly restrained and considerate in his treatment of the Foreign Office in regard to Montenegro. He has truly said that on more than one occasion I have taken the liberty of asking him not to press questions in relation to Montenegro, and he has always most willingly agreed, although he takes a far greater interest in this question than perhaps any other private Member of the House claims to take. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the restraint which he has exhibited in this connection, and I may perhaps congratulate him. It was said yesterday that the House and the country were left in great ignorance on some of these foreign questions, I really think that has been overstated. To those who take the trouble to inquire and study there is an immense body of things open, and, although I am far from ready to pledge myself to every view that my hon. Friend has expressed, or indeed to guarantee the strict accuracy of everything that he has said, it is quite obvious that my hon. Friend knows a very great deal about the conditions in Montenegro and Serbia.
  Much has been said about the Report of Count De Salis. I confess, quite
  326
  frankly, that I have no sympathy with secret treaties or secret documents except in the latter case in so far as the documents must be at any given time secret. Here was a Report prepared by a distinguished public servant for the guidance and information of His Majesty's Government. In this Report Count De Salis speaks with the completes freedom of every aspect of this question, and the House will gather from the speech of my hon. Friend himself that there are several important countries concerned in the affairs of Montenegro. Count De Salis in this Report expresses himself quite properly and rightly with complete freedom in regard to the situation as he observed it. In the second sentence of his Report, indeed in the letter covering his Report when he sent it to the Secretary of State—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that if he quotes the Report he will have to lay the whole of it upon the Table of the House.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am very much obliged to you, Sir; I had overlooked that fact. I am afraid that it rather stops me from proceeding. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that I have had a conversation with Count De Salis, and in his judgment some of his informants in Montenegro would get into very serious trouble were the reports to be disclosed.
  Mr. McNEILL: Trouble with whom? Does he mean that they would have their throats cut by the Serbians?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot commit myself to the gloss which my hon. Friend puts on his statement, but Count De Salis apprehends danger to his informants. That would not, however, be the main ground for declining to issue publicly a secret Report. I have considered it most carefully, and I have considered it from the point of view of a summary, though I do not know that this House would be prepared to accept a summary of the Report. I think this House would look with misgiving such a Bowdlerised edition of a Report of that description. It is almost impossible to disentangle particulars of a report of this character, which must be regarded for the present as purely confidential. I am in the hands of the House so far as my personal position is concerned. I have studied the Report with the utmost care, and my judgment is that that Report could not be pub-

  327
  lished without causing far more trouble to everyone concerned than can easily be anticipated.
  My hon. and learned Friend spoke, and very properly, in the very highest terms of Montenegro's contribution to the warlike efforts of the Allies. The House knows what that splendid history is, and I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that so far as I know there is nobody in the Government who does not share in the public admiration of the virtues of the Montenegrins. I think he went very far in suggesting that the Montenegrins have been subjected to a succession of marked and calculated slanders. I cannot offhand, rebut every one of the many points he Adduced in this connection, but it is not fair to say that the Government of the King of Montenegro is not adequately represented by us in Paris. It is represented by a very distinguished diplomatist, Sir George Graham, who is First Counsellor to the Embassy in Paris. I am not learned in these questions of diplomatic precedence, but the House knows that that is a very high rank in the diplomatic service.
  Mr. McNEILL: The point is that they are not represented in London. I am not saying anything against Sir George Graham in Paris. Why was the ordinary course not followed, and they allowed to have their diplomatic representative here in London?
  Mr. J. JONES: Why is not Sinn Fein allowed a representative in London?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: To neither question can I give a satisfactory reply at the moment. But I think from the point of view of this House it is very much overstating the case—and, if my hon. and learned Friend will pardon me saying so, it is very misleading—to say that a slight has been put upon the King of Montenegro and his Government in Paris. When we are talking about the way in which this Government has been treated, I need scarcely remind the House of the payment of a subsidy by the French and British Governments up to a recent date. It is not customary for great Powers to make subsidies to other Powers whom they desire to alienate or slight. I am sure there is no foundation whatever for any suggestion that there has been a desire on the part of His Majesty's Government to put any kind of slight on the Court of King Nicholas in Paris. As to the stoppage of
  328
  the subsidy, we live in an age of great economy, and all subsidies, so far as I know, have been stopped by the Treasury.
  Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY: Except Denikin's!
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think all subsidies have been stopped by His Majesty's Treasury. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that, so far as His Majesty's Government is concerned, there has been no intention in the withdrawal of the subsidy still further to reduce the strength of the Montenegrin Court and power in Paris. I am sorry that my hon. Friend made that suggestion. Certainly there has been no desire on the part of the great Powers concerned to reduce the Montenegrin Court and Government by what I should describe in his own words was "a mean device." Indeed, there has been no desire to reduce their prestige or power in any way whatever. This is a most difficult question The Leader of the House yesterday deprecated any discussion of the matter, and. I do not know that I should be wise or justified in giving any expression to any opinions of policy at this moment. Only a few weeks ago, in a letter dated 16th October, we were advised by our representative at the Peace Conference that the situation in regard to the settlement was reaching, as he thought, a much more satisfactory stage than that which had hitherto obtained. He looked for a solution of the difficulties of Montenegro on lines that would not be unacceptable to the Montenegrin people themselves. He said, I am reading his actual words—but I suppose I had better not do that, Mr. Speaker; otherwise the document will become liable to publication. This is a document of a very familiar character, from a diplomatic representative abroad of the Foreign Office. These documents are not meant for publication, and indeed could not conveniently be published. I may say, however, that according to the advice we have received from our representative in Paris, Sir Eyre Crowe, in whose judgment the Government and the Foreign Office very rightly place the very highest opinion, it would be singularly indiscreet to discuss the tangled problems of Montenegro and of the Eastern shores of the Adriatic at this particular moment. I think if the House will allow me I will leave it at that. I can only say again that it is ho part of my desire to withhold useful information from the House. I find

  329
  that hon. Members who take a particular interest in foreign policy seem to be usually extremely fully informed, if not always entirely accurately informed. I think I can safely say this, that there is no other desire on the part of His Majesty's Government than that the Montenegrin people should achieve a form of government at their own desire and according to their own wishes, and such a form of government as is compatible with Montenegro's free and peaceful development. In that way, I think, I can safely say that all the good offices of His Majesty's Government, so far as they can be effective—and we are not without weight in the counsels of Europe—are at the disposal of the Montenegrins in working out their fate.
  Commander HILTON YOUNG: I will not enter into all the details that have been entered into by the hon. Member opposite, but I will content myself with dealing with a single point in his observations which will enable me to introduce a matter which I desire to put to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The hon. and learned Member asked the rhetorical question. Why was the Montenegrin Government not restored upon the expulsion of the Austrians? He might have suggested to himself a very easy reply. It was not restored because the people of Montenegro did not desire it.
  Mr. McNEILL: Who says that?
  Commander HILTON YOUNG: The Montenegrin people themselves. If evidence is required, I will give it. Immediately after the expulsion of the Austrian Army and while the Serbian Army was still entering the country and before it was established an Assembly was got together and met at Podgoritza, consisting of 160 members, which resolved with practical unanimity for union with Serbia. The hon. Member opposite has referred to that Assembly as bogus. I suggest to him that all the evidence is directly contrary to that assertion. The decision of that Assembly was subsequently confirmed by a National Assembly at Cettinje, which decision was again confirmed by the free election of twelve Montenegrin delegates to the Skuptschina of Jugo-Slavia, and these delegates are still serving and taking part in the deliberations of that body. One of them is a member of the Cabinet of the Jugo-Slavs. To the best of my belief this Assembly was not the bogus Assembly that the hon. and learned Member suggested.
  330
  But there is better evidence than that. This is a matter on which we are much in the dark and upon which I should desire, if opportunity afforded, to ask the Undersecretary for information. I believe that something in the nature of a Commission was appointed by the Allied Governments to make some sort of inquiry into the conditions of Montenegro and into the form of this decision. I refer to the Commission, if that is the right description of it, presided over by General Franchetd' Esperay, and on which there was a British officer, General Bridges, and also an Italian officer, whose name I do not remember. I cannot profess to know, because I do not think there are any sure means of knowledge available, exactly what was the composition, the procedure, or the result of that Inquiry, but I have heard it very confidently stated that it pronounced favourably on the decision, referred to, and to the effect that the general opinion, and desire of the Montenegrin nation was in favour of union with Serbia. I would only suggest that if Papers are ever to be published and if information is ever to be given to the House on this subject, that they should include the proceedings and findings of that Commission, if any there were, I most heartily agree with the hon. and learned Member that we are left too much in the dark upon this question, as upon many other questions in connection with the Peace Conference, and I believe that from that ignorance in which we are left misapprehensions result. Such a misapprehension, I venture with diffidence to suggest, has made itself apparent in the speech of the hon. and learned Member. He has suggested that the cause of the present trouble is some form of oppression of the Montenegrins by the Jugo-Slavs. I suggest that the true interpretation of the present situation is that there are two parties quarrelling in Montenegro, and that the Serbian intervention is, on the whole, for the diplomatic purpose of trying to get peace between them and to protect the freedom of opinion in Montenegro from foreign intervention. Such evidence as there is at our disposal is, I believe, to the effect that the Royalist party is in a minority and is maintained for the most part by filibustering expeditions from abroad. I say again, with great respect, that I heard with some little surprise the grave charges brought against an Allied Government by the hon. and gallant Member, and I am confident

  331
  that they have been disposed of in a manner that will satisfy those who know best the work of the Serbian nation and its achievements and sacrifices in the common cause.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to say a few words not on this particular question, but on the whole policy of the Government towards this House. The information which hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench give us is full enough but, so far as policy is concerned, we never have an opportunity of discussing it until it is presented to us as a fait accompli. The people of the country who send Members to this House to represent their interests have to find the money and the blood when these mistakes in policy come to fruition, and we have less control, so
  332
  far as I can gather, in this House than the members of any constituent assembly in the world — certainly less control than the members of the French, Italian or German Parliaments. Questions of policy which should have the approval of the people of the country are fully discussed in these Parliaments but not here. I am not attacking the hon. Member. He is courteous and his Department gives very full and ready information; but as to questions of policy, as, for instance, the policy which has been carried out by Sir Eyre Crowe, we have no power whatever, and I doubt whether the Prime Minister has very much say in the matter.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minute before Eight o'clock.

  EX-KAISER (TRIAL).
  EX-KAISER (TRIAL).
  EX-SERVICEMEN (EMPLOYMENT).
  EX-SERVICEMEN (EMPLOYMENT).
  ARMY EDUCATIONAL SCHEME.
  ARMY EDUCATIONAL SCHEME.
  OCCUPIED TERRITORIES (REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE).
  OCCUPIED TERRITORIES (REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE).
  WHISKY.
  WHISKY.
  CIGARETTES (PRICES).
  CIGARETTES (PRICES).
  DEMOBILISED IRISH SOLDIERS (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
  DEMOBILISED IRISH SOLDIERS (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  GERMAN FLEET (SCAPA FLOW).
  GERMAN FLEET (SCAPA FLOW).
  ADMIRALTY CONTRACT (MESSRS. JENNINGS, BRISTOL).
  ADMIRALTY CONTRACT (MESSRS. JENNINGS, BRISTOL).
DEMOBILISATION.
  NON-COMBATANT CORPS.
  NON-COMBATANT CORPS.
  TROOPS IN EGYPT.
  TROOPS IN EGYPT.
  REGULAR ARMY (COMMISSIONS)
  REGULAR ARMY (COMMISSIONS)
  113TH BRIGADE, ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY.
  113TH BRIGADE, ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY.
RUSSIA.
  BRITISH CASUALTIES.
  BRITISH CASUALTIES.
  FINLAND.
  FINLAND.
  UKRAINE.
  UKRAINE.
  SOLDIERS' GRAVES (PHOTOGRAPHS).
  SOLDIERS' GRAVES (PHOTOGRAPHS).
  10TH BATTALION, MIDDLESEX REGIMENT.
  10TH BATTALION, MIDDLESEX REGIMENT.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  WAR GRATUITIES.
  WAR GRATUITIES.
  ACTING PAYMASTERS.
  ACTING PAYMASTERS.
INDIA.
  ARMY EDUCATION SYSTEM.
  ARMY EDUCATION SYSTEM.
  JAPANESE IMPORTS.
  JAPANESE IMPORTS.
MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS
  RECEIPTS AND EXPENDUTURE
  RECEIPTS AND EXPENDUTURE
  LICENSED TEADE (RESTBICTIONS).
  LICENSED TEADE (RESTBICTIONS).
HOUSING.
  EX-SERVICEMAN (EJECTMENT).
  EX-SERVICEMAN (EJECTMENT).
  CROOK UEBAN DISTEICT COUNCIL (APPOINTMENT).
  CROOK UEBAN DISTEICT COUNCIL (APPOINTMENT).
TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION.
  SERVICE LORRIES.
  SERVICE LORRIES.
  WAGONS.
  WAGONS.
COAL PRODUCTION.
  ANTHRACITE.
  ANTHRACITE.
  BARKOW PAPER MILLS (SUPPLY).
  BARKOW PAPER MILLS (SUPPLY).
  COAL PRICES (ISLE OF WIGHT).
  COAL PRICES (ISLE OF WIGHT).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  SOAP.
  SOAP.
  IMPORTED GOODS (MARKING).
  IMPORTED GOODS (MARKING).
  IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.
  IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.
  EXPORTS.
  EXPORTS.
POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  GLASGOW UNIVERSITY (PROFESSORBECKER).
  GLASGOW UNIVERSITY (PROFESSORBECKER).
  SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES (GRANT).
  SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES (GRANT).

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
THE EARL OF LATHOM—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

WICK HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SCOTTISH AMICABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY'S PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GRANTON HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a and passed.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a and passed.
FRASERBURGH HARBOUR (NEW WORKS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a and passed.

COUNTY COURTS BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to County Courts.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

SEX DISQUALIFICATION (REMOVAL) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendments.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after ("sex") insert ("or marriage")
Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after ("function") insert ("including that of sitting and voting in the House of Lords")
Clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert ("or holding")
Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert ("or carrying on")
Clause 1, page 1, line 10, after ("sex") insert (''or marriage")
Clause 1, page 1, line 15, after ("made") insert ("providing for and"), and after the first ("of") insert ("the")
Clause 1, page 1, line 18, after ("to") insert ("or continue to hold")
Clause 1, page 1, lines 19 and 20, leave out ("providing for the exclusion of women from admission to") and insert ("giving power to reserve to men")
Clause 1, page 1, line 20, after the first ("of") insert ("or posts in")
Clause 1, page 1, line 21, after ("possessions") insert ("overseas")
Clause 1, page 1, line 24, leave out ("the case is heard") and insert ("a case is or may be heard").
Clause 1, page 2, page 2, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("having regard to the nature of the case and the evidence to be given")
Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out ("that") and insert ("any")
Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after ("exemption") insert ("Rules of Court may be made as to the procedure to be adopted on any application under this section relating to service on juries, and the rules may require or authorise the application or any order thereon to be made in interlocutory proceedings.
"Any Order in Council made under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith and, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after the Order is laid before it, praying that the Order or any part thereof may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order or that part thereof and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there-under.")
After Clause 1 insert the following new clauses:
"Provision as to women who have qualified for degrees at universities not admitting women to degrees.
".A woman shall e entitled to be admitted and enrolled as a solicitor after serving under articles for three years only, if either she has taken such a university degree as would have so entitled her had she been a man, or if she has been admitted to and passed the final examination and kept under the conditions required of women by the university, the period of residence necessary for a man to obtain a degree at any university which did not at the time the examination was passed, admit women to degrees."
"Power to universities to admit women to membership, etc.
". Nothing in the statutes or charter of any university shall be deemed to preclude the authorities of such university from making such provision as they shall think fit for the admission of women to membership thereof or to any degree, right, or privilege therein or in connection therewith."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in moving that the Amendments inserted by the House of Commons to the Bill as it left your Lordships' House be now considered, I propose to make only a few brief observations. Almost all the Amendments suggested by the House of Commons deal with points of detail, and having considered them my opinion is that on the whole they may be pronounced to be improvements in the form of the Bill as it left this House. There is, however, one Amendment of considerable substance which will undoubtedly require careful consideration. I refer to the Amendment inserted in the Bill by the Commons enabling Peeresses in their own right to take part in the deliberations of your Lordships' House and receive Writs of Summons. That is obviously a question of great substance, and I shall ask leave to make some observations upon it when that particular Amendment is reached.
There are several Amendments which I shall have to move to the Amendments made in the House of Commons. I express very great regret that it has not been possible to put those Amendments on paper. It was very difficult, in the short time available, to arrange an appointment with the draftsman in order to decide upon the proper form in which purely technical drafting amendments should be conveyed, but perhaps your Lordships will trust me so far as to allow me to indicate, in the course of our deliberations, which of these Amendments are of a purely drafting and technical character; and perhaps you will then be indulgent enough to waive the fact that the substance of an Amendment is not on the Paper. With these general observations I move that the Commons Amendments to the Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move that the first of the Commons Amendments—Clause 1, page 1, line 5—be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next of the Commons Amendments—Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after ("function") insert ("including that of sitting and voting in the House of Lords")—is the one of which I have already spoken, and which has as its purpose—in my view imperfectly carried out by the Commons—that of enabling Peeresses to become members of your Lordships' House. I think this Amendment, if I may begin not with the substance of the matter but with its form, has been insufficiently considered by those who inserted it in the House of Commons. It attempts to achieve its evident purpose by removing any disqualification by sex or marriage from sitting and voting in the House of Lords. After giving some little attention to this matter and acquainting myself with such authorities as I am aware of, I must confess that I am quite uncertain what the effect of it would be, or whether it would have any effect at all, if it were passed into law. This, I think, is probably certain, that it would not sit Peeresses in their own right, whether now existing or hereafter to be created. That is its avowed object. Such Peeresses are unable to sit, primarily, not by reason of disqualification which is due either to sex or marriage, but because they do not receive a Writ, and because the Patents which created them do not direct the issue of a Writ in their case. if it is desired that Peeresses in their own right now existing, or ladies upon whom hereafter Peerages may be conferred, should receive a Writ, it would be necessary that it should be stated clearly in the Bill. I have therefore prepared an Amendment, which will only become necessary to consider if your Lordships, on the point of merits, decide that Peeresses shall become eligible for membership of this House. If on the merits the decision of the House be that Peeresses shall become eligible, then I shall ask leave to move an Amendment in the shape of a new clause, which technically, I think, will achieve the result which I am quite clear the Amendment of the House of Commons has failed to produce.
Before that stage, it becomes necessary that your Lordships should reach a decision upon the very important point of principle

169
which is involved. A debate took place when the Bill was in progress through your Lordships' House, and it was moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Finlay that the clause which enabled Peeresses to take part in your deliberations should be struck out of the Bill. The argument of my noble and learned friend was this. He reminded your Lordships that under the proposals of the Government of which the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition (Lord Crewe) was a distinguished member, there was avowed a clear determination of reforming the constitution of your Lordships' House, and the language in which that intention was expressed was far-reaching in character. Certainly the reforms which in those days we were led to expect were reforms which would have affected fundamental changes in the constitutional functions discharged by this House, and in the sources from which members of this House are recruited. The war and other obstacles intervened, and it did not become possible for that Government to carry out their assurances; and your Lordships therefore will probably think it right and advisable to reach a decision now in relation to assurances and expressions of intention now made by another Government.
In the past the expectations of early and complete reform have proved fallacious, although the assurances conveying that intention were couched in very decided language. They were put forward, at a very early date in the career of the Government which was the author of them, as a matter of honour. I only make that observation because I am desirous of looking at the circumstances from every point of view and of inviting your Lordships to do so. I therefore do not wish to put the intention of the Government higher than this, that I entertain no doubt whatever that the intention is sincerely entertained by the Government, at a comparatively early date or at as early a date as our circumstances and the difficulties with which we have to deal permit, to introduce proposals with the object of reforming the Second Chamber. Such hopes have been sincerely entertained in the past and they have proved delusive. I hope and believe that in this case they will not prove delusive. But any of your Lordships who are naturally in these matters of a pessimistic disposition are, of course, entitled to give indulgence to any apprehensions which you may entertain. I do not share
170
them, but I wish that the matter should be looked at closely and impartially.
If your Lordships are prepared to accept, as most clearly you are, what I describe as the sincere intentions of the Government to reform the Second Chamber, it may be that to some of your minds the matter may present itself in this way. For centuries the constitution of this House has been arranged on a masculine basis. It is now proposed that it should be so altered that Peeresses in their own right should become eligible for membership. I do not pause at this stage in my argument to point out that a distinction could be drawn, if one cared to do it, between the position of a woman who by election is returned to the House of Commons and a Peeress in her own right who enjoys that dignity as the result of a creation made at a time when there was no conception that the holder would become a member of this House. I do not pause to deal with that distinction, but I will develop rather my observations on the principle that I am now submitting.
It may appear to many that having for six or seven hundred years, whatever the precise period may be, existed under a constitution which restricted membership of this House to men, it would be very reasonable if we were hopeful of continuing our existence as at present constituted, to say, "Well, by all means we must recognise these new tendencies, and we must alter our old rules to bring them into harmony with what are usually referred to as modern requirements." I can easily understand a member of the House of Commons—I hope he is not too sanguine—who feels complete assurance that his House will go on for perhaps another six or seven hundred years taking up this attitude, and saying, "Having regard to the change which has taken place in the position, we had better adapt ourselves to what lies in front of us." But we are not quite in that position. We approach those who are good enough to make those proposals to us rather with the melancholy words on our lips, Morituri te salutamus. If we are to be abolished, I think that I would rather perish in the exclusive company of members of my own sex. This question was left by the Government as a free question, open to the decision of private Members of the other House, without the intrusion of the Party Whips. It is naturally and consequentially the intention of the Government to adopt a similar course before your Lordships. I

171
therefore enjoy the privilege which any private member of your Lordships' House possesses, and in order that I may exercise that privilege I beg, for reasons that I have briefly indicated, to move that your Lordships disagree with the Commons Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, as I opposed woman suffrage in the other House of Parliament for a great number of years, I venture to intrade for a few moments in the debate which has just commenced. May I begin by saying that I think the House generally is greatly indebted to the Lord Chancellor for the extremely conciliatory and reasonable tone which he has adopted with regard to the Amendment that is before us. I confess that when I knew what business was to come before us this afternoon the first impression in my mind was that there was very considerable substance in this second Amendment, for the reasons which have already been stated.
Over and over again we have been promised reform of the House of Lords. A leading member of the Government, who is still I suppose leader of the Unionist Party in the other House, has given undertakings that the reform of the House of Lords shall be taken up within a reasonable time. I happened to be the mover of a Resolution at the last general conference of the National Unionist Association calling upon the Government of the day to introduce a Bill for the reform of the House of Lords before that Parliament concluded, and the Resolution was sent to the Government, and, I always understood, was favourably received by them. It is quite true that a Committee has been appointed to consider the question of your Lordships' House, but so far as I am concerned, having given my best attention to the consideration of its Report, I confess that it is wholly unsatisfactory to me. The Lord Chancellor, by the way, has himself observed that a promise had been given that the reform of this House should be introduced as early as possible. That phrase has really had no meaning up to the present, and he did not give us hope that there would be any speedy fulfilment of that promise.
172
No one, I think can deny that this question of admitting Peeresses to sit and vote in their own right in this House ought to be one that should come under the consideration of whatever Government has to undertake the passing through Parliament of a Bill for the reform of your Lordships' House. That appears to me to be obvious, and I should doubt if any opposite opinion to the one I have just expressed will be offered by any member of your Lordships' House. In those circumstances I am afraid that I am quite impenitent on the subject of women taking an active part in either House of Parliament. I hope that the day may be long distant when it will be the practice of women to sit in as large a number as possible in Parliament. That, I think, is also the opinion of the great majority of the women of this country themselves, as is shown by the fact that, although women have a large majority of votes at present, only a single woman was returned at the last General Election, and she is a lady who I suppose must be called a rebel, and has never attempted in consequence to take her seat in the House of Commons of which by law she is at present a member.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I rise to draw the attention of the House to the real question which is before us. I think it is not the question as to which your Lordships have some apprehension—namely, that you are being asked to reverse the decision come to by this House when the Bill was here. You have only to look at the nature of the Commons Amendment to see what it really is. All it proposes to do is to include in the repeal of the general disability of sex and marriage the case of sitting in the House of Lords.
If the clause which we passed, and to which no exception was taken here, became law, even without this Amendment any woman could become at any rate Speaker of the House of Lords (if it did not involve being a member of this House), or Archbishop of Canterbury, or anything else, provided that the authorities of the day chose to nominate her to that post. It was a clause which was inserted in the Bill simply for the purpose of getting rid of the common law disability which is imposed under the Constitution of this country upon women. That, as we all know, has been whittled away, and this Bill was meant simply to get rid of the rule which had been laid down by the Judges that a

173
woman cannot occupy any public position or perform any public function.
All that is done by the Amendment which the Commons have put in is this. It. says, You (the Lords) have laid down that as the rule; we agree with you, and all we wish to make clear—because I think it really is a question rather of making clear than of putting in words which are obviously necessary—all we wish to make clear is that among the things which a woman may do is to sit in the House of Lords, if she is nominated by the Crown to sit in the House of Lords—if she is called, in other words, to the Peerage with a seat in this House.
If this Amendment is accepted it does not enable women who are Peeresses in their own right to take their seat in this House; they can only do that if the terms of the Letters Patent or of the other document creating the Peerage prescribe it, and also if a Writ of Summons is issued. It may or may not be necessary, if we admit the principle, that some Amendment may be required for the issue of the Writ of Summons. But at any rate we are not discussing that now. I assume for the sake of argument that it is so, and it rather strengthens the view I am putting before your Lordships if it is so. All we are asked to do now is to say that the principle that we all accept, which has been passed by enormous majorities in the House of Commons, and which is the principle accepted by public opinion, has not an exception in the capacity of a woman being called to sit in this House. Why should it? The Commons have opened their doors to women; why should not we open our doors to women?
On the last occasion an Amendment was moved to the Bill which went further than the question we are now discussing, because it was an Amendment directly addressed to what the Lord Chancellor spoke of when he referred to the purposes of those who brought this matter forward. I only know their purposes from the words that are in the Amendment before us, and in the Clause as it will stand if amended. They do not propose in anything that is before us to go so far as that. All they ask is to remove the general disability of which I have spoken, and to remove it in a fashion which makes clear the right to take part in the deliberations of this House as well as of the other House. If that is passed,
174
then it may be that it will be within the power of the Crown to issue a Patent of Peerage to a woman, or it may be that when a woman has a Patent of Peerage a Writ can be issued. I am not sure of that. All I wish to impress upon your Lordships is that a great deal of water has to flow under the bridges before a woman can sit in this House if the Amendment is passed in this form.
It has been suggested by my noble friend that we are a dying House; that we are a body of people expectant of death. I rather expected my noble and learned friend to say that he wished to see the gentle touch of ministering angels about us at the moment that that extinction came. He did not say that. On the contrary, he desired to have the ruder company of his own sex. However, that is a purely academic question, and if any illustration of its academic character was required it was to be found in the speech of the noble Viscount who sits beside me (Lord Chaplin). The noble Viscount said he had heard a great deal of the reform of this House for a long time, and the last Report which was made on the subject was very unsatisfactory. Well, we had a debate on that Report, and it was tot homines quot sententiœ. I never witnessed such a division of opinion as I saw in your Lordships' House on that occasion. There was not the least agreement as to how this House was to be reformed, nor any indication that the proposals of the Report were likely to be accepted. Therefore I should be willing for a small premium to insure the political life of my noble friend so far as membership of this House was concerned, and I trust also so far as the present position is concerned:
I think we must take it that this is a real substantial question with which the Commons Amendment deals. This House is likely to go on for a considerable time, as far as I can see, and as it is at the present moment. Therefore to ask us to except from a general principle which we have taken to ourselves, just as much as the Commons have taken it, the position of sitting in this House, and make it a thing by itself unlike anything else is to do what, I think, is not only altogether illogical but altogether contrary to the tendency of public opinion to-day, and for my part I hope that your Lordships will not disagree with the Commons Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, my noble and learned friend who has just sat down has put a somewhat new colour upon this question. I confess that when I saw that this Amendment had been moved in another place I conceived that it had been done in a rather jocular spirit—almost as jocular as if the National Debt had been the subject of discussion there; and that it was done with a view, perhaps, to place your Lordships' House in a somewhat absurd and anomalous position. But my noble and learned friend who has just sat down tells us that this is a most serious proposition in order to maintain the logic of the situation, and that we should therefore be wrong to leave this House as the only place in which a sex disability still existed.
I am no authority on Peerage Law, I need not say, though I have no doubt my noble and learned friend is, but I should have supposed that if this Amendment were carried and were made effective by such Amendments as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has indicated, every Peeress in her own right would be exactly in the same position for claiming a Writ of Summons as those noble Lords who are Barons by Writ—a great many of them having succeeded in the female line, who are precisely as much entitled to claim a Writ of Summons as any of those of your Lordships who are here in virtue of your Patents. As I understand, it is not within the power of the Crown to refuse for an arbitrary reason the issue of a Writ of Summons. And, with all respect to the superior knowledge of my noble and learned friend, I should have supposed that these ladies would find themselves in precisely the same position.
Much has been said of the reform of the House of Lords. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack spoke with perhaps a note of justifiable irony about our former attempts to forward a measure of that kind. But neither he nor any of your Lordships will dispute that it has been the desire of the House, and indeed of all the Governments concerned, to take the matter seriously. That was proved by the appointment of the Joint Committee over which Lord Bryce presided, and which, as the House will remember, made certain recommendations, but in its Report also indicated the various alternative methods of forming a Second Chamber, and stated its reason for preferring those which it recommended.
176
The one thing that your Lordships' House has done is solemnly to assert that in the opinion of the House the possession of an hereditary Peerage ought not of itself to give a claim to a seat here. That is the definite, and so far as I know the practically unanimous, opinion of your Lordships' House. What is desired by this Amendment is to contravene that principle by saying that the possession of an hereditary title by a woman shall give her a seat here. I am entirely in agreement with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that so long, at any rate, as there is any prospect of the reform of your Lordships' House—and I altogether decline to believe that there is no such prospect—we ought not to attempt to alter the existing constitution of the House in this way. I sincerely trust, therefore, that the House will disagree with the Commons Amendment.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: My Lords, I think the House must have been struck by the remarks made by my noble and learned friend Lord Haldane in supporting the retention of the Commons Amendment. He said that there was a good deal of doubt as to what its effect would be, but he added that it should be inserted as the assertion of a principle. I think that a matter of this kind should not be dealt with except by a piece of well-considered legislation, where the thing has been thought out and the House is prepared to say what it considers is the proper solution of the question. I strongly deprecate the throwing out of a broad principle the application of which those who support it say may be doubtful. The matter should not be handled in that haphazard way. If the principle is to be established, let it be established as part of a well-considered scheme for carrying it into effect.
My noble and learned friend referred to the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and said that he had spoken of this as a dying House. Unfortunately I was not here when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack spoke, but I should have been surprised to hear him speak of this House in such a way: on the contrary, I should have thought that he looked forward to a new lease of its life under possibly changed conditions. I suppose no one who has thought about the subject at all can doubt that a change of an important character in the constitution of this House may be contemplated, but is it not very

177
inopportune to rush a broad principle of this sort into this Statute, and that, instead of leaving it as in the natural course of things it would be left, to this House itself to initiate a proposal with regard to its own constitution, it should appear as an Amendment to a Bill which has gone down from this House to the Commons and been sent back by them to us? I do not say that there is anything unconstitutional about it, but as a matter of courtesy between the two Houses I think that the initiation of this matter ought to be allowed to rest with your Lordships. On these grounds I shall certainly vote for the Motion proposed by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I crave your indulgence for a minute or two because I had charge of a Bill which unfortunately did not reach maturity but which contained a clause to give Peeresses in their own right the right to sit in your Lordships' House. The Bill of the noble and learned Lord came on the day before mine, and the position was very difficult for me because the noble and learned Lord attacked my Bill which was to come on the day after, and I had to defend it. The noble and learned Lord recommended me to withdraw my Bill, and to be busy (I think was the expression he used) with Amendments. I put down an Amendment, and then a terrible catastrophe happened—your Lordships sat at three o'clock. I did not know that the House was going to sit at that hour, and a good many other people also did not know. My noble and learned friend Lord Reading did not know, because he did not appear in time to move his Amendment; if my memory serves me right, the noble Lord asked Lord Muir Mackenzie to move the Amendment standing in his name. The fact is that this House changes its time of meeting, and many Peers did not know about it. However, I happened to be on a Bill Committee upstairs and when a question arose as to whether a witness should be heard after luncheon it transpired that the House met at three o'clock, and that is the reason I was able to be present that day. There were not more than sixteen persons in your Lordships' House, and when I moved my Amendment the noble Lord said he sympathised with it but asked me whether there were enough Peers in the House to divide upon it. To use an unParliamentary
178
expression, the whole thing "fizzled out." The Bill went eventually to the House of Commons and they have put in the identical Amendment that I proposed to insert in your Lordships' House.
It is very difficult for me to follow the legal arguments of the noble and learned Lord because I am not a lawyer, but I. understand that you are asked to-night to vote only on the principle of whether you wish a Peeress in her own right to sit in the House of Lords. After all, I cannot agree with the noble and learned Lord who objects to the House of Commons interfering with our constitution, because we interfered with the Constitution of the country when we altered the franchise. I can remember that when I was quite young a Bill altering the franchise was thrown out, and then brought in again by my father. You cannot alter the franchise of this country without the leave of the House of Lords, and I do not suppose (though I may be wrong) that you can alter the constitution of the House of Lords without the leave of the House of Commons. It would have to be done by a Bill accepted and passed by both Houses.
Now comes the question whether you accept the principle of Peeresses in their own right sitting in the House of Lords. How on earth can you resist it? I was one of those who voted to give women the right to sit in the House of Commons, and, curiously enough, a Peeress in her own right can sit in the House of commons if she is elected. It is natural, of course, that provision of some kind should be made that a Peeress cannot sit both here and in the House of Commons, because otherwise she would be in a better position than we are. But I believe that, if you pass this there can be no objection to that Peeress having a Writ, and if she cannot have a Writ it would be easy to pass an Act saying that she should have one. You give women the right to sit in the House of Commons, you give them the right to legislate in the House of Commons, you give them the right to vote in the House of Commons on Bills which come up here; why on earth cannot you give them the right to sit in your Lordships' House? I believe there are only forty-two Peeresses in their own right altogether.
With regard to the prospect of this House being reformed—well, that may be so, with a great many other things also. Governments come in and promise a good

179
deal, but to the end of their lives it is very much like the last words of Cecil Rhodes—"So much to do; so little done." I am an old man; I shall be seventy-one in a few days' time; but I question whether any one here in this House will live to see the House of Lords reformed. It is a very difficult thing. There are certain Peers here whose wives are Peeresses in their own right, and I think it will be rather hard if the House is reformed and the Peers do perish that in death they should be divided. I sincerely hope that this Amendment will be accepted. If there are any Peeresses here who will sit when your Lordships at some future date are reformed, surely it will be well, if they can sit in another place and reform your laws and Constitution, they shall also sit to assist your Lordships in reforming the House of Lords.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, when this matter was before your Lordships on the previous occasion the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and other noble Lords said it was not a suitable time to discuss such a far-reaching Amendment in connection with this particular Bill, and I am very glad indeed to hear the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the noble and learned Lord opposite reiterate those views, because I have asked myself, What has occurred meanwhile to alter the position? Surely a vote given elsewhere does not affect the main principle. If this matter was out of place in the month of July, surely it is equally out of place now. At the same time, it is a very poor compliment to ask your Lordships to pass a proposal in such circumstances—a proposal which was negatived in this House without a Division.
We have often been told that we should hesitate before we differ from views expressed in another place. I cordially agree with that, and I know that many views which may be sent to us from another place deserve the fullest possible consideration. But, if I may say so without disrespect, this particular proposal is on a totally different footing. We all know that your Lordships' House has not got the same final decision in legislation that it had in years gone by, but we are entitled to be arbiters of the constitution of this House. It seems to me that that is a prerogative that ought certainly not to be lightly abrogated, and if any innovation such as this is to be
180
brought about, are we not entitled to claim that it should originate in this House? I would ask your Lordships to consider what the position would be, if your Lordships now decided to accept as an Amendment what was rejected as a substantive Motion only a few months ago. What would have been a very gracious and courteous act would now be done grudgingly and of necessity, in response to advice from another place, if not really in accordance with instructions sent to your Lordships.
I trust that your Lordships will not place yourselves in that position. If this innovation is to take place I hope your Lordships will adhere to the advice given and deal with it at the proper time. I am sure I shall be exonerated from any intention of discourtesy to those ladies who are desirous of gracing this House with their presence, if any such there be, when I appeal to your Lordships, whatever your views may be on the particular question, to decline to accept the Amendment sent down to this House from another place in the circumstances in which it is now before the House. For that reason I shall most unhesitatingly support the Motion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on the purely legal point which has been raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, it may perhaps not be inconvenient that I should say that technically, of course, the noble and learned Viscount is entirely right when he says (if I may paraphrase his language) that the effect of the Amendment is to create a panel of ladies who will not by the mere creation of that panel become eligible to membership of the House, but will or may become so eligible only if the will of the Sovereign so operates—I avoid technical language—that a Writ issues to them. That is perfectly true. But in my judgment your Lordships would be most unwise, if I may say so with respect to the noble and learned Viscount, to attach the slightest importance to that, because the object of those in the Commons who moved the Amendment was not in the least merely to create such a panel. I have refreshed my memory on the subject, and everybody who spoke in favour of the Amendment in that House meant one thing only, and that was that women should immediately become eligible for membership of your Lordships' House.

181
If we accept the Amendment sent forward to us from the House of Commons in that spirit, I should think it only respectful, both to the House of Commons and to the House of Lords, to put down, as I have put down, a later Amendment which will carry out what the House of Commons really intended. My noble and learned friend said that I spoke of this as a "dying Assembly." I guarded myself rather carefully. I avoided expressing my own opinion on the point, and I thought I had done so not without skill. I contented myself by pointing out that two Governments, whose honesty had not been impeached except by their opponents, had announced repeatedly and over a long period of time their intention to reform your Lordships' House. I take the view that when any Government announce that they intend to reform the Constitution, we are entitled to accept that which they profess at the face value, and we are entitled and are bound to believe that they intend to reform the House. The only submission I venture to make is that accepting the intention of the present Government, as I accept and as I hope your Lordships will accept it, to reform this House in this Parliament, can they be reasonably asked now to accept this Amendment.
Motion put—That this House doth not agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The rest of the Amendments on Page 1 are either purely technical or drafting Amendments If any of your Lordships desire me to refer to any particular Amendment I will do so. I think that in many cases they are improving Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the remaining Amendments in Clause 1, page 1.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As your Lordships will see, the first of the Commons Amendments in Clause 1, page 2, are in lines 1 and 2. Upon this Amendment a point arises which is not quite technical. Your Lordships inserted a provision in the Bill which secured that any Judge might give certain directions as to the sex constitution of a jury on conditions
182
which had regard to "the nature of the case and the evidence to be given." The object of that is perfectly clear. There are cases so grossly indecent that it was left not conducive to the efficient administration of justice if women sat on the juries, or if they were dealt with by mixed juries. The Amendment which was inserted by your Lordships, and which the Commons propose to omit, indicated the considerations under which a Judge might act. The House of Commons have left out the words, "having regard to the nature of the case and the evidence to be given." The result of that is that a wider discretion is given to those who draw up the panel of juries. There is a great deal to be said for it. They say, You must trust those who have to exercise this duty to use the same discretion in dealing with women as they have been in the habit of using in dealing with men. Take the City of London Court, or any Court in which commercial or technical cases are heard. It is desired that the authorities, to whom this discretion is given, should not be limited in their decision in favour of men or women by considerations which are exclusively based on the nature of the case and the evidence to be given. I think, on the whole, there is a good deal to be said for the view of the House of Commons, and with the object of eliciting the views of your Lordships on this matter I propose to move that the Amendment of the House of Commons be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF READING: My Lords, as I was responsible for this Amendment in your Lordships' House—it was moved in my absence by Lord Muir Mackenzie—I desire to say that I should have preferred to keep the words in the Bill as they were introduced in this House, because they did indicate to the Judges that they were to follow the principle of the Bill, but nevertheless in those cases in which they thought the evidence to be given and the case to be discussed made it inconvenient, if not impossible, to discuss it adequately with men and women sitting on the jury, the matter was left to their discretion. I do not think the omission of these words makes any substantial difference to the clause. I agree with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that it does give a rather wider discretion, because you have not in

183
the clause words which point to the actual considerations to be present to the mind of the Judge.
It is essential that the Judge at the trial should determine whether or not it is a case in which men only, or women only, or men and women together, should sit on the jury. There can be an application by the parties, or he may do it at his own instance. I have not entirely in my mind the consideration of women—that is to say, the difficulties that might occur with regard to them. I am speaking to some extent from the point of view of men, either the Judge who is trying the case, or the women who are sitting on the jury, or the men of the jury. I can conceive that there are numbers of cases in which it would be absolutely impossible to discuss the details of the case by men with women present, involving the consideration of masses of detail such as we are accustomed to, unfortunately, in the Courts.
As I read the Bill, the principle is made perfectly clear, and no Judge who exercises his discretion will fail to have regard to the principle of the Bill, which is that, generally speaking, women should serve on juries just as men. Still, it does give a Judge a discretion, which I submit must be left to him, to say when it is wrong that women should sit on a jury with men. I am quite convinced that the Judges who have to exercise their discretion will always exercise it having regard to the principle of the measure which has been so clearly stated in the Bill. For these reasons I would accept the Amendment which the House of Commons have inserted. I do not think it changes the clause as it was introduced.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Earl, and would prefer the words as they stood in the Bill without the House of Commons Amendment. The effect of striking out the words "having regard to the nature of the case and the evidence to be given" is to leave an unfettered discretion without reference to any one. A Judge may say, "This is a case where men and women are equally eligible, but I do not like women." Another Judge might take the opposite view. I agree that the Judges will look at the nature of the case; and it is to be observed that this discretion is to be exercised by the Judge who tries the case. He may be the Recorder, or the
184
Chairman of Quarter Sessions. He must be in that position, and I think we may rely on the Judge to exercise this discretion sensibly. I quite agree that, if I were considering this de novo and not on a question of disagreeing with the Commons Amendment, I should have preferred the words as they originally stood in the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment on line 6 to leave out "that" and to insert "any" is purely a drafting Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment on line 8 requires a little more explanation. The House of Commons have proposed to insert a provision which I think I had better read in its entirety. It is as follows—
"Rules of Court may be made as to the procedure to be adopted on any application under this section relating to service on juries, and the rules may require or authorise the application or any order thereon to be made in interlocutory proceedings.
"Any order in Council made under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith and, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after the Order is laid before it, praying that the Order or any part thereof may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order or that part thereof and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."
This Amendment appears to me to be a meritorious Amendment so far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. The House of Commons have dealt with a point which should have been dealt with in the Bill, and I accept the responsibility for the omission.
It is quite obvious that the Rules of Court cannot be left in the terms of the drafting now before your Lordships. In the first place, it is necessary to make provision much more clearly for the summoning of juries. It is at present very doubtful whether the provision of the Juries Act, 1825, which requires a ballot for Jurors, refers to criminal cases at Assizes as well as to civil cases. At any rate, I am clear that it does not refer to criminal cases at

185
Quarter Sessions. It is obviously desirable that there should be no complaint in the future that preference has been given by the summoning officer to men or women on any particular jury. Therefore rules must be made governing and to some extent controlling their discretion. It is proposed, therefore, in the Amendments which I will explain presently, if your Lordships will agree to the principle, that the rules to be made, as proposed in the Commons Amendment, should extend to the method of summoning and the selection. That, my Lords, is the first point.
The second point is this. There must be some special method of exempting women from service on a jury who, although they may not strictly speaking be entitled to a medical certificate exempting them from attendance on the ground of sickness, are still unable for physical reasons to attend. Take, for instance, a woman who has a child and no nurse. If she has a small baby she can hardly be expected to leave it at home, nor can it be expected that the presence of the child in the jury box would be either welcome or correct. It is therefore proposed that power be given to exempt women who are unfitted for medical reasons, and the method by which it is to be done shall be prescribed by rule.
In the third case the Commons Amendment requires that the matters dealt with by it should be prescribed by Rule o f Court. The Rules of Court might have effect so far as the Assize Court is concerned, but they do not affect the procedure at Quarter Sessions. It is therefore proposed in my Amendment that the making of rules in respect of any criminal Court shall be in the Committee set up under the Indictments Act, 1915. I think we are very fortunate in having available for this task a Committee which is so obviously and specially qualified. It consists of the Lord Chief Justice, a Judge of the High Court, a Chairman of Quarter Sessions, a Clerk of the Peace, and another person having experience in criminal procedure. If those three Amendments are acceptable to your Lordships it will then read as follows:—"Rules of Court may be made"—and I am about to propose that your Lordships accept the Commons Amendment down to the word "made," and then I am going to propose an addition to be inserted after the word "made" to this effect:—(a) "prescribing the manner in which jurors are to be summoned and to be selected from the panel; (b) exempting from attendance
186
as jurors any women who are for reasons of health unfit to attend, and (c) as to the procedure to be adopted on any application under this section relating to service on juries." If your Lordships will now look at the terms of the Commons Amendment and consider those three points you will, I think, come to the conclusion that they afford a fairly complete and satisfactory code for the purpose of carrying out what is the intention of the House of Commons and what I certainly assume is equally the intention of your Lordships. I therefore move, with the object of giving effect to those three points, that the Commons Amendment be agreed to down to the word "made."
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons Amendment down to the word "made."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I now have to move to insert, after the word "made," the words "(a) prescribing the manner in which jurors are to be summoned and to be selected from the panel; (b) exempting from attendance as jurors any woman who are for reasons of health unfit to attend; and (c) as to the procedure to be adopted on any application under this section relating to service on juries"; and that. "as respects any criminal Court in England the expression 'rules of court' means rules made by the Rule Committee established under the Indictment Act, 1915." If your Lordships, or those who have special experience, will consider these Amendments I am sure you will agree that, with the addition of the Commons Amendment, they are a very considerable improvement in the form and procedure of the Bill as it left your Lordships' House.
Amendments moved to the Commons Amendment—
After "made" in line 2, insert—

"(a) prescribing the manner in which jurors are to be summoned and to be selected from the panel; and

(b) exempting from attendance as jurors any women who are for reasons of health unfit to attend; and

(c)"

lines 3 and 4, leave out ("and the rules") and insert ("rules so made")
line 4, leave out ("the application") and insert ("an application under this section")
line 5, after ("proceedings") insert ("and shall have full effect notwithstanding any existing rule of law or practice to the contrary.
"As respects any criminal court in England the expression 'rules of court' means rules made by the Rule Committee established under the Indictments Act, 1915").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments to the Commons Amendment agreed to.
LORD STANMORE LORD STANMORE had on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of Clause 2, to insert the following new subsection:—
"(2) Nothing in the statute or charter regulating the widows' fund in connection with any society in Scotland to which women may be admitted in virtue of this Act shall prevent such society from making regulations either excluding the application of such statute or charter or applying the same with modifications in the case of women becoming or seeking to become members of such society, provided always that such regulations shall not come into effect until approved, with or without modifications, by the Court of Session."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I now propose is to insert the subsection which stands in my name on the Paper. In Scotland there are one or two societies—for instance, the Faculty of Advocates and the Society of Writers to the Signet—to which women cannot be admitted under the existing law and which has widows funds established and regulated by Acts of Parliament. These Acts require members of the Society to make certain payments on admission, annually, and on marriage to the widows funds—
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Upon a point of Order. After Clause 1 in the Commons Amendments comes a clause relating to solicitors, and I should have thought that the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanmore would come after that, at the end of Clause 2.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may express an opinion, I agree with the noble and learned Viscount.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise to call your Lordships' attention to another point of Order. I may have alighted upon what is called a "mare's nest," in which case no doubt the noble Lord will correct me. It appears to me on the face of it that the Amendment which the noble Lord is moving has nothing to do with any of the Commons Amendments. If he can show me that it arises out of the Commons Amendments, then no doubt it would be in order. There is nothing more absolutely settled in the practice of Parliament than that when a Bill has reached
188
this stage no point can be raised which does not arise out of an Amendment of either House of Parliament. I may be wrong in saying that this Amendment does not arise out of any of the Commons Amendments, but if it does not it would be a most improper departure to go on with it. Nothing can be raised upon the consideration of Commons Amendments by the Lords, or of Lords Amendments by the Commons, except what arises out of the previous stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess will agree with the observation that we must first take the Commons new clauses inserted after Clause 1. I would like your Lordships to dispose of them before dealing with the point of Order. I do not think I need say anything about this Amendment. The first of the new clauses is obviously recommended by every consideration, and the words of the second clause explain themselves.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I might now say a word on the point of Order raised by the noble Marquess. I had intended to call attention to this. I am not aware of a case in which, where attention has been drawn to a departure, the proposal has been pressed.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The only thing to be said about it is this. The Commons Amendments have made a number of changes which we do not disagree with, and which relate among other things to admission to any incorporated society. The purpose of the Amendment was to carry that out, and I think the noble Marquess is right that if it is a matter of drafting we should have inserted there the clause which the noble Lord (Lord Stanmore) has moved. That would have been the best place in which to put it, but obviously, for the sake of drafting, you could not put it there. Therefore it has to be at the end of the Bill. The noble Marquess will notice that the disqualification is got rid of for admission into any incorporated society. It so happens that the matter with which the noble Lord is dealing is one that I know a good deal about. There are two or three incorporated

189
societies in Scotland the constitution of which imposes disabilities that would prevent women from being admitted, and unless these disabilities are got rid of the insurance provisions, the widows funds, and other things which are essential to the conditions of entry into these corporations would prevent women from coming in; consequently it would be necessary in a Bill of this kind—and it ought to have been done in the Commons Amendment—to put in something specifically dealing with it. The noble Lord obviously is doing it for the purpose of amendments in the law which are required for Scottish purposes as distinguished from general purposes here, and the Amendment is one which, within my own knowledge, is required to enable the, admission into the incorporated society that was referred to in Clause 1 of the Bill. Therefore I do not think the noble Lord is wholly out of order. It is connected with the. Commons Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was careful not to deal with the merits of the clause on which the noble and learned Lord is a great authority, because that would not have been germane to my observations. Mine is a pure point of Order, and I respectfully invite your Lordships to be quite clear upon it. This is a matter which ought to have been dealt with either during the stages when the Bill was passing through your Lordships' House or when it was before the House of Commons, but once the Lords have expressed their full will and the Commons have made any amendments in the decisions of the Lords which they think fit, no point can be raised that has not been raised in the House of Commons, though of course in one sense you can attach any point to any other point by a little straining. Yet that would be to defeat the recognised practice of Parliament. This would be a most important precedent if we made it, because it, would practically mean that there would be no end to the Amendments which may be placed in a Bill when it is passing to and fro between the two Houses of Parliament. I have been engaged—perhaps for my sins and at any rate to my great discomfort—in many controversies between the two Houses of Parliament over Amendments, and of this one thing I am absolutely certain, that nothing can be done on consideration of Amendments—the stage we are engaged in to-day—which has not been touched by the other House.
LORD STANMORE: After what the noble Marquess has said, I will not proceed further with my proposed new subsection.

SUPERANNUATION (PRISON OFFICERS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I do not know that I need trouble your Lordships with any long remarks upon the subject of this Bill, to which I ask you to give a Second Reading this afternoon, because two Papers have been presented and circulated among your Lordships, one the Report of the Prisons Superannuation Committee and another a Memorandum on this Bill, which I think will give all the information that your Lordships may naturally desire to have regarding the provisions of the Bill. Briefly, special provision is asked for in this Bill with regard to the retiring age and superannuation allowances of warders in prisons and attendants in criminal lunatic asylums. The evidence that was brought before the Committee appointed to consider this matter was to the effect—and this will be easily appreciated by your Lordships—that the work, under difficulties and hardships I might almost say, to which prison warders and attendants in criminal lunatic asylums are subjected is such that it was deemed only fair by the Committee that men of this class should be allowed to retire on superannuation at an earlier age than is the case with other civil servants. If your Lordships will glance at the Bill you will see that Clause 1 substitutes the age of fifty-five years for that of sixty as the age of retirement at which, without a medical certificate, superannuation allowance may be granted. It certainly appeared evident to the Committee that in many if not most cases, in view of the very difficult duties to which I have alluded which cause so much strain to the individuals concerned, it was only fair that the men should be entitled at the age of fifty-five, if Parliament so sanctioned, to the superannuation allowance. Briefly, that is the effect of the Bill to which I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL of CRAWFORD): My Lords, the House will remember passing a Bill dealing with the Police in England and Wales. This Bill extends the principles of that measure to the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police. I need say little about the Bill, because it is virtually identical with that which your Lordships passed last summer, except in so far as the constitution of the Irish Police Forces makes differences in details necessary. In this country there are something like 280 separate Police Forces; in Ireland there are only two. That, in a way, makes the Irish problem more easily encompassed, and this Bill acts accordingly, sets up police bodies to represent these two great groups of police and constabulary, and goes on, having constituted the new representative bodies, to prevent Police being members of trade unions.
The latter part of the Bill corresponds with the increased emoluments which were provided for the Police of England and Wales last summer. Roughly speaking it establishes a certain parity in the increases which are allowed. The outlay is considerable, but I feel that it will not be grudged by the country as a whole for two reasons. In the first place, the Irish Constabulary will now, for the first time, receive an official and a recognised privilege of discussing all matters relating to their welfare and to their efficiency with duly constituted authorities and with representatives elected by themselves. Secondly, it increases the allowances and emoluments of these forces, which from all accounts was overdue. I commend the Bill to your Lordships with great confidence that you will look upon it as an act of justice to a most remarkable body of men whose loyalty and whose fortitude, often in circumstances of the very greatest difficulty, cannot be too highly commended.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford).
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RATS AND MICE (DESTRUCTION) BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM): My Lords, this Bill, which is in a sense a minor Bill, is one to which the Board of Agriculture attaches the very greatest importance. I trust, therefore, that it will commend itself to your Lordships' House, and that you will give it a Second Reading this afternoon. It is a Bill which is supported by nearly all responsible authorities, and which has met with comparatively little criticism in its passage through the House of Commons.
The Bill may be a small one, but the damage which is done by rats and mice is certainly not a small matter, and, whilst I am not prepared to commit the Board of Agriculture to any of the estimates which have been made and publicly stated of the monetary value of the damage which has been done, there is no question whatsoever that it is enormous, and has considerably increased during the war. There was a Bill introduced in your Lordships' House last summer by Lord Aberconway which was withdrawn in favour of the Government Bill. I only mention this in order to remind you that the matter has been before your Lordships already in the present year, and that some noble Lords—Lord Chaplin and Lord Lambonrne—issued a joint appeal with regard to this matter about a year ago. They expressed the opinion—and I am sure their opinion is entitled to special weight—that the damage done by rats and mice annually in this country amounted to as much as £40,000,000, that the number of rats was at least equal to one per head of the population of these Islands, and that ten rats between them consumed as much bread stuffs as a man and his wife under the bread ration. I do not vouch for those statements, but they give some indication on authority of the extent of the evil.
There is no question whatever that the combination of human enterprise with human negligence has disturbed the balance of nature in favour of the rat, and has given an artificial protection to its natural enemies. In consequence rats and mice are absorbing far more than a desirable share of the world's supply of food stuffs, and in many ways man is providing even travelling facilities for this exceedingly dangerous

193
pest. As a result the rat has invaded and colonised distant countries where it is not indigenous, and it has become in many parts of the world one of the most serious pests that can possibly afflict humanity. It not only takes a serious toll of human property, but it is a deadly menace also to the public health.
I think it is generally accepted that rats and mice are specially injurious to agriculture and food production. They take an enormous toll every year, not only on farmers, but on millers and grain merchants. In the case of the farmer it has been estimated that the money toll that they take of him frequently exceeds his rent and taxes combined, and they thrive on every food that is valuable both to man and beast. Mice, which are also dealt with under the Bill, are almost equally serious pests. In Australia they have done untold damage to the stores of grain which had been purchased for the British Government during the war, and it is only right that they should be included in the Bill. With regard to disease I would only say that it has been scientifically established that rats and mice, particularly rats, have been responsible for the spread of plague, dysentery, trichinosis, influenza amongst horses, and foot-and-mouth disease. On these grounds alone I think it is necessary to introduce legislation to deal more effectively with rats.
Speaking briefly, the object of the Bill is to hold every individual occupier responsible for dealing with rats and mice on his own premises. It provides penalties for neglect of that duty, arid there is a further provision that in the event of the individual occupier failing to act upon notice given, the State may step in and do the work for him and charge him with the expenses. But the primary duty rests upon the occupier, and included in the term "occupier" are local authorities with reference to premises for which they themselves are responsible. It is obvious to your Lordships that it is not only unfair but useless to rely upon individual, isolated effort in dealing with a pest of this character. If neighbours do not co-operate in getting rid of this pest, the man who does his duty merely creates a vacuum into which the surplus rat population quickly flows. There is a large surplus population, and unless a sustained and universal effort is made to deal with this evil there will be very little real relief. At any rate, in the view of the
194
Government a universal and continuous campaign against this pest is needed, and it is with that object that this Bill has been introduced.
I will not detain your Lordships by explaining in detail the provisions of the Bill. I hope they are sufficiently plain, and they will, of course, be dealt with in detail in Committee. We regard the Bill as urgent because our powers to deal effectively with the matter under the Defence of the Realm Regulations will shortly run out. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will be willing to give the Bill a Second Reading this afternoon, and that it may be speedily passed into law.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords. I am sure that the House will desire to give this Bill a Second Reading. The noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture has given us very good reasons for passing speedily into law a Bill which is intended to enable local authorities to deal drastically with the rat pest. My only doubt with regard to the Bill is whether it is drastic, enough and whether sufficient provision is made to enable the Bill to be put into effective operation. Those of your Lordships who have perused the Bill will see that there is no special provision made for any particular person to take the initiative in the putting of the Bill into operation. I can hardly conceive the ordinary county councillor, after having visited certain farms in his district where the corn stacks are known to be infested with rats, coming before his council and advocating drastic measures against one individual farmer. Such a state of affairs can hardly be pictured. On the other hand, in Lord Aberconway's Bill, provision was made for the initiative to be taken either by a War Agricultural Committee—which seems to me to be the most desirable body to be brought into the scheme because it is part of their business to visit farms from time to time in order to see that efficient cultivation is carried out—or for a sanitary inspector, under the special powers given to him by that Bill to visit premises which were suspected of being infested by rats. If it is possible in the Committee stage to strengthen the Bill in this respect to make sure that it will do something effective—which we all desire—I hope the President of the Board will not resist Amendments to that effect.

195
The Bill contemplates in certain circumstances a notice being served by the local authority—so far as the farmer is concerned it would be the county council—upon an individual where he is supposed not to have taken what are described as "necessary and reasonable steps" to destroy the rats (what may be deemed to be "reasonable and necessary steps" I do not know; it might be a matter which would require judicial interpretation, or, on the other hand, where he is supposed not to have taken measures to prevent his land becoming infested with rats. I should like to ask at what stage his land would be held to be infested with rats. In any case I should like to suggest that it is desirable—the President has laid stress on the fact that the rat is a migratory animal—that the Bill should give the necessary powers to local authorities to serve notices not upon one individual who is deemed to have infested premises but upon the whole of the individuals in a certain area where rats are known to be prevalent and to be destroying food, so that whether they have been remiss or not in the destruction of rats there will be concerted action over a special area to enable the rats to be effectually exterminated. I notice that in the interpretation of the word "land" certain underground premises are referred to and certain buildings upon land, but for some reason a cellar is omitted. Cellars are places apt to be infested with rats, and I should like to suggest as a matter of draftsmanship that the word "cellar" be added to the definition of "land." With these few words I hope your Lordships will accept the principle of this Bill.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, this question, of course, has been dealt with under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, but certainly a Bill of this character is very much overdue; in fact, it has been wanted for many years past. I agree with my noble friend who has just sat down that there is a danger that the Bill may be applied too much to individuals. There is no doubt, as Lord Lee said, that rats are migratory. The two greatest curses of agriculture undoubtedly are rabbits and rats, and as far as my experience goes you will always have a great deal of difficulty in dealing with rats if there are a large number of rabbit holes. If the rabbits are destroyed and their holes stopped up it will be very much easier to deal with the rats. I presume
196
there will be ample powers for various local authorities to combine. In England the area is the county, and in Scotland it is only a district which in most cases compises a very much smaller area. I certainly think that every one interested in agriculture will welcome the introduction of this Bill, apart from the great loss sustained by the nation as a whole owing to the depredations of rats; but I hope that the Bill will not be carried out in such a way as to be oppressive or onerous on the individual. If that is made certain, I think the Bill will do a great deal of good not only in the interests of agriculture, but of the country as a whole.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FRENCH GOVERNMENT MONEY REGULATION.
LORD MARCHAMLEY LORD MARCHAMLEY rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a Regulation of the French Government under which English people returning to England, and having about their persons English money, are obliged by the Custom House authorities to hand over to them all such money in excess of £25; what security there is for the return to the owners of such money; what advantage the temporary possession of the money, if and when returned, can bring to the French Government; and, if the practice is to be continued, whether he will make representations to the French authorities that it should be done with the maximum of civility.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put this Question upon the Paper only in order to draw public attention to the subject. I thank the noble Earl for his presence here this afternoon, and I can assure him that I have no personal grievance in the matter. I do not wish to refine about or to discuss the extent or degree by which British people returning to this country are incommoded by the Regulations now in force in France. I would sooner ask his opinion upon the general principle which underlies the Regulation, and inquire whether the practice that I have sketched in My Question is one which is recognised and permitted between civilised and allied nations.
The House is probably aware that at the present time Englishmen coming to England embarking at ports in France and having about their person English money (not French money) are obliged, under threat of not being permitted to embark, to hand over to the French Custom House authorities all their money in access of £25. I do not think it would be worth the while of the House for me to describe in detail what occurs, but probably the noble Earl is not quite so conversant with it as I am. Passengers are ushered—shepherded, if I may say so—two at a time into the room of one of these Custom House officials. He is an extraordinarily highhanded and autocratic gentleman. He demands that you hand him all the money that you have. You are quite willing to do so, so long as the money is French, because we are all aware that there is a great dearth of coin in France, and naturally the French authorities do not wish that any should leave the country. Then he says, "What English money have you in your purse?" You demur to that, but he says, "Where is your pocketbook? You have one; produce it." If you raise objection, you are told distinctly that unless you do show the English notes or money that you have upon you, you will not be permitted to go on board ship; and. if your impedimenta are already on the ship, it is rather a difficulty to be stranded at Dieppe or other places—I am speaking of Dieppe—without anything. You hand in your pocket-book and he goes through your notes. He extracts £25 and says, "Take these; the rest you must leave here." It is no use urging that you may have a house in France, or a banking account, or that your notes have only been taken over as a reserve and are being brought back in exactly the same condition, bearing the same numbers as when you brought them over. That argument has no weight whatever. He says, "No; my orders are to retain here any money in excess of£25, the equivalent of 1,000 francs, and you cannot take it over."
I most freely admit that in the case of people who have banking accounts in France they are courteous enough to forward the money to those banks, but the majority of people who go there from this country have no banking accounts in France. What is going to be done with their money? How long is it going to be held up—until the stringency and difficulty in French financial affairs is over? If so,
198
I am sorry to say that I am afraid that will be some time and it will be a considerable grievance to a great number of people to leave £20 or £30 or £40 there. They cannot afford to do so. How are they going to recover the money in the end? How are people living in the north of Scotland or Wales to get it? Have they to bombard the noble Earl at the Foreign Office in order to get it? If so, I am afraid the Foreign Office will have more work to do even than it has to do now, and I know that is enormous. If the money is only being kept in France for a short time, what possible advantage can it be to the French Government to have £10, or £20, or £30, or £40, or £500 of English money which they are going to hand back in a fortnight or three weeks? It creates a great sense of grievance. Many persons in France will have their journeys spoilt by this little bit of friction at the end. The whole matter is not worth the candle.
I suggest to the noble Earl that he should make representations to the French authorities that this pinprick should be abolished and the Regulation suspended. I do not want to argue about the details and the amount of inconvenience, but I ask the noble Earl whether it is a recognised practice which is permitted between nations and whether he will give us—I am afraid I can hardly get from him his judgment—but his opinion as to whether he supports and upholds it.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, the Question which my noble friend has put to me is, it is true, from one point of view rather small, but I can quite understand that it generates a certain amount of friction and discontent which it should be the desire of the Foreign Office, so far as they can, to mitigate if not entirely to remove. The first Question put to me by my noble friend relates to a question of fact—namely, the existence of this Regulation, the reasons for it, and the manner in which it is administered. There is, as he has pointed out, a Regulation requiring British subjects returning from France to hand over all moneys on their persons over and above £25. This exportation of money from France by any person residing in France was prohibited by the Decree of April 3, 1918. By the second Article of that Decree no person residing in France may transfer from that country moneys,

199
stocks, or securities to an amount greater than 1,000 francs—that is, before the war the equivalent of £40.
On October 23 last the Garde des Sceaux called special notice to this and other cognate laws, and issued a statement to this effect: It is forbidden to export gold or silver money, whether French or foreign, over the sum of 10 francs in value, under penalty of from one month's to two years' imprisonment and a fine of from 100 francs to 50,000 francs and confiscation of the moneys seized. It is also forbidden, without the special authorisation of the Ministry of Finance, the Commission des Changes, for travellers leaving France to remove more than 1,000 francs value in French or foreign bank notes. That is the Regulation of which the noble Lord complains.
In his second Question the noble Lord asks what security there is for the return to the owners of the money involved. I made enquiries in Paris and was informed that the following is the position of affairs. On leaving France, each passenger is required by the Customs authorities to declare what sum he or she has in his or her possession. Where a proper declaration is made, all sums in gold or silver over the value of 10 francs and in notes over the value of 1,000 francs must be deposited in a bank, the passenger being entitled to take a cheque on London for the equivalent. When there is no time for this the Customs take charge of the money, presumably against a receipt, and the passenger has to apply for its return to the Commission des Changes of the Ministry of Finance, naming the bank in which the deposit of the money should be made, the said bank then remitting the money by cheque to England. Further—I am not quite certain that the noble Lord apprehended this—these travellers are entitled to take out of France the money which they brought in, and for this purpose—
LORD MARCHAMLEY: I pointed out most particularly, if I may interrupt the noble Earl, that the notes were all new notes and in numerical sequence, as he can see for himself; and I informed him that I had taken them there and was only bringing them back.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I was not alluding to the specific case of the
200
noble Lord. I was merely stating that the general rule I understand to be that travellers are entitled to take out of France the money they brought in. For this purpose their business is to declare at the Customs on entering the country and obtain from the Customs a receipt to be shown on leaving, as a proof that they are not, in fact, exporting money from France.
The third Question put by the noble Lord is what advantage the temporary possession of this money can be to France. That, I imagine, is in the main a technical matter connected with the technique of finance, on which I am hardly qualified to give an opinion. I imagine it to be connected with the present shortage of silver currency in France and with the exigencies of exchange. The noble Lord asks, Is this an admitted or recognised practice elsewhere? Until he put his Question on the Paper I did not know that it was the practice in the case of France, and I have not pursued my investigations any further. The requirements of France may be peculiar in this respect. I have not heard of the thing happening elsewhere, but I can well conceive that in countries where there is this stringency similar precautions may have to be adopted.
Then my noble friend asks, if the practice is to be continued, whether I will make representations to the French authorities that it shall be done with the maximum of civility. I have not heard that it has ceased, and therefore the presumption for the moment is that the practice will go on. As regards the manner in which it is administered, I made enquiries in the Foreign Office and found that no complaints have reached us there. The noble Lord described, partly I dare say from his own experience and partly from that of others, what takes place, and I can well conceive the situation as described by him as irksome and sometimes unpleasant. These difficulties arise, as any of us who have travelled know, sometimes from ignorance of the language employed. They sometimes arise from imperfect acquaintance with the Regulations that are being enforced. They seldom arise from deliberate discourtesy. I doubt if in this case there is any intention—I am sure there is no intention—to make these rules operate in at all a harshtor impolite fashion. If the noble Lord desires me to make representations

201
I shall be very glad to consider the propriety of doing so upon cases submitted to me. No cases, hitherto, have been submitted; and if he can show me any definite case in which incivility has been perpetrated, or that the manner in which these Regulations are being carried out is a source of serious inconvenience to travellers, or is at all unreasonable, I shall be only too happy to take the matter up. But at present I am without any information except that which has been vouchsafed to me this afternooon, and that which has been the basis of my own reply.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of November 5.]

EDIN BURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure, (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a
202
(The Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee.

FRASERBURGH HARBOUR (NEW WORKS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee.

GREENOCK IMPROVEMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Greenock Improvernent—Was presented by the Lord Stanmore and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Sections 8 and 9) read 1a, and to be printed.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.