Sitting of 26 November 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Greenock Improvement Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    CEXLON TEA.
    Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that the Indian Government permits tea grown in Ceylon to be imported into India free of duty whilst the Ceylon Government exacts a duty of four annas a pound on Indian tea imported into Ceylon; and will the Indian Government remonstrate with the Ceylon Government against this tax, and, failing its withdrawal, will it put a similar duty on Ceylon tea coming into India, and thus allay the grievance felt throughout India by the planters, and remove this cause of faction between the two countries?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Indian Import Duty on tea is 7½ per cent. ad valoren; the Ceylon duty is 4 annas per pound. These rates apply to tea from all countries of origin. The Ceylon Government, it is understood, considers a high Import Duty essential to the preservation of the reputation of Ceylon teas. I am not aware that a similar need is felt in India or has formed the subject of any Motion in the Imperial Legislative Council.
    Sir A. FELL: Is it not the fact that considerable quantities of Ceylon tea are now being sold in the South of India, and that the planters in the South of India feel that they are not fairly treated?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It is not the fact that Ceylon tea goes into India free of duty, as there is a duty on it of 7½ per cent. If the suggestion of the hon. Member is that there should be retaliation against Ceylon, that is a matter which will require careful consideration in India.

    MAHSUDS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information regarding the re ported rising among the Mahsuds?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Ever since our evacuation during the Afghan operations of certain posts in Waziristan, formerly held by our frontier , the Waziri and Hahsud tribes have maintained a consistently hostile attitude and committed numerous raids upon our troops, and made incursions into British territory.
    To put an end to this the Indian Government, after assembling a sumcieut military force, summoned representatives of the tribes to hear terms for acceptance. These included claims for reparation and compensation in respect of numerous outrages. The Mahsuds rejected the terms, and punitive operations were consequently undertaken against them. These operations still continue. On the 17th and 18th November the Wazirls, with the exception of three sections in the Tochi Valley, accepted the terms. The recalcitrant sections have since submitted.

    BRITISH TROOPS (COST).
    Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for India if he will state what has been the approximate cost of keeping British troops in India from the beginning of the current financial year to 31st October; and what is the estimated cost for the whole financial year?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The number of British troops kept in India this year has not at any point of time materially exceeded the strength of the normal garrison of British troops, which is about 76,000, and at the present moment is actually below the normal strength. I have not figures showing the estimated cost in 1919–1920 under all heads of the British garrison, but any increase over the cost in previous years is due not to increased numbers but chiefly to higher rates of pay, gratuities, and bonuses.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this cost borne by the Indian or Imperial Exchequer?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The normal cost of the garrison in India is borne by the Indian Exchequer, but certain portions of the pay are due to war conditions, and those are borne by the Imperial Exchequer.

    CHILD LABOUR.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for India if he will state what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the question of child labour in factories in India; and what instructions have been given to the official and nominated representatives of India at the International Labour Conference in Washington with regard to this matter?
    Mr. MONTAGU: His Majesty's Government would like to see the minimum age for employment of children in Indian factories raised, but have accepted the view of the Government of India that local inquiry must first be made and Indian public opinion ascertained. This they have undertaken to carry out without delay. The official delegates have been instructed to regulate their attitude accordingly in discussing and voting on a uniform age limit. No instructions have been given to the nominated representatives.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: To what age is it proposed to raise the time below which the employment of children will be illegal?
    Mr. MONTAGU: We want to raise the age, but before deciding we wish to consult Indian opinion.
    Mr. SWAN: What is the age now when they commence to work in India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The conditions in Indian factories are very different from those here. As to the age at which children are brought in to work, there is a sort of family arrangement in the factory and it is very difficult to diagnose exactly their hours of labour.
    Mr. SWAN: Is it under six years?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think so.

    BURMA (HIGH COURT).
    Mr. BENNETTasked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that a High Court was established in the Punjab in April last, a High Court will now be established in Burma
    1764
    in fulfilment of decisions of the Government of India and in accordance with the expressed views of the local Government, the judges of the chief Court of Lower Burma; the Bar of Rangoon, and the Rangoon Chamber of Commerce?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have received no proposals from the Government of India on this question. When it was last discussed the local Government opposed the conversion of the Chief Court into a High Court, and I am not aware that the present Lieut.-Governor has made any official recommendation.

    AFGHAN CAMPAIGN.
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for India (1) if, at the commencement of the recent Afghan campaign there was supposed to be a hutment camp at Kacha Gashi with sufficient accommodation for divisional headquarters, certain units, and a remount depot built some years ago, whereas there was found to be nothing but a bare plain, one hut, and drinking troughs: and whether the entire staff of a brigade who were stationed in tents at Kacha Gashi later were sent to hospital suffering from heat-stroke partly due to the absence of huts;
    (2) whether he will explain why the machines and equipment of a unit of the Air Force sent from overseas to supply the urgent need of up-to-date aeroplanes on the North-West Frontier were left in a siding at Delhi and lost for a fortnight?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I will make inquiry.

    ZHOB VALLEY.
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for India if, in the Zhob Valley, British officers had to live in tents with inadequate protection from the heat with the temperature at 109 degrees in the shade?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I presume that the hon. Member refers to officers serving with the field force in the Zhob Valley during the recent operations. I fear it is impossible to provide troops serving in the field with accommodation other than tents during active operations.

    FRACTIONAL SILVER COINS.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for India if he will give the number of two-anna, four-anna, and eight-anna silver coins issued during the past twelve

    1765
    months and the number for the twelve months preceding the War, and the weight of silver used in their coinage; and if he is considering the advisability and necessity of extending the nickel coinage to include at least the lower classes, in order to free the silver position to some extent?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Indian Coinage Act has been amended so as to permit the issue of nickel coins of eight and four annas denomination as well as the existing two-and one-anna nickel. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the latest information regarding the coinage of fractional silver coins. The coinage has been on a relatively small scale.
    The following is the information promised:
    Separate figures are not available for recent months, but for the year ending 31st August last the total, value of silver eight annas, four annns, and two annas coined was Rs. 2,35,97,748, and their total weight 8,111,725 finis ounces. For the year 1913–14 the silver fractional coinage was as follows (tale of pieces):

    8

    As.

    4,558,200

    4

    as.

    20,635,238

    2

    As.

    22,200,975

    —total value Rs. 1,02,08,031, and total weight 3,509,011 fine ounces.

    IMPORTS (JAPAN).
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for India if he will give the figures of the value of Japanese goods imported into India for the last financial year before the War, and the coresponding figures for the last available completed twelve months?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The figures are £3,186,782 for the year ending 31st March, 1914, and £22,348,506 for that ending 31st March, 1919.

    BOLSHEVIK ADMINISTRATION.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether Tashkent is at present the centre of any, and, if so, of what, Government, authority, or administration?
    Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD (Additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs): Tashkent is the centre of the Bolshevik Administration of Turkestan.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS (BRITISH WARSHIPS).
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what will be the status of commercial travellers on board British warships; whether cabin accommodation will be provided; and whether any expenses for their entertainment will fall upon officers of the Royal Navy?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): In the event of the Oversea Trade Department making use of the very limited accommodation which may be available on His Majesty's ships, commercial travellers would be passengers as defined in Article 1541 of the King's Regulations and would be received in the ward-room mess. I am advised that cabin accommodation would not be provided as none would be available, and that no expense should fall upon officers of the Royal Navy in respect of entertainment, as a charge would, of course, be made for any such passengers carried.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if moneys arising from this will be added to the regular sums or will the amount be expended in any case for the good of the men of the Navy or the officers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A charge is made of 12s. per day for the first fourteen days and 9s. per day afterwards. The appropriation of that fund, which we shall receive, has not yet been decided upon.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    RESERVES.
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to make any announcement as to the future of all classes of Naval Reserves?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The future of the Naval Reserves is a question which must obviously be considered in relation to the general requirements of the post-war Fleet. It is engaging the attention of the Admiralty, but no announcement can yet be made as to the decisions likely to be reached.
    Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when it is likely to be reached?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Not at present, but directly I can I will let my hon. and gallant Friend know.
    Captain TERRELL: Is there an up-to-date record of the whereabouts of the men who served in the Royal Naval Reserve?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I could not say offhand, but it does not arise out of the question, and perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will give notice.
    Captain TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider it?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will.

    NAVAL MOTOR CARS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many motor cars were still in use by the Royal Navy, at home and abroad, on 1st November, 1919; how many of these motor cars are driven by women; and how many motor cars are there for the use of the Royal Navy in London?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The total number of motor cars in use by the Royal Navy at home and abroad on 1st November of this year was 162. Since that date there has been a reduction of forty-six. None of these motor cars is driven by a woman. For the use of the Royal Navy in London there are seven cars at headquarters and three in the Greater London areas.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does my right hon. Friend see any prospect of further reducing these motor cars, in view of the fact that before the War the Navy never used any at all?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is a matter of the needs of the Service. I cannot give any undertaking, but they will not be retained when there is no use for them.

    OFFICERS RETIRED (WOUNDS OR SICKNESS).
    Major Sir B. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will give a return of officers, executive and nonexecutive, of the Royal Navy who have been retired on account of wounds or sickness contracted in the late War prior to 1st July, 1919?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I regret that no statistics on this subject are immediately
    1768
    available, and I am advised that in order to compile a return, even of the permanent officers concerned, an amount of time and labour on the part of the staff would be involved which would seriously interfere with the ordinary work of the Department. If temporary officers were included—
    Sir B. FALLE: I only mean permanent.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The work would, of course, assume still larger dimensions, and would, I am advised, necessitate the employment of a special staff. In the circumstances, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press for the return

    SCHOOLMASTERS (PAY).
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty (1) why has it been found necessary to advertise for naval schoolmasters in view of the fact that all naval ranks are being reduced in number owing to demobilisation following the War; is he aware that dissatisfaction exists in that branch consequent upon the recommendations of the Jerram-Halsey Committee not having been accepted by their Lordships;
    (2) if he will explain why, although all classes of warrant officers received increases of pay in 1918, as a result of the findings of the Hyde-Parker Committee, naval schoolmasters were the only branch not to receive further increases in July, 1919?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As my hon. Friend is probably aware, before the War, naval schoolmasters were employed only in Harbour Establishments (with the exception of eight in the Training Squadron). During the War, however, it was decided to employ Warrant schoolmasters afloat, and temporary officers were appointed for this purpose. Owing to the success which attended this new departure in the interests of lower deck education, it has been decided to continue it, and an increase in the pre-war complement of the schoolmaster branch is necessary in consequence. As all the temporary schoolmasters were demobilised on the cessation of hostilities, it is necessary to enter fresh schoolmasters on a permanent basis for service afloat. If is true that letters have been received from schoolmasters expressing their dissatisfaction at rot having been treated similarly to other warrant officers in respect to pay. I am afraid I can only say that it was considered that the rates

    1769
    compared favourably with the salaries of teachers in civil life, and for this reason it was decided to make no change.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: Is it a fact that there were at least 200 temporary school-masters engaged during the War, that they were invited to rejoin under the new circumstances, and that practically only eight or ten have done SO owing to the poor conditions of service?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know. I cannot say I have heard that.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will inquire.
    Commander Viscount CURZON: Is there any analogy in the conditions of service of naval schoolmasters ashore and afloat?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No. The conditions of service afloat are entirely different from those ashore. The question I had in mind was as to the pædogogie attainments and the capacity of these teachers.
    Viscount CURZON: Do you draw no distinction whatever between service ashore and service at sea?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If I am asked I would Say that life on shore has many more amenities and much more comfort than life at sea, obviously.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Dockyard Members' Committee received a deputation the other day, and that they strongly recommended the case of these schoolmasters for consideration by the Admiralty? We sent a letter. Has the right hon. Gentleman received it?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I expect it was sent to the Permanent Secretary. I have not seen it.
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will explain why promotions to the approved percentages of head masters and senior masters have not been made, and why not a single appointment has been made to the special list, seeing that there is in the schoolmaster branch more than a sufficient number qualified, professionally and in the spirit of the Regulations, to fill the vacancies?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The total number of officers of the schoolmaster branch (excluding probationers) is ninety. The number of head masters allowed is six, and there are six officers holding this rank. The number of senior masters allowed is twenty-three, and the number of officers holding this rank is fifteen. To qualify for promotion to senior master or for appointment on the special list a schoolmaster must have served for eight years and must have reached a satisfactory standard after taking an advanced course. A certain number of promotions to senior master have been made from among those who had completed eight years' service, although they had not taken the advanced course, and I am advised that it is not considered desirable to fill up the whole of the vacancies in this way, especially as there are several schoolmasters of outstanding merit who have completed about seven years' service whose promotion would thereby be blocked. I may, perhaps, add that both on account of lack of accommodation in the training establishments and because sufficient schoolmasters have not yet been obtained, it has not been practicable to hold advanced courses. They will be instituted as soon as circumstances admit.

  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (DISCHARGES).

    APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Committee promised by the Prime Minister to consider the possibility of utilising the machinery and personnel of the Royal Dockyards for the building and reconditioning of merchant vessels has yet been set up; and, if so, how many meetings have been held and when the Report may be expected?
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Prime Minister, if, in view of the very serious position caused by the continued discharges from the Royal Dockyards, he will say what period of time will be allowed the new Committee appointed by him to report; and will he say, in view of the urgency of taking immediate steps to stop further discharges, what he proposes to do in the matter?
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Prime Minister whether the Committee promised

    1771
    by him to deal with the dockyard discharges has been appointed; if so, if he will state the composition and names of such Committee, including the Chairman, and when they will set to work; and what step is being taken to stop the discharges pending the recommendations of the Committee?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): The Committee over which Lord Colwyn will preside will, I hope, hold its first meeting on Monday next, and sit daily until its work is accomplished.
    I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the members of the Committee.
    Upon the question of discharges generally, I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary last Monday. We are fully alive to the gravity of the situation, and are anxious to avoid the suffering which may be caused. I hope to announce a decision at once.
    The names of the Committee are as follow:
    List of members of the Committee to consider the question of building merchant ships in the Royal Dockyards:
    Chairman—

    The Lord Colwyn.

    Two representatives of the Admiralty—

    Engineer-Rear-Admiral C. Rudd, C.B.

    Mr. W. H. Gard, C.B., M.V.O.

    One representative from—

    Sheerness—Mr. W. N. Rule, J.P.

    Chatham—Alderman A. W. Tapp, J.P.

    Portsmouth—The Mayor of Portsmouth.

    Plymouth—The Mayor of Plymouth.

    Pembroke Dock—Mr. D. Gwilliam Jones.

    Haulbowline

    Rosyth—Provost Norval.

    One representative from—

    Board of Trade.

    Ministry of Labour—Mr. J. S. Nicholson.

    Ministry of Shipping—Mr. G. S. F. Edwards.

    Treasury.

    Four representatives of the Admiralty Industrial Council—

    Mr. E. P. Harries, J.P.

    1772

    Mr. G. Bell.

    Mr. J. Kaylor

    Mr. T. Dadds.

    Secretary—

    Mr. J. Hewetson.

    Sir B. FALLE: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I ask if he will give the men of the dockyards a further opportunity of voting on the question they have already voted upon, now that the full facts are before them?
    Mr. LONG: The matter, as my hon. Friend knows, is extremely difficult and very complicated, and the suggestion he makes, that we should have another ballot of the men in the dockyards, is one that has already been under our consideration and is under consideration now, but I am very doubtful whether a fresh ballot would really help us in this emergency. What we have got to do, it seems to me, is to try and devise a plan under which the reduction of the labour in the dockyards shall be as small as possible.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can he say whether, in the event of cases of great distress, the National Relief Fund will be available?
    Mr. LONG: I have no right whatever to answer for the National Relief Fund. All I can say, on behalf of the Admiralty, is that while we cannot justify employment which is unnecessary, and undesirable therefore, we can, I think, perhaps anticipate the work of the next year on a three-years basis, and in that way find extra employment now. If we can we will do it. I should like to add, if I may, that the whole subject is complicated by the question of housing. We have more men in the dockyards than we actually require, but men are required in other shipbuilding yards. The transfer could be made tomorrow if there were housing accommodation in the other yards for them, but unfortunately there is not, and, therefore, we must do our best to prevent unnecessary or avoidable suffering.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: In view of the fact that the notices have been given for further discharges of men, may I ask whether, in the present uncertain state of affairs, their Lordships cannot see their way to withhold these discharges pending further inquiries?
    Mr. LONG: That is one of the questions which we are inquiring into and which we are going to discuss this afternoon

    1773
    when I return to the Board of Admiralty, and I hope we may be able, at all events, to announce some lessening of the discharges if not their cessation altogether.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: Cannot he promise us that as far as regards the notices already served they shall be withdrawn?
    Mr. LONG: No; I cannot promise that. My hon. Friend will see what it would involve. It would involve keeping men in the dockyards for whom some work would have to be invented, and that really, in the present state of the country, would be wholly unjustifiable. May I point out, in addition, that under normal conditions there are periodical discharges from the dockyards arising out of different causes —age, for one—which has always been well understood in the dockyards? At the present moment we have a large number of men, as my hon. Friend knows, in all the dockyards in excess of pre-war numbers. In these circumstances, and having regard to the work we have got to do, I think that all we can possibly be asked to undertake is what I have already undertaken, namely, to give the fullest consideration to the whole case and to do the best we can at the Admiralty to lessen any hardships that may arise.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: I quite appreciate —[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]. I think I am entitled on this very serious question to make one further inquiry. Having regard to the fact that the discharge of these men in Portsmouth means probable starvation to some of them, distress, and so on, and having regard to the fact that they were thanked by the Board of Admiralty and the Prime Minister for the splendid work they did during the War, are they not entitled to some extra consideration?
    Mr. LONG: I think they are entitled to extra consideration, and that is what we are endeavouring to show. I have tried, within the limits of an answer to a question, to show the House that the circumstances are extremely difficult and complicated, and that is one of the reasons why we are engaged in discussing this question at the Board of Admiralty, and I hope in the course of another hour to be discussing it with my colleagues, and our object will be to try and meet these different cases.
    Mr. WALLACEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view
    1774
    of the hardship inflicted on workmen, many of whom have lost sons in the War, by their discharge on reaching the age of sixty years, he will consider the alteration of the Regulations to provide for their continued employment should they be physically fit?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is the normal procedure, in accordance with the Dockyard Regulations, to discharge workmen on reaching the age of sixty; but each case is dealt with on its merits, and, in some cases, retention is permitted up to the age of sixty-five. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, appreciate our difficulties confronted with the fact that reductions are inevitable, and accept my assurance that we do our utmost to mitigate the hardships involved.
    Mr. WALLACE: Will special consideration be given to cases of men who have reached the age of sixty before discharge, in view of the fact that many of them have lost sons in the War?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I imagine that that fact would be taken into consideration.

    INVERGOEDON.
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to continue the dockyard establishment at Invergordon; if so, for how long; whether any ships are now being refitted there; how many men were employed there on 11th November, 1918; how many on 11th November, 1919; and what is to be done with the floating docks at this base?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not intended to continue the dockyard establishment at Invergordon after the completion of the work at present in hand and that necessary to clear the base of the miscellaneous vessels at present attached to the yard. At the present time there are—one battleship in hand for refit, two small craft and one target, and it is not intended to send any more work to the yard. The total number of workpeople in Admiralty service at Invergordon on 11th November, 1918, was 4,459. The number on 15th November this year was 2,714. As regards the floating docks, the one owned by the Admiralty will in all probability be returned to its original station at Portsmouth, while arrangements are being made to return the other to its owner.

    ROSYTH (HOUSE RENTS).
    Mr. WALLACEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the continued dissatisfaction of the workers in His Majesty's Dockyard, Rosyth, at the high rents paid for housing accommodation, he will institute an independent inquiry into the whole question?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The question of the rents paid by the men is one that has been very fully considered by the Admiralty, and in this connection I would invite my hon. Friend's attention to the reply given by me on the 12th August last to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fife West. Since that reply was given, the Admiralty have considered further representations made by the Rosyth Ratepayers' Association, but on the information furnished they decided that there was no case for a reduction in rent being made, and the association were so informed on 2nd September last.
    Mr. WALLACE: In view of the fact that the valuation has been recently raised, does he not think that a fresh case for inquiry, and does he not realise that an independent, competent inquiry into this matter would finally settle the whole vexed question?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is a fact that assessment has been increased by £5 recently. I give no undertaking whatever arising out of that, but the effect of that upon the rents should be looked into, and if my hon. Friend has any fresh evidence to justify us in making a further inquiry, I will be glad to receive it.

  RUSSIA.

    NAVAL SERVICE (ENLISTMENT).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state when he expects to be able to apply the principle of only sending volunteers for such service to fight against the Soviet Government of Russia to the Royal Navy, as is already the case in His Majesty's Army?
    Mr. LONG: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member in answer to his similar question on the 29th of October.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a
    1776
    great many of these men enlisted to take part in the war against Germany and are feeling their position very keenly?
    Mr. LONG: I am not aware that anybody enlisted in the Navy to take part in the war against Germany. On the contrary, the Navy is a voluntary enlistment service, and everybody who enlists in the Navy enlists for general service and to obey orders. I am not aware of any foundation for the suggestion that enlistment was in any single case made for any particular seat of war. As regards the discontent, there has been some unfortunate evidence of discontent. Those are matters which the Board of Admiralty are inquiring into, but it has nothing to do with the question the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks, namely, whether these men shall be treated as volunteers or as conscripts.

    NAVAL COURTS-MARTIAL.
    Mr. SITCHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many men of all ranks have been tried by court-martial for naval offences in connection with the campaigns in Russia since the Armistice, including those tried for refusal to embark for Russian theatres of war; how many have been sentenced to imprisonment for such offences; and what has-been the maximum sentence imposed?
    Mr. LONG: The reply to the first part of the lion. Member's question is—two officers and eighty-seven men of the Royal Marines, for military offences; and nine ratings of the First Destroyer Flotilla, for naval offences. For the rest, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to questions on this subject on Wednesday last.

    UKRAINIANS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for War whether General Denikin has issued orders that deserters are to be punished by death and their property confiscated; and whether, in view of the fact that Ukrainians joined the volunteer army to-fight the Bolsheviks and are now being used against the Ukraine, he will make representations to prevent those orders being carried out in the case of Ukrainians?
    The SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As

    1777
    regards the second part of the question, General Denikin is fighting the Bolsheviks and only such individual Ukrainians as adhere either to the Bolsheviks or to Petliura. He is not fighting the Ukrainian people.

    Loss OF S.S. "ADVENTURE."
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Secretary of State for War whether a vessel laden with munitions for North Russia was at any time lost with all hands; and, if so, whether this mystery has been cleared up?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that the ss. "Adventure" left Newcastle-on-Tyne for Archangel and Murmansk on 24th December, 1018, loaded with ammunition and general stores. The vessel has not since been heard of, and is presumed to be a total loss. This is the only case of which I have information.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Is there any indication that there was any foul play in connection with this disaster?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I have heard nothing of the sort.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS,

    AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND NAVIES.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if all pensioners who were under fifty-five years of age in August, 1914, and who were serving with the Royal Australian or Royal New Zealand Navy are eligible for the increased pension, and if all such pensioners who were over fifty-five in August, 1914, but who nevertheless volunteered and whose services were accepted, will receive the increase?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: All long-service pensioners who have served in the naval forces referred to during the War are eligible, irrespective of age, for a reassessment of their pensions on the increased scales. If my hon. Friend has any case in mind in putting the last two lines of his question, I will gladly look into it.

    WAR GRATUITIES.
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for War whether officers in the Special Reserve who were
    1778
    called up on 5th August, 1914, have been granted any gratuities according to the precedent of the South African war?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir. The gratuities under Article 497 of the Pay Warrant-apply to such officers.

    CIVIL LIABILITIES DEPARTMENT.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether any steps can be taken to expedite decisions on the part of the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Department in view of the hardship now caused, by the delay which occurs after an application has been made to that Department, and before a decision is announced; and whether it would be possible for applicants to be informed of the grounds when a Grant is refused, as the present practice of giving no reason for their decision leads to dissatisfaction on the part of discharged and demobilised officers and men who, from facts available, would appear to be entitled to assistance from that Department?
    Mr. WARDLE: I have been asked to reply to this question. As I have already informed hon. Members in reply to previous questions, steps have been taken to expedite the notification of decisions by the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Department. These steps are already producing satisfactory results. I will consider the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member in the latter part of the question.

    TRADE BOARDS.
    Major HILLSasked the Minister of Labour if he can give a list of the trades about which inquiries are being made with a view to their inclusion in the Trade Boards Acts?
    Mr. WARDLE: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the principal trades in which inquiries have recently been, or are being, made with a view to the application of the Trade Boards Acts.
    Following is the list referred to:
    (1)Trades for which Trade Boards have recently been established:

    Boot and Shoe Repairing.

    Brush and Broom manufacture.

    Corset manufacture.

    Fur dyeing, manufacture, etc.

    Laundry.

    Paper Bag manufacture.

    Tobacco manufacture.

    (2)Trades to which the Trade Boards Acts, 1909 and 1918, have been applied by Special Order, and for which Trade Boards will shortly meet:

    Aerated Waters manufacture.

    Button making.

    Coffin Furniture and Cerement making.

    Flax and Hemp (spinning and weaving).

    Hair, Bass, and Fibre (dressing, weaving, etc.).

    Hat, Cap, and Millinery manufacture.

    Jute (spinning and weaving).

    Perambulator and Invalid Carriage manufacture.

    Pin, Hook and Eye and Snap Fastener manufacture.

    Rope, Twine, and Net manufacture.

    Stamped or Pressed Metal-wares manufacture.

    Tailoring (retail bespoke)

    Women's Clothing:

    (a) Wholesale Mantle and Costume manufacture.

    (b) Dressmaking and making of Women's Light Clothing.

    (3)Trades in respect of which Notice of Intention to apply the Acts has been given:

    Jute, Flax, and Hemp finishing.

    Linen and Cotton Handkerchief and Household Goods making, and Linen Piece Goods making-up.

    Milk distribution.

    Toy manufacture.

    Waste Materials reclamation.

    (4)Trades in which inquiries are in progress or are being instituted:

    Distributive Trades, including, among others:

    (a)Men's and Women's Outfitting and General Drapery Trade.

    (b)Grocery and Provision Trade.

    (c)Meat Trade.

    (d)Fish Trade.

    (e)Fruit and Vegetable Trade. Catering.

    Food manufacture.

    Rice and Provender milling.

    Hairdressing.

    Made-up Textiles and Oilskins (including the manufacture of tents, tarpaulins, sails, sou'-westers, and other heavy textile articles).

    Used Sack repairing.

    Machine Embroidering.

    Lace making.

    1780

    Umbrella and Sunshade manufacture.

    Ostrich Feather and Artificial Flower preparing and manufacture.

    Bedding and Allied Trades (manufacture).

    Lint and Bandage manufacture.

    Manufacture of Spurts and Games requisites.

    Manufacture of Braces and Suspenders.

    Manufacture of Textile Smallwares, and Haberdashers' sundries.

    Brass-ware manufacture, including Capstan Lathe work.

    Gas Mantle manufacture

    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of Labour whether, with a view to improving the wages of the most poorly-paid workers engaged in the manufacture of lace, net, and curtains, he will make an Order applying the Trade Boards Act to those processes of the trade to which it does nut at present apply, and also to those persons who are learning those processes of the trade?
    Mr. WARDLE: As my Noble Friend is aware, the Trade Boards Acts already apply to the finishing of machine-made lace and net. Inquiries, which have now reached an advanced stage, have been instituted in the lace, net, and curtain making trade, with a view to ascertaining whether the conditions prevailing in the trade or in any branch thereof render the application of the Trade Boards Acts desirable.

    DEMOBILISED OFFICERS (GOVERN- MENT APPOINTMENTS).
    Captain THORPEasked the Minister of Labour whether the suitability for Government service of demobilised officers who are registered with the appointments Department of the Ministry of Labour has been considered; and how many such officers have received Government appointments?
    Mr. WARDLE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The number of ex-officers who have been placed in temporary Government employment by the Appointments Department of the Ministry of Labour up to 14th November was 1,905. Appointments to permanent posts in the Civil Service rest, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, with the Civil Service Commissioners.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    LAND SETTLEMENT.
    Dr. MCDONALDasked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to accelerate land settlement for sailors and soldiers; if he has studied and adopted any of the schemes submitted to the Government relating to this need; and if he will take the earliest opportunity to enable local committees to fulfil their urgent obligations in this direction?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): All possible steps are being taken by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and by county councils to acquire, equip and adapt land for ex-Service men. The Board have approved schemes in nearly every county in England and Wales. For particulars of the area of land acquired and the number of ex-Service men settled, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Rothwell.
    Dr. MACDONALD: Will the hon. Gentleman state what measures are being taken now in this direction?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have already said that all possible measures are being taken.
    Brigadier-General Sir O. THOMAS: Is it not a fact that such a high price is being paid for land for the settlement of those men that they will not be able to live on it?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, Sir. The increase in the price of land has been on the whole very small having regard to the increase of other commodities. Under the terms of the Land Settlement Act the deficits on the holdings fall not on the smallholders but on the State.
    Sir O. THOMAS: Is it not a fact that prices are about 50 per cent, higher than the pre-war prices?
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: What is the price of coal?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I may say that the average price for land paid for settlement to-day as compared with before the War has only increased by about £8 an acre.
    Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask what steps an ex-Service man has to take if he requires a small holding?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: He applies to his county committee.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not £8; an acre an increase of 20 per cent.

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
    Mr. DONALDasked the Minister of Labour if it is the intention of the Ministry of Labour under the new reconstruction scheme to make all ex-Service men at present employed as temporary clerks in Exchanges throughout the United Kingdom permanent officials and to make all other than ex-Service men at present employed in Exchanges who were not eligible for service with His Majesty's Forces, and those in possession of an exemption certificate, permanent officials?
    Mr. WARDLE: No, Sir; I cannot encourage any hope that all the temporary Exchange clerks of the types referred to will be made permanent. I may say, however, that all new permanent posts on the male establishment of the Employment Exchanges are to be filled for the time being by ex-Service men.

    MOULDERS' STRIKE.
    Major HILLSasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the House any information about the moulders' strike?
    Mr. WARDLE: I understand that the employers have informed the trade unions concerned that any alterations in wages, and also the adjustment of future working conditions, shall be the subject of discussion after resumption of work takes place. I understand that the Associated Ironmoulders of Scotland have meanwhile withdrawn their notices to cease, work, which would, in the ordinary course, have expired to-day.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an offer for a meeting has now been made by the moulders? The Scottish moulders cease work to-day. There is grave danger of the spread of the whole dispute, which the House is aware has a crippling effect, and will the hon. Gentleman's Department take steps to try to bring about a meeting of both parties, seeing that the men have now asked for such a meeting?
    Mr. WARDLE: My information in regard to the Scottish moulders is that they are not ceasing work to-day, but that they have postponed action so far as they are

    1783
    concerned. If my right hon. Friend's information is correct with regard to another offer of a meeting, I will inquire into it, and see whether anything can be done.

    CONSULAR OFFICERS (RETIRE MENT).
    Captain HACKINGasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give the reference and terms of the Order in Council under which Sir William Wilkinson, late Consul-General at Hankow, could be, and was, called upon to retire at the age of sixty years?
    Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: Sir William Wilkinson was not called upon to retire under the terms of any Order in Council. All servants of the Crown, civil as well as military, except in cases where it is otherwise provided by law, hold their offices only during the pleasure of the Crown. There are no provisions of the law excepting the Consular Service from this general rule. The Secretary of State, acting on behalf of His Majesty, has the power to call upon a Consular officer to retire at any time.
    Captain HACKING: Is there any security of office for the Civil servant who is under the age limit and who is efficient?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Certainly! There is no service in the world more secure than that of Consuls and other Civil servants.
    Captain HACKING: What is the security if the man is under sixty years of age and efficient?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have answered that.
    Mr. G. MURRAY: Do these gentlemen come under the Pensions Act?

    DIFFERENTIAL TARIFFS.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any treaty or other security against the imposition by the United States of America of a differential tariff upon the export of cotton seed or cotton oil to this country; and whether any protest has yet been received from the United States Gov-
    1784
    ernment against the policy imposed by the Colonial Office whereby an export duty has been placed upon any oil kernels exported from West Africa and other Powers?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The imposition of preferential export duties is prohibited by Article 2 of the Anglo-American Commercial Treaty of 3rd July, 1815. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that the French manufacturers have for years carried on a thriving trade in oil nuts with our Indian Empire, he will draw the attention of the French Government to the fact that the Secretary of State for India has recently refused to impose disabilities upon Indian exports to French and other territories, and invite that Government to withdraw the prohibition against the oil exports from French territories to British manufacturers?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am consulting the competent Departments of His Majesty's Government on the question of approaching the French Government in the sense suggested by the hon. Member. I will inform him in due course of the decision taken in the matter.

    LORD CAVE'S COMMISSION (RHODESIAN SETTLERS).
    Mr. ACLANDasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the declaration made on behalf of the Rhodesian settlers by Sir Charles Coghlan before Lord Cave's Commission in Rhodesia, that they wished to make it perfectly plain that the Rhodesian settlers repudiate any liability for whatever sums Lord Cave decided should be paid to the British South Africa Company; and whether His Majesty's Government is prepared to give an assurance that this House will be consulted before any decision is taken which will involve placing the burden in any way upon either of the other two parties, the native races of Rhodesia or the British taxpayer?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): I have seen Sir Charles Coghlan's

    1785
    statement on the subject. The question of the ultimate liability for the sum which may be held to be due to the British South Africa Company remains a matter for consideration, and as I stated in the House in the Debate on the Colonial Office Vote on the 30th July, the Government are committed to consult the House before any payment is made or any settlement come to as to the method of payment.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Apart from any decision come to as to what liability rests upon the shoulders of the British tax-payer?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I have said that before any decision is finally come to this House will be consulted.

    COLONIAL CIVIL SERVANTS.
    Mr. GIDEON MURRAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now make a further statement with regard to the abolition of the Regulation whereby a, Colonial Civil servant, accepting office at a salary of over £500 per annum, has to pay his own passage and that of his family to the Colony to which he is appointed or transferred; whether he is aware that this Regulation which was formerly a handicap is now a great hardship, owing to the largely increased cost of railway and ocean travelling; and whether, if it is not deemed advisoble to abolish the Regulation altogether, he will consider the desirability of increasing the limit to £800 per annum so as to bring the Regulation more into conformity with the general rise in the cost of living and salaries?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The question of passages for officers on first appointment, and when coming on leave, is being considered in connection with Colonies in Which a general revision of salaries is taking place, but I am not in a position to announce any general decision on the subject.

    BRITISH TROOPS (COST).
    Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for War what has been the cost of the British troops in this country from the beginning of the current financial year to 3lst October; and what is the estimated cost of the whole financial year?
    Mr. FORSTER: The total costs of the troops in the United Kingdom, exclusive of gratuities and other terminal charges of the War, and also exclusive of pension charges, is roughly estimated at £73,000,000 for the period 1st April to 31st October, 1919. The corresponding figure for the whole financial year is £104,000,000.
    Captain REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the cost of the Army of Occupation in Ireland?
    Mr. FORSTER: Not separately.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is there any need for an Army of Occupation in Ireland; there is plenty of food there, and a great deal of personal liberty?

    AGRICULTURAL ORGANISATION SOCIETY.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government contemplates making a Grant of £30,000 per annum or thereabouts, to run for five years, to the Agricultural Organisation Society; if not, has any amount been granted; and, if so, will he state the amount and whether the Grant or Grants is for the promotion of trading?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Apart from Grants for allotment and other special work, Grants to the Agricultural Organisation Society are made from two sources —the Development Fund and the Small Holdings Account; much the larger proportion coming from the former. The Treasury have paid to the society £20,000 during the current year on account of Grants proposed from the Development Fund; and I understand that the Development Commissioners will probably recommend the Treasury to make to the Society Grants for the current and three following years, which are expected, with contributions from the Small Holdings Account, to make up a total of £120,000 for the four years. After the 31st March, 1923, it is not contemplated that any further Grants will be made to the Society (which should by then be self-supporting), except, possibly, for allotment work or any special piece of work falling outside the normal activities of the Society which the Society may undertake with the approval or at the request of the Government.

    1787
    No part of these Grants or of any income of the Society is or will be spent in trading, the Society being a purely propagandist and advisory body, and giving no pecuniary aid to trading societies. It is, of course, an essential function of the Society to promote trading, in the sense, of organising and advising farmers' societies for co-operative trade.
    Mr. RAFFAN: What grant is given to this organisation for which the right hon. Gentleman calls allotment work?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I cannot give the amount, but I will send the figure to the hon. Member if he wishes. It is for promoting and assisting allotment societies.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the National Union of Allotment Holders strongly objects to this Grant being given, and will he consider their views in connection with the matter?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am quite aware of that; but I do not understand the reason for their objection.
    Mr. J. DENNIS: Is any portion of this Grant applied by the Agricultural Organisation Society in support of a concern called the Agricultural Wholesale Society?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask if he is not aware that the allotment holders' objection is that they can do the work without any public charge?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Our view is that it is absolutely necessary for Grants to be made. We are very anxious that every opportunity should be given for the formation of allotment societies throughout the country. In regard to the question of the hon. Member (Mr. Dennis), I have already said that no money whatever is given by the Agricultural Organisation Society to any trading body. The Agricultural Wholesale Society is a trading body, and it receives no grant from the Agricultural Organisation Society.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: If the allotment societies will do this work for nothing why should you give them a Grant?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have said that if we are convinced that they can do it for nothing the Grant will cease!

    AMERICANS VISITING ENGLAND (REGISTRATION).
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Americans from the United States of America coining to this country are obliged to register with the police; how often this registration takes place; and if the same can be avoided by the guarantee of one or more householders?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. An American paying a short visit to this country is not required to register with the police. If he takes up his residence here he is required to register and to inform the police of any change of his permanent address or any absence there from for a period exceeding two months. I think that the course suggested in the last paragraph of the question is unnecessary and would be far more irksome than the very light obligations which I have described.

    WHITLEY COUNCILS (CIVIL SER VICE).
    Mr. ALFRED SHORTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Sub-committee of the National Whitley Council for the Civil Service proposed to investigate the question of the organisation of the clerical classes only; and whether, in the circumstances, he is prepared to accept the Report of the Committee on Women in Industry for early application to the manipulative classes in Government Departments who are not covered by the investigation of the National Whitley Council?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The manipulative classes are not covered by the Sub-committee of the National Whitley Council; but it is understood that their organisations are at present engaged in the preparation of wages claims and these will be duly considered when they have been presented.

    LINEN INDUSTRY, NORTH OF IRELAND.
    Mr. DONALDasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the hardship imposed on employés in the linen industry in

    1789
    the North of Ireland by stopping the out-of-work donation on these people who are out of work through no fault of theirs, but owing to the shortage of flax, particularly from Russia; and if he will take steps to meet this case by giving these people some temporary assistance?
    Mr. WARDLE: With the exception of about 600 or 700 workpeople, the linen trade; operatives in the North of Ireland whose donation was stopped on 24th November were not out of a situation, but were working short time. In these circumstances I do not consider that it would be justifiable to give them further assistance out of public funds.
    Sir E. CARSON: Are the Government still controlling the price of flax?
    Mr. WARDLE: That is a question I cannot answer.
    Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: What steps are being taken to get flax from Russia; we know there are very large quantities?
    Mr. WARDLE: That question must be put to the appropriate Department.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The War Department?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Peace Department!

  DISABLED MEN.

    KING'S PROCLAMATION (GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce that no further Government contracts shall be given to firms who have not given employment to a percentage of disabled men, as requested in the recent Proclamation of His Majesty the King?
    Mr. WARDLE: I have been asked to reply to this question. I cannot at present add anything to the answer given on 11th November by the Leader of the House to the hon. Member for the Rother Valley Division of York.
    Colonel ASHLEY: How can the hon. Gentleman expect private firms to come in under the terms of the Proclamation if His Majesty's Government do not set an example?
    Mr. WARDLE: His Majesty's Government is getting a good example.

    PEACE TREATY WITH AUSTRIA.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether the Treaty of Peace with Austria will be presented to the House of Commons in the form of a Bill and the same procedure followed us in the case of the Treaty of Peace with Germany; and, if so, when it is expected that this will be done?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The Treaty was laid yesterday. Legislation will no doubt be necessary to enable effect to be given to the-economic Clauses of the Treaty, but, as-no date has yet been fixed for ratification, I am not in a position to say anything more on the subject at present.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask why the very, important matter of the Peace Treaty with Austria is being treated differently, and the procedure adopted by His Majesty's Government different to that adopted in respect to-the German Peace Treaty?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it is being treated differently except from the point of view of everyone—including, I am sure, the hon. and gallant Member himself—that the Treaty with Germany was more important than that with Austria, and had to be settled first.

    EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
    Sir EDWARD CARSONasked the Prime Minister when the Second Heading of the Irish Education Bill will be taken?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry it is not possible for me to name a definite date.
    Sir E. CARSON: May we take it that the Bill will be read a second time before we adjourn?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We hope so, in spite of the pressure of business.
    Captain REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Bill was introduced, on its First Reading, without any statement being made from that bench, and has that been the practice with a measure of this importance? May I ask, further, when the right hon. Gentleman holds out any hope to Irish Members of seeing what this Bill contains, because it is not even printed yet?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is in course of being printed. As regards the first part of

    1791
    my hon. and gallant Friend's question, it is a custom that has been adopted over and over again with Bills quite as important as this one.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. CHARLES WHITEasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to consider the Report of the Committee on Old Age Pensions; and whether, if there is a possibility of delay he will recommend the Government to immediately increase the existing pensions by 2s. 6d. a week, the lowest increase recommended by the Committee, pending a final decision on the matter?
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury if the Government intends to introduce a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on Old Age Pensions; and, if so, when will the Bill be introduced?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to a question on this subject on Monday last by the hon. Member for Ely.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make an announcement?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Committee has only reported quite recently. Proposals have now been put before the Government, but we have not yet had time to consider them.
    Colonel GRETTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the fact that winter is now upon us, and to see that the increase is made as soon as possible?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that in any case an immediate change can be made, because it would require a larger staff, but I quite realise the importance of It. The difficulty is that each day has only twenty-four hours.

    LEGISLATION (UNCOMPLETED BILLS).
    Mr GILBERTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the number of Acts of Parliament which have already been passed during the present Session and the number of Bills still before the House, the Government propose to take
    1792
    any action by which uncompleted Bills at the end of the Session can be carried forward in the same position to the next Session of Parliament, so that the work of Members on any Bill shall not be lost?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The suggestion of the hon. Member is being considered by the Government, but no decision has yet been taken.

    PRINCE OF WALES'S FUND.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOAREasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can make any further announcement as to the disposal of the Prince of Wales's Fund?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to what I said on Thursday last in reply to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Smethwick.

    MILITARY STORES (BLACK FOREST).
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to the report that great stores of guns, munitions, and other supplies, sufficient far a great Army, are hidden in the Black Forest in Germany; and, if so, whether he will take steps to see that this matter is cleared up by the Allies?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been asked to reply to this question. I have not seen the report to which the hon. and gallant members refers, but the information at the disposal of the War Office affords no grounds for attaching credence to the statement. As regards the second part of the question, as soon as the Peace Treaty comes into force steps will be taken by the Inter-Allied-Commission of Control to ensure the execution of its terms.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    MESOPOTAMIA (Cost or TROOPS).
    Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for War what has been the approximate cost of keeping British troops in Mesopotamia from the beginning of the present financial year to 31st October; and what is the estimated cost for the whole financial year?
    Mr. FORSTER: The total cost of the British troops maintained in Mesopotamia,

    1793
    exclusive of gratuities and other terminal charges of the War and also exclusive of pension charges, is roughly estimated at £4,000,000 for the period 1st April to 31st October, 1919. The corresponding figure for the whole financial year is £6,000,000.

    MILITARY BOOTS.
    Mr. MACQU1STENasked the Secretary of State for War how many gum thigh-boots are in the possession of the War Office or the Disposal Board; what did they cost to buy; how much has been spent in transporting and handling them; where are they now; and, seeing that they could have been sold at or about £45 per ton as scrap rubber in January, 1919, and can now only fetch about £30, who are the officials or official responsible for the delay in selling them and the cost of storing them and shifting them about?
    Mr. FORSTER: No stock of these boots is being maintained by the War Department. I understand that the number remaining on fraud with the Disposal Board is 507,193 pairs, which cost, when new, approximately, £456,500. The total amount spent in transport, viewing, etc., since the 1st April is, approximately, £1,800, but this covers boots already disposed of as well as those waiting disposal. The boots still on hand are at the stadium, White City. As these boots could not be obtained in large numbers in an emergency, it was necessary to hold them until the end of June with a view to possible contingencies, but there was no delay in reporting them for disposal as soon as the situation cleared.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Secretary of State for War whether there is in the possession of his Department over 1,500,000 very heavy Army boots (B 5), and another 250,000 in course of manufacture; that this supply will take about four years to exhaust; whether most of these boots can now be sold for civilian purposes at a small profit, or at least at cost and supply urgent civilian wants, and enable the Army to be furnished with a boot of a pattern better suited than the existing boot for both peace and war purposes, and so keep the manufacturers of Army boots and their workmen employed; whether these improved boots may reasonably be expected to be supplied, in the course of the next four years, at a reduction in cost considerably below the price realisable for the heavy Army boot above suggested to be sold; and will he consult the technical advisers of the Royal Army
    1794
    Clothing Department on the above matters, and also instruct them forthwith to have a more satisfactory style of boot prepared suitable for peace and war?
    Mr. FORSTER: The number of boots in stock, and in course of manufacture, are approximately as stated. Taking into account reserves and probable issues, the stock is below the estimated requirements of the next three years. With regard to the remainder of the question, it is not admitted that a better boot suitable for both peace and war purposes can be provided. The present boot is the result of practical experience in the field. It was produced by Royal Army Clothing Department experts in consultation with the medical authorities, and I understand has given general satisfaction. It would not, in the circumstances be advisable or economical to dispose of the present stock as my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it the fact that these boots can now be sold at a profit, and that as time goes on the cost of making boots will be cheaper? I should like also to know if my right hon. Friend will answer the last part of the question— namely, whether ho has consulted the technical advisers, and, if so, who were the gentlemen whom he consulted?
    Mr. FORSTER: With regard to the last question, I have already said that it was produced by the Royal Army Clothing Departments experts in consultation with the medical authorities.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I want to know who they are?
    Mr. FORSTER: I cannot give, without notice, the names of the experts consulted, but if my hon. and learned Friend puts down a question, no doubt I can give him the information.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (HAIR FOR MATTRESSES).
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Air Ministry insisted on reserving 100 tons of hair from a proposed sale in Ireland of 130 tons by the Disposal Board; whether, seeing that this amount will make 7,000 mattresses, he will state what the Air Force have been sleeping on hitherto and where and why they want 7,000 beds now; what is the rate of deterioration of teased hair such as the hair in question when in store; and does it

    1795
    tend to lose stiffness and value with rapidity if not immediately made into mattresses?
    Mr. PARKER: The reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's queston is that a request was made to the Disposal Board by the Air Ministry to reserve 90 tons of hair, and that the Ministry has been informed that the hair so reserved is at Neasden. Whether this hair was reserved from a proposed sale in Ireland or not is not within my knowledge. In regard to the second part, I would explain that to a considerable extent airmen have hitherto been sleeping on straw palliasses and on bed boards, and that the hair referred to above has mainly been obtained for the manufacture of hair mattresses to remedy this state of affairs at the stations to be permanently retained by the Royal Air Force. As it is not the intention of the Air Ministry to store hair in excess of immediate requirements, it does not appear that the remainder of my hon. Friend's question calls for a reply.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there are thousands and thousands of beds, belonging to the Army, stored up and down the country. I could give him instances. For what purpose are they making new ones when these store a are enough?
    Mr. PARKER: I am afraid my hon. and learned Friend must put that question down. I do not know anything further about the matter.

    STAFF APPOINTMENTS.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the number of officers, other than Regular officers, who on 15th November, 1919, were holding Staff appointments or who were attached to the Staff and drawing full pay whilst not on regimental duty?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This information is not available, and I am afraid it would involve considerable research to obtain the figures. In view of the reductions in staff which are being made, I regret I cannot undertake to have the information prepared.

    REMOVAL OF OFFICERS.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that there are 4,500 Regular officers superfluous to the establishment of the Army, it is the intention of
    1796
    the War Office to forthwith remove from the Service all senior Regular officers who are medically unfit and likely to remain so, or who were sent home from the Expeditionary Force on adverse reports, with a view to accelerating the promotion of the very large number of captains and junior majors of the Regular Army who during the War successfully filled the places of the aforementioned senior officers, and to further allow the granting of Regular commissions to selected temporary officers?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: All Regular officers who are permanently medically unfit are placed on the half-pay list. The Army Council have already under consideration the War records of all senior officers, and those who have shown themselves to be unfitted for the duties of their rank are being called upon to resign their commissions or to retire.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it not the fact that in many cases officers are now being reported upon by their peace-time commanders? In view of the reduction in the Army, and the urgent necessity for absolute efficiency, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the question of war records shall be considered in every single case?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.
    Major Earl WINTERTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply refer to officers of all ranks—generals and lieutenant-generals as well as junior officers?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly. The numbers of lieutenant-generals and major-generals which exist surplus to any establishment that we can contemplate in the future are very great.
    Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be influenced in his action by the Reports of any Commissions on Mesopotamia or the Dardanelles, or anything else, as to whether any officers of high rank are efficient or not?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Everything will be taken into consideration I do not know what my Noble Friend has in mind.

    UNITED SERVICES FUND.
    Earl WINTERTONasked (1) the Secretary of State for War whether

    1797
    any steps were taken to consult the opinion of demobilised ex-Service men as to the constitution of the Committee, of which General Lord Byng was chairman, to inquire into the best means of disposal of canteen profits;
    (2) who are the military and naval members, respectively, of the Committee that is responsible for the administration of the United Services Fund; and what is the representation, if any, of the Comrades of the Great War and the National Federation of Demobilised Soldiers and Sailors on that Committee?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In answer to these two questions, I would refer my Noble Friend to my reply yesterday to the hon. Member for Workington.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    MEDICAL OFFICERS.
    Lord H. CAVEMDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that numbers of medical officers who joined the Army voluntarily in 1914 or before the passing of the Military Service Acts have persistently applied for demobilisation, and that their applications have been refused; whether some of these medical officers are receiving £'60 a year less than others who voluntarily enlist for a further six months though there is no certainty that these volunteers will not be demobilised on or before the same date as the others; whether large numbers of younger medical ' officers have been demobilised after short periods of service; whether, if so, there is any justification for this different treatment; and whether he can make any promise with regard to the early demobilisation of the medical officers referred to or, alternatively, can undertake that their rate of payment during service shall be not less than that of the medical officers who consent, often for personal reasons, to stay in the Army?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware that many medical officers who joined the Army voluntarily before the passing of the Military Service Acts, and who afterwards came under the provisions of those Acts, are still of necessity retained on military service, and that some of these officers are receiving less than those who have undertaken to serve for a further period of six months. A considerable
    1798
    number of medical officers with comparatively short service have from time to time been demobilised for special reasons, more particularly in order to meet the urgent needs of the civil population, and in accordance with the demand of the Ministry of National Service. Medical officers are now being demobilised in order of priority, having regard to length of service, age, etc., immediately they can be spared. I regret it is not possible to extend the terms given to officers who bind themselves for a definite period to those who will not undertake this obligation.

    DERBY RECRUITS.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPEasked the Secretary of State for War when a soldier who enlisted under the Derby scheme and was called up in November, 1916, and is now serving in Mesopotamia will be released?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: He should leave Mesopotamia by the 1st February next at the latest, provided the necessary transport is available.

    CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Reginald Godfrey Webb, No. 52994, 14th Hussars; whether this young man on enlistment stated that he was nineteen years of age, although his actual age was only sixteen years; that he was induced to enlist whilst in London on holiday; that his mother has made repeated applications for his release; and whether, in view of the fact that Webb is only seventeen years of age now, he will give instructions for his immediate release?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This case has already been considered, but the facts put forward did not justify the discharge of the soldier being authorised. In view of the statements made in the question, which vary in several important particulars with those previously alleged, I am having further inquiry made, and will inform the hon. Member of the result as soon as possible.
    Mr. CLYNES: In the event of the facts being found to be in harmony with the statements in the question, will the right hon. Gentleman order the release of this soldier?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would like to know what the actual facts are before giving an answer.
    Mr. IRVING: If the right hon. Gentleman is instituting a new rule, will he also apply it to others?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not a question of instituting any new rule. The only question is what is the interpretation of the present rule and that depends upon the actual facts. The facts are in dispute, and I am making further inquiries to make sure that the War Office facts are correct. It may be that the hon. Gentleman is correct

    FIELD STORES, ALDERSHOT (DISCHARGES).
    Mr. SHORTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will give an assurance that women who were employed by the Field Stores, Aldershot, before the War will have the option of remaining in the Service; whether ho is aware of the large number of women who are being discharged; and whether he can state the reason for transferring the clothing department elsewhere, thus causing the discharge of numbers of women?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to n similar question asked by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) on the 11th November. I am afraid that I cannot give the assurance asked for in the first part of the question. As regards the last part of the question, the transfer was effected in the interests of economy.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Major W. MURRAYasked (1) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the continuance of the foot-and-mouth disease in England, he will now take steps to prohibit the removal of live stock from England to Scotland;
    (2) the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a number of requests from Scottish owners of live stock and others desiring that they should be more efficiently protected from the dangers of foot-and-mouth disease now prevalent in parts of England and on the Continent; and what, if any, steps it is proposed to take in order to safeguard live stock in Scotland?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Board have received representations both direct and through the Scottish Department as to taking special steps with a view to protecting Scotland. They consider that the practice of prohibiting movement of animals over a large area surrounding the place infected with foot-and-mouth disease gives the best security not only to Scotland, but also to the rest of England and Wales. No case is known to the Board where infection has resulted from the virus being carried by stock out of the district so scheduled.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: What steps are the English Board of Agriculture taking to inform themselves of the opinion in Scotland with regard so this matter?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We are constantly informing ourselves as to opinions in Scotland.
    Mr. SCOTT: I asked what steps are being taken by the Board to inform themselves of opinions in Scotland?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: If my hon. Friend will give me notice, I will give him a detailed reply.

    RIVERS (POLLUTION).
    Sir FRANCIS BLAKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he intends to introduce legislation at an early date giving to fishery boards and other bodies responsible for the protection of rivers fuller powers than they now possess for dealing with questions of pollution by trade effluents and domestic sewerage?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I hope it will be possible to introduce legislation next Session upon this subject.

    FOREIGN HOPS.
    The following question stood upon the Paper in the name of Viscount WOLMER:
    77. To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he can state the approximate average prices at which foreign hops are now being imported into this country?
    Viscount WOLMER: May I ask why my question has been missed?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I regret that I have no answer to this question, but I was given to understand that the answer would be given by another Department.
    Viscount WOLMER: Can the hon. Gentleman inform me which Department?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think the Board of Trade, but there has been some misunderstanding. If the Board which I represent is responsible, I apologise to the House.

    NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND (POWERS) BILL [Lords.]
    Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee E.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 215.]
    Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 215.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 220.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COM -MITTEES).

    STANDING COMMITTEE E.
    SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee E: Major Entwistle.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to—
    County Court Judges (Retirement Pensions and Deputies) Bill, without Amendment.

BILLS PRESENTED.

  NURSES REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL,—
  "To provide for the Registration of Nurses in Ireland," presented by Mr. MACPHEESON; supported by the Attorney-General for Ireland; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 221.]
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL,—"To enable the Par-
  1802
  liamentary electors in prescribed areas by a direct vote to prohibit the issue within such areas of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors and also the common sale or supply of such liquors in licensed premises, clubs, or elsewhere within such areas," presented by Mr. RAFFAN; supported by Mr. Broad, Mr. Galraith, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Sidney Robinson, and Mr. Trevelyan Thomson; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 222.]
  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL,—"To amend the Law with respect to Customs in the Isle of Man," presented by Mr. BALDWIN; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 223.]

  PEERAGE (SURRENDER) BILL
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I beg to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower His Majesty to accept a surrender of any Peerage."
  I desire to make it perfectly clear that this Bill does not express in any sense the views either of myself or of my colleagues with regard to the future constitution of the House of Lords, nor is it simply a Bill to enable a peer, if he chooses, to sit in this House. I frankly admit that, although we are living in democratic days, there is to-day no dearth of candidates for the peerage—the right hon Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) can apply it to either side of the House—and the object of the Bill is to permit any man not only to surrender his peerage and the right to sit in the Upper House, but also all privileges attaching to membership of the Upper House. In the seventeenth century, I believe, it was not an uncommon thing to surrender the peerage, with the result that there was a famous test case, known as "The Earl of Norfolk's Case"—in which it was clearly laid down by the Law Courts—it was subsequently confirmed by the House of Lords that the peerage could not be surrendered. I have taken an extract from Pike's "Constitutional Law" dealing with that point. It reads as follows:
  "The doctrine that a peer cannot surrender or in any other way restore any dignity at all to the sovereign is thus Lord-made law of comparatively recent growth. It seems, at first sight, to contradict the fundamental doctrine that the sovereign is the fountain of honour, as it withdraws from him the power to receive back an honour once conferred. There must of

  1803
  necessity be two parties to a surrender, and it appears to be hardly within the rights of any particular body so to define its own privileges as to affect other interests, and in particular those of the Crown, without the express consent of the sovereign."
  That opinion was never challenged, so far as I have been told, until 1895, when the present Earl Sclborne challenged the right of summons to the other House. It is true that he, backed by the present Lord Curzon and Lord Midleton, presented a Bill, which did not receive a Second Reading in this House. The object of that Bill was, clearly, not to take away all the privileges attached to a peer, but was merely limited to the right of a peer, if he so desires, to sit as a Member of this House. The difference between what one can gather was the intention of Lord Selborne and the then Lord Wolmer on that occasion and the Bill which I now ask the House to accept, is that in Clause 1 of the Bill it is provided—
  "His Majesty may accept a surrender by any peer of any peerage held by him, and if accepted by His Majesty such surrender shall determine the peerage so surrendered, and all rights and privileges in respect thereof, including the right to receive a written summons and to sit in the House of Lords or to take part in the elections of representative peers."
  It will be observed that that Clause, if it becomes the law of the land, clearly prevents the possibility of getting the best of both worlds. It lays it down, first, that a peer has a clear right to say, "No, I believe I can serve my country best by remaining a Member of this House." But, concurrently with that, it also says that if he so chooses, and if he accepts that position, clearly it must not carry with it any right or privileges attaching to the other House. I submit that we have here a clearly defined, and, if I may say so, a sound constitutional position. It enables a, man to say that, in his judgment, he does not feel capable of undertaking the responsibility of sitting in the other House, and I would ask whether this House of Commons, or the Constitution of the country ought to say to a man who himself feels that he is incapable of discharging these responsibilities, who himself feels that his conscience tells him ha ought not to accept the responsibility, that he should accept it. I would say quite clearly that it is not unfair and that it is a sound constitutional position to reply, "No, if you yourself feel that you are incapable of discharging this work, certainly we are not going to compel you to
  1804
  do it." That is the first point involved. But there is a second, and one that is primarily responsible for this Bill. It is that there are Members of this House to day who feel that their training, their knowledge, and their whole conception of public life and public service is centred in this House. They are men who have made promises to a constituency, which constituency itself feels that it can truss them, and we ought not, because of this flaw—if I may use that phrase—in the Constitution, to deprive these men of the right and privilege of serving in this House if they so desire. It is perfectly true that I might have brought in this Bill by a mere presentation, but that would have been unfair, because the House ought clearly to understand what is the purport and object of the measure. I believe there is opposition to it—opposition on the ground that it is dealing piecemeal with the great question of the House of Lords. All I have to say is that there have been various promises of reform of the House of Lords, and if those who are opposing this Bill, and who object to deal piecemeal with the House of Lords, are desirous of helping in dealing with the House of Lords, there is nothing in this Bill which will prevent them doing it. At all events, I submit that, in asking the House to give this Bill a First. Reading, I am asking it to say that in a constitutional country like ours, where, after all, Parliament is, and should be, supreme, there ought to be nothing in the Constitution to first deprive a peer, because he is a peer, of the ordinary privileges of humble citizenship and then to prevent any citizen who wants to serve his country from serving his country in the manner he thinks best to do so.
  4.0.P.M.
  Mr. E. WOOD: I rise to invite the House to refuse to grant permission to the right hon. Gentleman to introduce this Bill, and I hope, if necessary, to divide the House upon it. I must say at the outset that those of us who are opposed to the action with which the right hon. Gentleman is associated, would be the first to recognise that he has treated the House of Commons with the greatest courtesy in affording it the earliest possible opportunity of expressing its views upon this question. All hon. Members present will have listened with great interest and admiration to the speech with which the right hon. Gentleman introduced this Motion. We are always accustomed in this House

  1805
  to listen with interest to whatever may fall from him, but to-day we have listened with an extra interest, because of the novel role in which we find the right hon. Gentleman acting. I believe there was a distinguished individual in the early Middle Ages who was known, on account of his actions against Churchmen, as the "Hammerer of the Church." I am not without hope that after the right hon. Gentleman's speech to-day he will go down to posterity as a constitutional lawyer and as a protector of the peers. I am acting as I am to-day not without considerable reluctance. In the first place, I should always be reluctant, unless it were necessary, to differ from the right hon. Gentleman. In the second place, I am bound to say that the particular individual whose case is the parent of the introduction of this Bill in one of my warm personal friends, for whose friendship I have the greatest possible regard. In the third place, I myself, perhaps, as long as the House of Lords remains as it is at present, by the natural order of events if things remain as they are, may be called upon to face compulsory severance from this House and from all those affectionate relations and sympathies one has ever had in it. Therefore I am sure the House will agree that one has every personal ground for trying to take the opposite view from what I do. Nevertheless, I feel bound to ask the House to agree with me and reject the Motion.
  The right hon. Gentleman has made a very persuasive speech. He advocated as his main ground that we should aim at removing any hindrance that lies in the path of peers rendering services to their country where they best may. He has based his argument on the broad democratic ground of the right of service. With that argument I warmly associate myself, because the right of service is the greatest right which from the King to the humblest subject anyone can claim. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was better than the conclusion he invites us to support. I would deny the implication that service in the other place need be of any less value than service in this House. In the second place, I would point out that the zeal of those who, like the right hon. Gentleman, wish to remove a supposed injustice from the shoulders of peers, may lead them into some danger of finding themselves in the position of granting an additional privilege to a body of persons who are already entitled to sit in
  1806
  one House by granting them the option to sit in two. It is a position which required much more consideration from my right hon. Friend. He reminded us that this matter was considered by this House in more than one form twenty years ago. Without following him into the legal aspects of the matter which were then discussed and which formed the subject-matter of inquiries by Committees—any hon. Member interested can inform himself on the subject—I would say that all those inquiries went to show that this matter was one which, as soon as it was approached and investigated, was seen to raise questions much larger than merely individual questions. In my judgment, it is bound to introduce far-reaching results on the whole working of our Constitution Speaking for myself, as long as the House of Lords remains as it is, I would regret any change that made it difficult—this is bound to be the effect of this proposal— for that Chamber to draw recruits from among those who had served an apprenticeship in this House. That may be a matter of opinion.
  Whether this proposal to enable the Crown—for that is, I think, its form—to, accept the surrender of peerages be right or whether it be wrong, I would emphatically state that it cannot be right that this proposal, far-reaching as I believe it to be, should be introduced, by way of a private Bill, by a private Member, of whatever distinction, really in order to meet an individual case. Indeed, in that I believe I have the support of the right hon. Gentleman himself, because at the outset of his remarks he said that this Bill did not represent either his own views or the views of those with whom he habitually associates on the question of the future constitution of the House of Lords. In fact, I believe this is—I speak under correction from my lawyer Friends—what the ancient Romans used to call privilegium. That was an attempt to introduce alterations in the general law on the ground of individual hard cases. That was always jealously resisted in the days of Rome, and I hope it will be no less jealously resisted by the House of Commons. My first objection to the proposal is that it is wrong to handle a fraction of the problem without handling all of it. Strong as that objection would be under ordinary conditions, it is redoubled because of the position in which we find ourselves at the present moment. It is not as if there were no likelihood of the whole question of the

  1807
  Second Chamber being one for immediate or early consideration. If undertakings mean anything in this House or out of it, this subject is one to which, as much as to any other, this Government stands pledged. I do not profess to be sanguine enough to believe that when that question is brought forward, as it must be brought forward soon, there will be found unanimity as to its right solution, yet I am satisfied that among all broad-minded and fair-minded men in the House of
  Commons who look at the matter broadly, there would be substantial unanimity that when this matter is handled it must be handled as part of a single whole, and we should only prejudice the wise handling later by attempting to handle it piecemeal and without due consideration.
  Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower His Majesty to accept a surrender of any peerage."
  The House divided: Ayes, 56; Noes, 169.

  Division No. 138.]

  AYES.

  [4.10 p.m.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Henderson, Maj. V. L. (Tradeston, Glas)

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  Hirst, G. H.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton)

  Briant, F.

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Carter, W. (Mansfield)

  Kiley, James Daniel

  Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

  Casey, T. W.

  Lunn, William

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

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Mason, Robert

  Seager, Sir William

  Clough, R.

  Matthews, David

  Seddon, James

  Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Seely, Maj.-General Rt. Hon. John

  Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)

  Mosley, Oswald

  Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)

  Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)

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

  Swan, J. E. C.

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

  Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

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

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)

  O'Connor, T. P

  Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)

  Finney, Samuel

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Waterson, A. E.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

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

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Guest. J. (Hemsworth, York)

  Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)

  Thomas and Mr. Griffiths.

  Hallas, E.

  Remnant, Colonel Sir James

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

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

  Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Hurd, P. A.

  Alien, Colonel William James

  Dennis, J. W.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Johnstone, J.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. F. W.

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Atkey, A. R.

  Elveden, Viscount

  Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Bagley, Captain E. A.

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander

  Kidd, James

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Falcon, Captain M.

  King, Com. Douglas

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Falie, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

  FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

  Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

  Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)

  Forestier-Walker, L.

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

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Gange, E. S.

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

  Lordon, John William

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

  Gardner, E. (Berks, Windsor)

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Bennett, T. J.

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

  Lowe, Sir F. W.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Lynn, R. J.

  Bird, Alfred

  Gilbert, James Daniel

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

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

  M'Guffin, Samuel

  Berwick, Major G. O.

  Glyn, Major R.

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

  Bowles, Colonel H. F.

  Goff, Sir Park

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Breese, Major C. E.

  Grant, James Augustus

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Green J. F. (Leicester)

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Buckley, Lt.-Colonel A.

  Greer, Harry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

  Butcher, Sir J. G.

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Marriott, John Arthur R.

  Campbell, J. G. D.

  Griggs, Sir Peter

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

  Campion, Colonel W. R.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hacking, Captain D. H.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hailwood, A.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cayzer, Major H. R.

  Hennessy, Major G.

  Murchison, C. K.

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

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

  Murray, Hon. G. (St, Rollox)

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

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

  Murray, William (Dumfries)

  Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

  Hope. Lt.-Col. sir J. (Midlothian)

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Cheyne, Sir William Watson

  Hope, John Deans (Berwick)

  Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

  Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)

  Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

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

  Curzon, Commander Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

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

  Pinkham, Lt.-Colonel Charles

  Stewart, Gershom

  Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Sturrock, J. Long

  Whitla, Sir William

  Pratt, John William

  Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.

  Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

  Ramsden, G- T.

  Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Willey, Lt.-Col. F. v.

  Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

  Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

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

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts)

  Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)

  Wilson. Colonel Leslie (Reading)

  Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.

  Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb)

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Rowlands, James

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Royden, Sir Thomas

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl.)

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)

  Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Woods, Sir Robert

  Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

  Tryori, Major George Clement

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Samuel, Right Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Walton, J. (York, Don Valley)

  Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)

  Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

  Stanton, Charles Butt

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Waring, Major Walter

  E. Wood and Major Howard.

  Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

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

  Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SEX DISQUALIFICATION (REMOVAL) BILL [Lords].
  Lords reason for disagreeing to Commons Amendment and Lords Amendments to Commons Amendment, considered.
  SEX DISQUALIFICATION (REMOVAL) BILL [Lords].

    CLAUSE 1.— [Removal of Disqualification on Grounds of sex.)
    A person shall not be disqualified by sex from the exercise of any public function, or from being appointed to any civil or judicial office or post, or from entering or assuming any civil profession or vocation, or for admission to any incorporated society (whether incorporated by Royal Charter or otherwise), and a person shall not be exempted by sex from the liability to serve as a juror:
    Provided that—

    (a) notwithstanding anything in this Section His Majesty may by Order in Council authorise Regulations to be made prescribing the mode of admission of women to the Civil Service of His Majesty, and the conditions on which women admitted to that service may be appointed to posts therein, and providing for the exclusion of women from admission to any branch of the Civil Service in any of His Majesty's Possessions, or in any foreign country; and

    (b) any judge, chairman of quarter sessions, recorder or other person before whom the case is heard may, in his discretion, on an application made by or on behalf of the parties (including in criminal cases the prosecution and the accused) or any of them, or at his own instance, make an Order that having regard to the, nature of the case and the evidence to be given, the jury shall be composed of men only or of women only as the case may require, or may on an application made by a woman to be exempted from service on a jury in respect of that case by reason of the nature of the evidence to be given or of the issues to be tried, grant such exemption.

    Commons Amendment: After the word "function," insert the words "including that of sitting and voting in the House of Lords."
    The Lords disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons for the following reason:
    "Because they do not consider that this alteration in the Constitution of the House of Lords should be made at this time or in this manner."
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir E. Pollock): I beg to move, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed."
    An Amendment was inserted in Committee in this House under which a person would not be disqualified by sex or
    1842
    marriage from sitting or voting in House of Lords, and it is with that-Amendment that the Lords have disagreed. They have agreed with all the Amendments which were made in Committee and on Report, save and except this particular one. They have only made one alteration in another, which, also, I shall ask the House to agree to later on. I know some hon. Members attach importance to this Amendment on the ground that it was a matter of principle, and therefore, pressed it to a Division. All told, there would be only some twenty ladies who, it was presumed, might ossibly have an opportunity of sitting and voting in the House of Lords, but the number is even less, for on inquiry it was found that of the ladies who hold peerages eleven hold thorn by patent, and the patents in their case were special patents granted in the case of distinguished soldiers and persons who had rendered great service to the State, and as they had no male heir, the patent designated their daughter as the particular person to whom, the peerage should devolve, but even then provided that after the designated female holder the peerage should pass into the male line and it can only be held in the male line. The peerage, as drawn up by patent, expressly gave no right of place, seat or voice to the designated female holder in the House of Lords, and therefore it is not a matter which comes within the ambit of a, Bill to amend the law with respect to disqualification on account of sex because the particular disqualification in these eleven cases arises by virtue of a particular patent, and the general alteration of the law would not affect those cases. There remain nine cases and no more to which it would be possible for this Amendment to apply. The Vote the House has just taken may be interpreted in this way. After listening to the speeches I think the determination of the House was that it would be unwise to deal with this matter of the constitution of the House of Lords in a piecemeal fashion or with regard to particular cases. It would be better to leave it to be dealt with as a whole as and when the reconstitution of the House of Lords is taken up, as we hope it will be in the immediate future. The House of Lords give, as their reason for disagreeing with the Commons Amendment that they do not consider that this alteration in the constitution of the House of Lords should be made at this time or in this manner. If I interpret rightly the

    1843
    vote just given, I think I am on strong ground in asking the House to accept the Amendment which has been made by the House of Lords, But J would also beg the House not to create a disagreement with the House of Lords. This Bill has now, been amplified. It stands as a Bill which gives a very large measure, almost a complete measure—I only introduce that qualification because I am conscious that some of my hon. Friends wish to go even further—of relief on the question of sex, and it would really be disastrous that, after we have got this Bill as complete as it is, we should engage in a controversy with the other House which might imperil the measure. I very much hope the House will agree with the Lords Amendment, because I regard this Bill as one which all quarters of the House desire to be passed, and I should deprecate any action which could in any way endanger its subsequent fortunes.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: I do not agree altogether with what my hon. Friend has said as to the Bill removing all sex inequalities. I am sorry another place has insisted on deleting the Amendment that we passed in this House. There was considerable debate upon the question, and it went strongly in favour of throwing open another place to women. The Government Whips were taken off, and we carried the Amendment by a large majority. On that account I very much regret that another place has taken this action. At the same time I do not attach very great importance to this provision. The importance I did attach to it I placed upon it because I regarded it as an outward expression of sex inequality as long as women do not sit in another place. Apart from that, I quite agree that it is not an Amendment of any great importance. At the same time, I quite honestly think it is one of those questions which must be considered as part of the general reform of the Second Chamber. From my own point of view, therefore, as one who followed the Bill with close interest when it was here before, and did what I could to extend ifs provisions for making it easier for women to enter the liberal professions, the Civil Service and other branches of public life, I am not prepared to enter into a constitutional conflict with the House of Lords upon this point, and whilst I regret that they have taken this action I am not prepared to press it to a Division.
    Commons Amendment: At end of Clause add the words,
    "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."
    Lords Amendment to Commons Amendment: After the word "made" ["Rules of Court may be made "] insert the words
    "('(a) prescribing the manner in which juries are to be summoned and to be selected from the panel: and
    (b) exempting from attendance as jurors any women who are for medical reasons unfit to attend; and
    (c)')."
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    These Amendments which have been made by the Lords are for the purpose of making the Bill more effective in dealing with one or two matters which have been overlooked in this House. May I explain exactly what the House of Lords has done, because it is by no means easy to follow in view of the practice of the two Houses as to the printing of Bills. In order to follow one has first of all to obtain the Amendments which were made to the Bill as it went to the House of Lords, and then to obtain the Amendments which the Lords made to those Amendments, and although I hoped that another system would prevail under which the Bill would have been reprinted, I was told the practice which prevented that hope being fulfilled, and therefore I have been at pains to work out what the result of this Amendment is. It is provided that "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." After we had provided that ladies should sit upon juries, it was necessary to take steps to meet

    1845
    the point that was properly raised by the hon. and learned member for the Bassett-law Division (Sir E. Hume-Williams) that it would be very inconvenient if some lady asked to be excused from a jury, and then it was found that an insufficient panel had been obtained. Therefore, we provided that rules should be made to meet this difficulty, and that application should be made with regard to the composition of the jury at what we call interlocutory proceedings; that is, proceedings before the case actually comes into Court. So far so good. That practice has not been altered by anything that the House of Lords have done. But the House of Lords felt that we had not adequately provided for seeing that juries were properly drawn from men and women alike. It is quite obvious that if women are going to undertake the duty of acting upon juries there must be no discrimination either in favour or against them. The Juries Act, 1825, provides, by Section 26, that when a panel of jurors has been tabled the jury that is to sit is to be drawn by a ballot taken by an officer of the Court, who has to write the names on a piece of paper or parchment, put them into a box, and then draw out the names of the persons who are to form the jury. Unless that is provided for it might be said that some discrimination had been made whereby the jury had been composed of so many men and so many women, and the women or the men might be in greater numbers. It is very necessary that the system of ballot should be made legal, and should apply to the Act which we are now passing. The House of Lords have provided for that being done.
    Two other points remain. It was pointed out that in the case of a woman it might be very necessary to give them the liberty to be excused in certain circumstances. A woman far advanced in pregnancy might desire, and rightly desire, to be relieved. A woman shortly after childbirth, when she was nursing her child, might also desire to be excused, because if the case took some time it is quite obvious that both she and the child might suffer. Therefore, the House of Lords have put in the power to make rules and provision for these two cases. They have also dealt with another point which is highly technical. Under the Juries Act, 1825, the ballot which has to be taken applies to assize cases and to civil cases, but does not apply to cases which are tried at Quarter Sessions. It is just as important that the juries at Quarter Sessions
    1846
    should be drawn without any discrimination as to either sex, as it is important that that should be done both In civil cases and in assize cases. Therefore, it is necessary in the rules that are to be drawn up to give facilities for drawing juries indiscriminately both at Quarter Sessions, assizes, and in civil cases. For that purpose in reference to the jurors who are to be drawn for criminal cases at Quarter Sessions there is a body in existence, called the Rules Committee, appointed under the Indictment Act, 1915. That Committee consists of the Lord Chief Justice of England and another judge, a recorder, a chairman of Quarter Sessions, and, I think, a Clerk of Assize. There may be one or two other persons also who have due knowledge of the system and practice of our Criminal Courts. Dealing with these matters the House of Lords have added to what we have done. Incorporating their Amendment the provision would read:
    "Rules of Court may be made—

    (a) prescribing the manner in which juries are to be summoned and to be selected from the panel, and

    (b) exempting from attendance as jurors any women who are for medical reasons unfit to attend."

    That deals with the question of women in a particular condition.
    "(c) as to the procedure to be adopted on any application under this Section relating to service on juries—
    That was our own rule.
    "and the Rules so made may require or authorise an application to be made under this Section, or any Order thereon, to be made in interlocutory proceedings—"
    That was part of our own rule.
    "and shall have full effect notwithstanding any existing Rules 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."
    That incorporates all the matters dealt with. The Rules by these Amendments will become much more effective. The selecting of men and women from the panel will be by ballot, and no exception can be taken to it. These Amendments carry out and amplify the intention expressed in this House, and I ask the House to agree to the Lords Amendments.
    Lords Amendments to Commons Amendment:
    Leave out the words "and the Rules" ["and the Rules may require"], and insert instead thereof the words "Rules so made."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "application" ["authorise the application"], and insert instead thereof the words "an application made under this Section."—Agreed to.
    After the word "proceedings" ["interlocutory proceedings ", insert the words
    "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."
    —Agreed to.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—[Mr. Shortt.]
  Mr. MARRIOTT: Before the House gives its assent to the Third Reading I desire to say a few words as one who has taken part in the discussions in this House and in Committee upstairs. As this Bill was introduced it was, in my judgment, and in the judgment of many others far more competent to judge, an exceedingly bad Bill. It was a bad Bill as regards the administrative machinery and as regards the treatment of the existing electricity authorities. I think it is a matter of general agreement and for general congratulation that the Bill has been enormously improved as it has passed through Committee and the Report stage. It has been improved in particular in three ways. In the first place, the district electricity board which, as this Bill left the House on Second Reading, constituted the main backbone of the measure, now remain in the Bill only as the last resort. Many of us think that is a great improvement. In the second place, the joint electricity authorities have now become the normal procedure which will be adopted for the working of the Act. That also seems to many of us a great improvement. In the third place, far more equitable terms have been secured for those who on the direct invitation of Parliament—this is a point on which I have more than once felt myself bound to insist—have invested their money in what were at that time very speculative undertakings. I do not think the House generally has quite appreciated the enormous debt which it owes and which the country owes to those who have been the pioneers in the elec-
  1848
  trical industry. They have invested very large sums of money in what was then a speculative industry, and the whole country is under a very great debt of obligation to them.
  As the Bill left this House on Second Reading that debt was very inadequately recognised. Some of us while the Bill has been passing through Committee have fought very assiduously to obtain better terms for those original investors. As regards my own case, I have been actuated throughout solely by considerations of public policy. My own interest in the matter is absolutely negligible. I have always contended that a very important principle was involved in the Compensation Clauses of the Bill, and I rejoice that in that respect very considerable improvement has been effected.
  Speaking on behalf of those members of all parties who have taken any part in the discussion, I may say that we tender our very grateful thanks to those members of the Government who have been in charge of the Bill. To the Home Secretary in particular, and to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, we owe a very great debt for the way in which they have met the representations made to them by the Committee and this House. I hope I shall not be out of order if at this point I express our grateful thanks to the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division (Sir S. Roberts) who presided over the prolonged proceedings in Committee. That the Bill has become a reasonably good Bill Is in no small degree due to the geniality and tact with which the hon. Member for Sheffield presided over the Committee stage.
  But though the Bill in its present form represents a very great improvement that is very far from saying that it is perfect. It seems to me to be very much the reverse. In my judgment it would have been very much better if no attempt had been made to set up the very elaborate machinery contained in this Bill. A far simpler Bill would have attained the same end with less friction and more effect. If instead of adopting the elaborate machinery which is contained in this Bill we had simply brought together representatives of the existing authorities: the municipalities, the power companies, and what are known as the Provisional Order companies, and discussed a friendly arrangement in regard to the future supply of electricity in this country I believe that some arrangement

  1849
  could have been arrived at with very little trouble which would have been satisfactory to all parties, and would have attained the end desired by all who have taken part in the discussion of this Bill— the securing for the country of a larger and cheaper supply of electricity. I hope and believe that it will come to this in the end, and that the amended provisions of this Bill will be worked and will have to be worked—and I regard that as a matter of good omen—by friendly and harmonious co-operation between the parties whom I have enumerated. But I should like to know why we only come to this in the end, why we should not on the contrary have started with it, and why we should have spent nineteen laborious days upstairs settling the details of this very elaborate and difficult machinery? No doubt those days were very educative to myself and other Members, but our education might have been Arrived at by other means with less trouble to ourselves and less expenditure of public time. I recognise that the Bill as it now stands is a very great improvement, and I congratulate the House and the Government on the result.
  Mr. THOMSON: While associating myself with the declarations of the hon. Member opposite as to the attitude of those who were responsible for the piloting of the Bill I am afraid that I must raise a discordant note as to one or two of its provisions. I may be a voice crying in the wilderness, but I make a final appeal to the Government to reconsider two points which many of us feel to be a real blemish in this matter. One is that they have not sought to secure on the district boards the right of popular control. The second is that they have an extraordinary system of arriving at the values of undertakings which are to be taken over, values which are based rather on the question of the persons to whom the undertakings belong than on the character of the undertakings themselves. On the first point I would appeal to the Home Secretary that where you have public money, public interests, and public monopolies at stake, there you should have a basis of popular control. I have always understood that public control and public expenditure went together. It seems to me that this Government of all the talents has come to the conclusion that that point of democratic Government has to be overhrown. You have these district boards set up they acquire from
  1850
  various undertakers electricity generating stations and main transmission lines. The undertakers, whether they be municipalities, or private companies, are paid for the undertaking. Therefore, I submit that, as undertakers, they no longer have a claim to representation on the boards which have acquired their property. The same applies whether to a municipality or a private company. Certainly they have no claim to a majority of representation on the board.
  The claim for public representation is not made because the authorised undertakings were in the hands of municipalities, but rather on the broad ground that as the public have monopoly rights and you have a public service those matters ought to be in the hands of a body which has at any rate a majority of popular representatives on it. As to that, the Bill provides no such principle. It provides machinery whereby in certain cases you may have the representatives of popular bodies in the majority. But that is a cardinal principle which ought to have been settled by this House. The majority of these undertakings are at present in the hands of local authorities which are democratically controlled, and it is more than possible when this Bill becomes law —there is no provision in the Bill to prevent it—you may have undertakings which are now in the hands of the local authority and under popular control handed over to boards on which there may not be a majority of popular representatives. That depends on the undertakers, and this is a principle which should not be agreed to.
  On the question of compensation, I submit that it is a misfortune to set up two standards of value which vary not according to the work of the undertaking required, but depend upon the authority which happens to own the undertaking. You have the case of a local authority, when a generating station is transferred under the Bill, and the price to be paid for that is the worth, less depreciation. That is a perfectly sound basis, with which I think the majority of the House will agree, but when you come to the case of power companies Clause 12 says that when in addition to having taken the generating station they also require you to take their distributing system, the price to be paid for the generating station is cost without any regard to depreciation whatever. It is unfair to differentiate in this way

  1851
  between undertakings which are in themselves of the same class and to say that because one happens to belong to a power company therefore you ought to pay at a much higher level for it than for that which belongs to a municipality.
  It has been said that the power companies, like the distributing companies, have not the protection of the 1888 Act, that they have a freehold, and we have no power to buy it out. I submit that the local authorities are in exactly the same position. They do not come under the 1888 Act. They have the same unrestricted right without any power over them, other than what this House has over power companies, of purchasing them, and they have as much a freehold as the power companies. It seems an extraordinary precedent that compensation is to be paid for an undertaking not on the worth of the undertaking, but on the question of the person to whom it belongs. If it belongs to a municipality and is attempting to give a public service without making profit, you pay one price, and if it belongs to a private company out, and rightly out, for profit, then you pay a higher price. A distinction of that sort gives occasion to unfriendly critics, who say that this is a House where capitalist interests dominate and the public are forgotten. I beg the Government to remove the possibility of such insinuations by making the basis of compensation the same for the municipality as for the power company.
  5.0 P.M.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend putting the municipalities, with all their great duties and responsibilities, on the same level as a mere profit-making concern like a power company. Municipalities are using public money not for the purpose of making profit, but for providing electricity as cheaply and efficiently as possible for the people in their area. They are relieved of that duty, and they are assured that none of the capital expenditure will be lost, and if one public body buys from another and the second ensures the first against loss, that, surely, is not unfair ! But with regard to a company which has been allowed by Parliament to collect together the capital of private persons for profit making by providing electricity, surely they must be treated in a different way altogether! With regard to the question of public control, I would remind my hon. Friend that there
  1852
  is no public money in this at all. There is the money which is paid by the consumer for the electricity which it consumes, which in no proper sense is public money. Public money is money collected either by-taxes or rates, but the money which the district boards, the joint authority or whatever it may be, receive for the whole of their revenue comes from the sales of electricity. The Electricity Commissioners receive revenue from the contributions of every form of undertaker, whether district board, joint authority, or private undertaking. They are all contributing to the expenses of the Electricity Commissioners. There is no tax and no rate. Therefore, while I quite agree that, where public interests are concerned, public representation is essential, and is provided for in this Bill, and public control is necessary where you expend public money, public money is entirely absent from the provisions of the Bill which is before the House at present. I should, therefore, merely like to ask the House now to pass, the Third Beading of this Bill. I am very grateful for the kind words of the first speaker with regard to those of us who had charge of this Bill, and I may tell the House that, in my view, the work of the Committee on this Bill, at any rate, has shown what good work a Grand Committee can do. No one can admit more frankly than I do that the Bill has been greatly improved by the, whole-hearted assistance of members of the Committee during the nineteen days of our sitting. I do not pretend that it is perfect. It is a sound attempt to ensure for this country a cheap and efficient supply of power. Experience may show in days to come that the Bill requires amending, but at any rate it is now a sound basis for us to begin with. I therefore ask the House to give this Bill a Third Reading,
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  IRISH LAND (SAILORS AND SOLDIERS)— [EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported,
  "That for carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to facilitate the provision of land in Ireland for men who have served in the Naval, Military, and Air Forces of the Crown in the present War, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament—

  1853

  (a) of the Expenses of the Land Commission in managing, letting, and improving land, and of the deficiencies on resales of land by the Land Commission;

  (b) of the Expenses of the Local Government Board for Ireland in the provision of cottages, plots, and gardens for ex-Service men; and

  (c) of the Expenses of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland for the purpose of promoting cooperation."

  MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (AMENDMENT) [MONEY.]
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the removal of the limit imposed by Section forty-seven of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, and by Section thirty-seven of the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1913, on the contributions which may be made by the Treasury under those Sections, and to extend the powers of district boards of control in Scotland to borrow money."
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Shortt, Dr. Addison, Mr. Munro, and Major Baird.
  MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (AMENDMENT) BILL,—" to remove the limit imposed by Section forty-seven of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, and by Section thirty-seven of the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1913, on the contributions which may be made by the Treasury under those Sections and to extend the powers of district boards of control in Scotland to borrow money," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 219.]

  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. H. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Home): I beg to move,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any additional sums which may become payable under Section 106 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to increase the rate of unemployment benefit payable under the National Insurance (Unemployment) Acts, 1911 to 1918, and to make certain consequential Amendments in those Acts."
  1854
  It will not be necessary to say more than a few words in explanation of what is involved in this Financial Resolution. It is proposed to read the Bill a second time to-morrow, if the House assents. The intention of the Bill is to increase the benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act, at present in existance, from 7s. to 11s. per week. That in itself involves no extra grant of money by the House of Commons. Where the extra expenditure is involved is in the following, respect: Under Section 106 of the Insurance Act of 1911 and of the Amending Act of 1914 it is provided that the State shall give a subvention of one-sixth to any trade union that provides in itself a certain amount, or any amount, of unemployment benefit, but the amount is limited to one-sixth where the trade union pays no more than 17s. If it pays anything in excess of 17s. then the one-sixth does not apply in respect of any such sum in excess. What has happened in general has been this, if I may take a rough illustration. The trade unions in many cases have paid unemployment benefits to-the extent of 10s., while the State has paid 7s., with the result that the State has given a subvention of one-sixth of 10s. to the trade union. What will happen-now, with the amount of benefit going up, is that the 11s. will be paid by the State instead of 7s., and accordingly it is necessary to increase the amount of the limit-within which the State pays its subvention of one-sixth. Therefore, the Financial Resolution is required for the purpose of providing these extra moneys. In total, we do not estimate that this subvention will, under present circumstances at least, amount in any year to more than £6,000. By no possibility, and even then only under the most extreme circumstances, will it ever reach any sum above £20,000. The estimate now will not exceed a sum of something like £6,000. It will apply, according to present conditions, to something like 200,000 insured workpeople.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. As I gather, the first part will not entail any additional expenditure-upon the country. The report of the Government actuary is, as far as I can understand it, to that effect. Now we come to another thing altogether, and that is the provision under Section 106 of the principal Act, which provides in certain circumstances for a subsidy being paid by

  1855
  the Government to trade unions. Why on earth should the Government pay a subsidy to trade unions? Why should they pay a subsidy to trade unions any more than to federations of employers? Trade unions are very great associations which wield great influence already, and apparently are going to wield as great, if not greater, power in the future. They are associations with large sums of money, in some cases with very large sums of money. To use a colloquial phrase, why cannot we leave them on their own bottoms. I have always very much objected to these subsidies. In the first place, I do not think they are necessary, and, in the second place, I think they are; a bad thing altogether.
  Sir R. HORNE: But it is the law now.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It is a very bad law. It is a bad law introduced into the Act of 1914. I am not quite certain that I am right, but as far as my recollection goes, the Act of 1914 was introduced at the beginning of the War.
  Sir R. HORNE: It began with the Act of 1911.
  Sir F. BANBURY: A very bad Government was in power in 1911, and it is only to be supposed that they would do things which more sensible persons would not agree to. My recollection is that the lion, and learned Member for Cambridge University objected in 1911 and in 1914 to these provisions. I suppose it is a little late to attempt to overthrow them now, though I should very much like to do so. I do not propose to do that because I do not think I should get any very great amount of support. But sometimes I think it is well to divide in order to show the principles which actuate you, and to have it recorded that you have some principles which you are prepared to back. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that this subsidy will not cost more than £6,000 and in any event not more than £20,000.
  Sir R. HORNE: £25,000 in extreme cases.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It has gone up in the last few minutes. I think I prefer, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, to take the Estimate which he gave in his opening speech, and not the Estimate which he has given now, when he is rather inclined to think that I am going to move
  1856
  an Amendment. I do not propose to put in as much as £20,000, because that is very exceptional. I propose to give the right hon. Gentleman something like 140 per cent, increase on his original estimate of £6,000. I propose to add at the end the words
  "but in no case shall such sum exceed fifteen thousand pounds in any year."
  I trust the Government will accept that. It is extremely reasonable.
  Amendment proposed: At the end, add the words "but in no case shall such sum exceed fifteen thousand pounds in any one year."
  Sir R. HORNE: While I do not believe that my right hon. Friend's suggested words will affect in practice the operation of what I have proposed, I regret very much that I cannot accept his Amendment in principle, and for this reason: If you are going to give this subsidy to trade unions who are insured and are paying insurance benefit, it is absolutely impossible to work upon any limited sum. It must either apply to everyone who comes within the scope of the Act or to none. You cannot say if you have an enormous increase in insurance in this country—it would be a very good thing for the country if it happened—that once you have got to a certain number of unions, which would eat up the whole of the £15,000, thereafter you will give nothing to anyone else. It would be impossible in any year to say where you were, or how many unions you could recognise. While I appreciate entirely the desire for economy, and will endeavour to aid it in every way, in principle this Amendment is impossible
  Mr. MARRIOTT: On this point I desire to support the Minister of Labour, for the reason that here we have one of the eases in which what I may call the benefit side of the trade union movement is differentiated from the militant side of that movement. I should regret exceedingly if anything were done by this House which would in any degree discourage the benefit side of the trade union movement, and, very regretfully, on this occasion I must dissociate myself from the right hon. Baronet. We are very grateful, at least I am, for the information contained in the White Papers, but would it not be possible to let us have them in time to read them before the matter comes up? It may

  1857
  have been my own fault, and I do not know what time this White Paper was at the Vote Office.
  Sir R. HORNE: At seven o'clock last evening.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: I apologise. I have been continuously employed, and even had I obtained it then I should not have had time to read it. Apart from this instance, I would ask that we should have the information on which the, Government base their Financial Resolutions in reasonable time.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am not quite sure that I am convinced by the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, because if there were a large increase in membership that would not mean unemployment.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: It would mean an increase of Government liability.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It might lead to unreasonable wages being demanded, and I do not want to do anything to support an abnormal rate of wages or to have them kept up by payment of Government money. I would like to know what happens in a strike.
  Sir R. HORNE: When a man is on strike his union may pay him strike pay, but he does not get unemployment pay or any subvention from the Government.
  Mr. S. WALSH: Tradesmen who are thrown out contingent, on a strike get benefit but not the strikers.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): How does the right hon. Baronet connect this with the Amendment?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not connect it, and I do not propose to pursue it. Under
  1858
  those circumstances I will not press the Amendment, though I regret some limit has not been introduced. A good many years ago when I first proposed Amendments of this kind to Financial Resolutions they met with more or less derision from all sides, but opinion has considerably changed, and Governments of late have been inclined to accept limiting. Resolutions, and in many instances they have done so.
  Amendment negatived.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That Lieutenant - Colonel Weigall be discharged from the Committee.
  Ordered, That Lieutenant - Colonel Hilder be added to the Committee.— [Colonel Gibbs.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley), pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes after Five o'clock.

WAR PROFITS (TAXATION).
  WAR PROFITS (TAXATION).
  WAR PROFITS (TAXATION).
ESTIMATES (NEW FORM).
  ESTIMATES (NEW FORM).
  ESTIMATES (NEW FORM).
PAPER CURRENCY.
  PAPER CURRENCY.
  PAPER CURRENCY.
RATES OF EXCHANGE.
  RATES OF EXCHANGE.
  RATES OF EXCHANGE.
CIVIL SERVICE (VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT).
  CIVIL SERVICE (VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT).
  CIVIL SERVICE (VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT).
WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT OF DOMINION PENSIONS).
  INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT OF DOMINION PENSIONS).
  INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT OF DOMINION PENSIONS).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  BACON.
  BACON.
  FISH PRESERVATION.
  FISH PRESERVATION.
IRELAND.
  SUB-SHERIFFS.
  SUB-SHERIFFS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  IRISH SELF-DETERMINATION LEAGUE.
  IRISH SELF-DETERMINATION LEAGUE.
  MAIL TRAIN, PORTADOWN TO DERRV.
  MAIL TRAIN, PORTADOWN TO DERRV.
  PROFITEERING COMMITTEES.
  PROFITEERING COMMITTEES.
  ROYAL NAVAL AND FLEET RESERVES (PAY).
  ROYAL NAVAL AND FLEET RESERVES (PAY).
  NAVAL RETIRED AND EMERGENCY OFFICERS.
  NAVAL RETIRED AND EMERGENCY OFFICERS.
  TOURNAMENT HALL, LIVERPOOL (ADMIEALTY OCCUPATION).
  TOURNAMENT HALL, LIVERPOOL (ADMIEALTY OCCUPATION).
  MESOPOTAMIA (POSTAL FACILITIES).
  MESOPOTAMIA (POSTAL FACILITIES).
ROYAL ATR FORCE.
  AIRSHIP SERVICE.
  AIRSHIP SERVICE.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  TRAININGS SCALE.
  TRAININGS SCALE.
  ALLOTMENT REPAYMENT.
  ALLOTMENT REPAYMENT.
MUNITIONS.
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (DISPOSAL).
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (DISPOSAL).
INDIA.
  ARMY TRANSFERS.
  ARMY TRANSFERS.
  TEMPORARY OFFICERS (DEMOBILISATION).
  TEMPORARY OFFICERS (DEMOBILISATION).
  PRIVILEGED PASSAGES.
  PRIVILEGED PASSAGES.
SOUTHERN RHODESIA.
  LORD CAVE'S COMMISSION (EVIDENCE).
  LORD CAVE'S COMMISSION (EVIDENCE).
  CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT (PENSIONS).
  CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT (PENSIONS).
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  TAXICABS (RECKLESS DRIVING).
  TAXICABS (RECKLESS DRIVING).
HOUSING.
  LABOUR.
  LABOUR.
  TIMBER-FRAME HOUSES.
  TIMBER-FRAME HOUSES.
  EJECTMENT ORDER, BIRMINGHAM.
  EJECTMENT ORDER, BIRMINGHAM.
  TOWN PLANNING (CROWN LANDS).
  TOWN PLANNING (CROWN LANDS).
  FINANCE ACT, 1909–10 (LAND CLAUSES).
  FINANCE ACT, 1909–10 (LAND CLAUSES).
  BUILDING MATERIALS (INSPECTION).
  BUILDING MATERIALS (INSPECTION).
  NATIONAL INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE.
  TUBERCULOUS SERVICE MEN (COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS)
  TUBERCULOUS SERVICE MEN (COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS)
COAL PRODUCTION.
  BUNKER COAL (COASTWISE TRADE).
  BUNKER COAL (COASTWISE TRADE).
  DOMESTIC AND HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION.
  DOMESTIC AND HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION.
  COAL MINES (PROFITS).
  COAL MINES (PROFITS).
  ANTHRACITE.
  ANTHRACITE.
  INDIVIDUAL OUTPUT.
  INDIVIDUAL OUTPUT.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  EXPORTS AND IMPORTS.
  EXPORTS AND IMPORTS.
  BRITISH DYE STUFFS CORPORATION.
  BRITISH DYE STUFFS CORPORATION.
  HAWNE COLLIEEY (PUMPING INSTALLATION).
  HAWNE COLLIEEY (PUMPING INSTALLATION).
  FLASHLIGHT ADVERTISEMENTS.
  FLASHLIGHT ADVERTISEMENTS.
  DISCHARGE OF CARGOES (DELAY).
  DISCHARGE OF CARGOES (DELAY).
TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION.
  RAILWAY RATES (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
  RAILWAY RATES (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
  GRAIN (CARRIAGE RATES).
  GRAIN (CARRIAGE RATES).
  WAGON SHORTAGE.
  WAGON SHORTAGE.
  GOODS STATIONS, NORWICH (CONGESTION).
  GOODS STATIONS, NORWICH (CONGESTION).
POST OFFICE.
  POSTMAN (MOTOR BICYCLK).
  POSTMAN (MOTOR BICYCLK).
  CABLEGRAMS FROM AUSTRALIA (DELAY).
  CABLEGRAMS FROM AUSTRALIA (DELAY).
  DUNDEE TKAMWAY AND CARRIAGE HIEING COMPANY (WASES).
  DUNDEE TKAMWAY AND CARRIAGE HIEING COMPANY (WASES).
  PRESS TELEGRAMS.
  PRESS TELEGRAMS.
  COUNTY OFFICIALS, CUMBERLAND (APPOINTMENTS).
  COUNTY OFFICIALS, CUMBERLAND (APPOINTMENTS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
SCOTLAND.
  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT.
  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT.
  SMALL HOLDINGS COLONIES ACTS (EX-SERVICEMEN).
  SMALL HOLDINGS COLONIES ACTS (EX-SERVICEMEN).
  QUESTIONS TO SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND.
  QUESTIONS TO SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE
  SEA FISHERIES (ANNUAL REPORT).
  SEA FISHERIES (ANNUAL REPORT).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

HOUSE OF COMMONS AND MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (QUALIFICATION OF CLERGYMEN) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Charnwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Persons in holy orders not to be disqualified as members of the House of Commons.
1.That on and after the passing of this Act, no person shall be disqualified or liable to any penalty for sitting or voting in the House of Commons by reason of having been ordained to the office of priest or deacon, or being a minister of the Church of Scotland, and the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act, 1801, is hereby repealed.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had given notice, on the Motion to go into Committee, to move "That the House do resolve itself into Committee this day three months."
The noble and learned Lord said: I move to omit Clause 1 from the Bill and I think it more convenient that I should do this than to have proceeded with my Motion on the Paper, which would have prevented the House from going into Committee on the Bill if that Motion had been carried. I should like to say one or two words on how the matter appears to me to stand as regards the proposal in Clause 1, which is that no person should be disqualified or liable to any penalty for sitting or voting in the House of Commons by reason of having been ordained to the office of priest or deacon, or of being a minister of the Church of Scotland. There is one other form of disqualification somewhat similar in character which is not touched in the Bill, probably for reasons well ascertained by the promoters—that is to say, the Roman Catholic clergy are disentitled from sitting in the House of
386
Commons under the Catholic Emancipation Act, so that if this Bill were passed in its present form the result would be that they would be in a unique position, whereas at the present time they occupy the same position as a person ordained to the office of priest or deacon, or as a minister in the Church of Scotland.
As is pointed out in Clause 1, this disqualification was introduced in the Statute of 1801. It was found to have existed before in the inquiries in connection with the Horne Tooke case, but it was put into statutory form and was made a statutory disability in the year 1801. The reason of the statutory disability being imposed is that by the act of ordination English priests and deacons are set apart for a holy office and by reason of the duties of that holy office their position is inconsistent with membership of the House of Commons. I think the words in the clause are well drawn, because they propose that the disqualification by reason of ordination should be taken away.
As an Anglican layman I object exceedingly to this proposal. Every Anglican layman who has spoken to me holds the same opinion. I do not know where the initiative comes from for this Bill, but I am sure it does not come in any sense from Anglican laymen as a whole. Just let us consider how the matter stands. First, there is the question of the Ordination Service, and any one who reads that Service and appreciates it must see that the clergy so ordained are set apart in a special and separate manner to perform the holy office to which they are ordained and dedicated, and I do not think there ever was a time more than at the present moment when the duty and special character of a priest in holy orders ought to be recognised. Not only ought it to be recognised, but the duties which he has undertaken and his obedience to his ordination promises make it wholly impossible that he could perform at the same time his duties in the House of Commons. They are two perfectly inconsistent positions, just in the same way as it is quite inconsistent—although of course the reasons are different—that an officer on active service should also be a member of the House of Commons.
Now, what are the duties of an ordinary ordained priest or deacon which make his duties inconsistent with those in the House of Commons? In the first place, he has

387
the obligation of residence within the area of his cure. In the second place, he has the obligation of daily service within the area of his cure. And thirdly, and outside special duties of this kind, he has the general obligation to provide for the religious teaching and the religious life of those among whom he dwells and in reference to whom he has been appointed their beneficed clergyman. What reason is there why this Bill should be promulgated at the present time? By an Act of 1870 if any one wishes to get rid of his ordination duties he is able to do so, and, having done so, he can become a member of the House of Commons. Advantage of the Act of 1870 has been taken by various clergymen who afterwards became members of the House of Commons. I have nothing to say upon that point, but what I do say and say in the strongest terms is this that a man, so long as he is dedicated by ordination to the duties of a priest or deacon of the Anglican Church, is in such a position that he cannot perform the duty of a member of the House of Commons, and those duties are absolutely inconsistent with the holy office to which he has dedicated his life.
Surely a Bill of this kind, if there is any strength behind it, ought to be initiated in the House of Commons. It is a question of allowing membership in the House of Commons to a man who at the present time is not capable of becoming a Member. Surely that is a matter which from every point of view ought to be discussed in the first instance in the House of Commons itself. I submit it is not for your Lordships in a matter of this kind to take the initiative, and that, to my mind, is a very strong reason against a Bill of this kind in reference to which the Government on the Second Reading said they took a neutral attitude and which after all—although I speak with all respect of the noble Lord who introduced it—is simply the Bill of a private Member. It is on these grounds that I ask your Lordships to reject Clause 1 of the Bill. Clause 2 deals with a different matter, to which I do not wish to refer at the present moment. It is Clause 1 which deals with membership of the House of Commons, and I urgently hope, in accordance with the views which I think were stated by the most rev. Primate on the Second Reading—and he is here again to-day—that Clause 1 will not be passed.
There is one other argument which I have heard, to which perhaps I ought to
388
direct the attention of the House. It is said that there are a certain number of the clergy who have no benefices, and that the clergy who have no benefices and no special duties might be allowed to become members of the House of Commons. I think that argument is an unsound argument, because, of course, they are none the less ordained clergymen. But apart from an argument of that kind I think it is a great mistake to upset a general principle if the general principle is right in order that in a few cases—probably cases that one might almost number on one's fingers—advantage might be taken of the liberty which is here offered. Also there is the general argument, what is called the democratic argument. I think that is completely answered by the fact that it is not only in the case of men holding this privileged office but also in the case of men holding other offices inconsistent with House of Commons duties that this disability applies. I will not detain your Lordships further, because after all the matter is not one for a long discussion, but I move the omission of the first clause of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1.—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: I had not the opportunity of being present on the Second Reading of this Bill, and I should like to avail myself of this chance of expressing my very hearty concurrence with all that has fallen from the noble and learned Lord; and, if I may say so, I am glad that his arguments were of the character that they were, and that he did not turn to arguments often used outside this House. It is frequently said that the clergy are adequately represented in Parliament through the presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords, but I for myself could never feel that this was quite an answer to any suggestion that they should enter the House of Commons. A good deal has happened since first the Bishops belonged to the House of Lords and since the days when they took a much more prominent place in the House than is now the case. These are days in which disabilities of all kinds are being removed and when the general feeling is against making exceptions to the disfavour of any body in the community. Nor can I feel that the argument that the clergy are represented in Convocation covers the

389
matter; because, although they have Houses of their own, those Houses are so indirectly connected with anything of the character of making laws for the country that I really think this argument has very little at all to do with the matter.
The noble and learned Lord has based his appeal to your Lordships on the character of the clergyman's work, and I think that he has made out a very strong case on those lines. The clergyman has as his first duty the cure of the souls of his parishioners, and I cannot see how he can combine the due fulfilment of that divine commission with regular attendance in another place. It is clear that any constituency that elects a Member to sit in the other House must expect that the Member will be constantly there and ready to take his part in debates and in voting; and I do not think that a clergyman's life admits of his duly discharging his primary duty to his parishioners and his duty to his constituents. I see a considerable difference between the first clause and the second clause of this Bill because the latter does not take a man far away from his home or far away from his parochial obligations; he can discharge them without any detriment to his parish due to long travelling or to other causes. But the first clause certainly means that a clergyman must make his primary duty the fulfilment of his obligations to his constituents.
Speaking as a country Bishop, I would say that I cannot conceive how, if this clause stood, it would be possible for any clergyman, except those actually living in the Metropolis, to discharge his duty to his constituents. We country Bishops find it a difficult thing to attend debates in your Lordships' House, and I can assert that a clergyman on whom much more active demands would be made would experience at least the difficulty we possess, and in an extended form as well. Nor am I sure that it is the duty of a minister of the Church at this time to take a detailed part in many of the matters that come forward in the other House. It is for us if we can to influence, public opinion and to promote sound principles and views; but I very much question whether it would be desirable, even if the clergy could leave their parishes, that they should constantly be in the Division Lobby dealing with public affairs that do not come primarily within their purview. I myself, as much
390
as any one, would be against any disability placed upon the clergy which marked any kind of stigma upon them, but I do not think that what the noble and learned Lord has said involves any stigma at all. What I would say, is that a clergyman's work is inherently, I will not say, a disqualification but an insurmountable and a most honourable barrier to his taking his seat in the other House as the representative of a constituency.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD
BIRKENHEAD): As a private member I would ask leave to say a word upon this subject, particularly as I have not the good fortune to find myself in agreement with my noble and learned friend who moved this Amendment. I gather, however, that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is disinclined to carry this issue to a Division, and I shall certainly not be more forward in pursuing his own Bill than is the noble Lord himself; but I ask leave very briefly to say a word upon this subject, and in doing so I shall follow the order of the arguments addressed to your Lordships by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor. He pointed out with perfect truth that this disability came into existence under the terms of 41 Geo. III, cap. 63, in consequence of the Horne Tooke controversy, and he also pointed out that under the terms of the Act of 10 Geo. IV, cap. 7, the disability was extended to Roman Catholic priests. I entirely agree with him, of course, that if it were thought proper to remove this disability from the clergymen of the Church of England it would be impossible to maintain it in respect of clergymen of the Roman Catholic faith; but his observation has no higher argumentative value (if I may say so) than this—that it would be necessary to make the change a complete one.
I confine myself to the main argument, and here I listened with sympathy to a great deal of what was said by the right rev. Prelate who preceded me. I agree with him that this argument cannot be founded upon any disability which ought not to be put upon clergymen, but the argument seems to me to go a little further than in his judgment it did go. Under the existing law you do put a disability upon clergymen. They now are the only profession which is precluded by the law from becoming Members of the House of Commons, and to say that this is not a far-reaching and grave disability is, of course,

391
absurd. It is. The only question is whether considerations of great power can be urged which render that preclusion and the imposition of that disability defensible. I am unable to satisfy myself that any such reasons exist.
I listened attentively to the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, and it seemed to me that his principal argument was this—that under the terms of the ordination clergymen of the Church of England are set apart for the duties of a holy office. The noble and learned Lord is a far greater authority than I am as to how in the letter and spirit those vows are to be construed, but I certainly should have thought as a layman that it was right so to construe them that no active theatre of the world's affairs should be excluded for all time as the scene of the spiritual activities to which, and to which alone in the broadest sense, the clergyman dedicates himself. And I should suppose—though here again I am not exactly informed—that Nonconformist clergymen are also set aside by some form of spiritual dedication, with the exact terms of which I am not familiar but which I should be prepared to believe would correspond, in essence at least, with the vows taken on ordination by members of the Church of England.
Surely what is important is that a field of useful spiritual activity should be embraced by those who render themselves liable to these solemn duties. The argument is, of course, wholly distinct and must always be distinguished from that which followed the observation of the noble and learned Lord. He said the two functions—that is to say, the charge of a parish or a curacy, as the case may be, and the Parliamentary duty—are irreconcilable. Of course they are, if you find the case of a man who is doing parochial work in the north of Northumberland and who at the same time is returned to the House of Commons. You certainly have at once the case of a man who has embraced two duties and cannot possibly respond adequately to both. But it would be equally true to say that if you took the case of a small lawyer in Scotland who was entirely dependent upon his practice in an insignificant market town. It would be equally impossible for him, unless the substitution of £400 a year were a complete recompense for the change, to undertake duties here.
392
But the answer is two-fold. In the first place, men who are placed in that position do not undertake a duality of function to which, by their circumstances, they are unequal, and in the second place, the discrimination of constituencies will not select men who are quite obviously placed in such a position that they cannot adequately discharge their Parliamentary duties. And I should certainly expect that constituencies would be very exacting in such matters. The noble and learned Lord, I think, scarcely selected a very happy analogy when he said that it had long been recognised that officers on active service could not become members of the House of Commons. The noble and learned Lord, I am sure, is aware (if I may take first the case of officers not on active service) that it was long the practice I believe until August, 1914, for officers serving in the Army to obtain for long and even indefinite periods, what was known as "Parliamentary leave," and I knew a case of one distinguished general who was elected a member of the House of Commons when actually serving in France. I believe there are others. The analogy, at any rate, was not particularly happy.
Then my noble and learned friend addressed another argument to your Lordships. He said that, under the Act of 1870, a clergyman might lay aside his Orders and thereby become eligible for membership of the House of Commons. I look upon this as a most incomplete reassurance. Why should a clergyman who has reached the age perhaps of fifty or sixty, who has rendered a long life of useful spiritual service in the Church of England, who has laid aside his duties, because he has discharged them so long as he thinks his health or other reasons incline him to discharge them, and whose means enable him to aspire to a seat in the House of Commons—why should such a man lay on one side the honourable, the revered badge of his vocation through so many years in order to enter the House of Commons? Why should he not go into the House of Commons bearing upon him the honourable insignia of the sacred career, of which he has perhaps been an ornament? I think the mere fact that you are driven to say to a clergyman, "If you have any charge at the moment you shall not become a member of the House of Commons, except at the price of giving up that which has been the uniform of your great Master," is to address to him a message so harsh that

393
that consideration alone would have inclined me to support the original proposal of the Bill had my noble friend in charge of the Bill been inclined to carry it to a Division.
The noble and learned Lord said it was a question primarily for the House of Commons. I agree that primarily any questions which relate to membership of another House would more conveniently and normally be introduced in that House, but the House of Commons, which at the present moment is very much occupied, can hardly resent an indication of the view of your Lordships on such a point. Still less could they resent it very plausibly at the moment when they have been so very good as to convey to us their view that we should immediately admit women to your Lordships' House. There should be reciprocity in all these matters, and we should show that we are not behind the House of Commons in willingness to consider their interests.
The last observation that I have to make is that I thought a great part of the argument laid before your Lordships by the right rev. Prelate who preceded me was perhaps a little difficult to reconcile with the opportunity which enabled him to make those observations at all. The right rev. Prelate said it might not be altogether desirable that clergymen should be found in the Division lobbies of the House of Commons in many of the controversies which are decided there. I am quite unable to see how we could defend the valued presence of the right rev. Prelate and his colleagues in this House, if we were to allow the slightest play to such a contention as that. As I have said I shall not, of course, challenge this matter if the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill does not do so. If he does, I shall support him.
I was, in any event, unwilling to give a silent vote on the subject, because I hold the strongest possible objection to any class in the community being excluded from possible membership of the other House. I hold that objection, if it be possible, even more strongly in the case of this particular class, because I think it contains thousands of men who are suffering to-day cruelly, who, in receipt of inadequate incomes, are compelled to maintain a show of respectability and ceremony for which their means—the starvation pittance which they receive—
394
cruelly disable them; and I am not so inattentive to what is going on in the world not to observe this very clearly—that those classes are more likely to receive attention for the grievances under which they labour which are able to state those grievances themselves through members of their own profession in Parliament, and not to rely always and hopelessly on vicarious representation.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, the difficulty we are in to-day is that we do not quite know whether we are fighting a real battle or are engaged in a merely academic disputation. Words dropped from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill on the previous occasion from which it is to be gathered that he would be willing to limit his Bill entirely to the unbeneficed clergy. We have no indications on that point to-day, and what we are considering is whether Clause I as it stands should form part of the Bill. I do not know whether it has ever occurred to any of your Lordships—among others I speak with the greatest respect of the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken—to ask why it is that, for no less than 118 years, there has been a steady continuance of apparent acquiescence in the settlement which was arrived at in 1801. Not only that. When you come to Catholic Emancipation in 1829 you did not, as the noble and learned Lord indicated, include the disability against Roman Catholic priests. You preserved, in their case, the pre-existing disability in order that they should not enjoy an advantage against their Anglican and Scottish brethren in religion.
What is the explanation of that? Nobody knows better than the noble and learned Lord that there is a thing called status. Status includes rights, liabilities—everything that goes to make the attributes of citizenship. A disability forms an element in status. Some disabilities there are which, little as it may seem, are an advantage, which are really in the nature of a privilege, which go to enhance the dignity of the position, preserving it from unjust suspicion and constituting in its favour a defence against all sorts of possible envious suppositions.
The noble and learned Lord asked whether there was any other profession which we similarly disable from sitting in the Legislature. Is the entire Civil Service

395
not a profession? And, if distinctions are to be drawn, is there not at least this one element in common, that our desire in disabling the Civil Service arises, as it does in the case of the clergy, not because we do not want them to sit there but because we do not want to see them on election platforms and having moral and material mud thrown at them on account of their opinions. It may be said that the present disability does not prevent the clergy engaging in political adventures. That may be so, and gladly would we see them doing so less. But is there any man who can say that they gain in prestige or influence by these sometimes ill-advised excursions?
I alluded just now to the case of the Roman Catholic priest. I dare say some of your Lordships were surprised to find that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had omitted their case from the relief he proposed to give. I can only form the supposition either that he had formed originally some intention to include them and that they had asked him not to do so, or that he approached them and found they were more anxious that the disability should continue, to the advantage of their clergy, rather than it should be taken away to their expected disadvantage. The noble and learned Lord could not be expected to escape from the temptation of pointing at the position and status of the right rev. Prelate who has spoken against the Bill. Bishops do sit in the House of Lords. I do not know how long they will continue to do so, but at least they do not get here by the process of election, and in the course of getting elected probably making themselves unfavourably considered, and an objectionable personality, to at least half the inhabitants of the diocese in which their functions lie. That is a profound distinction greatly to the advantage of this House.
Let me say that in opposing the unrestricted application of Clause 1 I do so with the most profound respect and sympathy for the class which it affects. If there is going to be a distinction drawn between beneficed and unbeneficed clergy let me remind your Lordships of an argument not forgotten in 1801. You may say that the beneficed clergyman will not get elected, and that he will have damaged his influence by an unsuccessful election. Suppose him unbeneficed. Why should he not come to the House of Commons? At
396
least he has no parishioners with whom his influence may be damaged. But he may want to get parishioners; and do not forget that Ministers enjoy the disposal of the patronage of the Crown, and he may want by indirect means to get that patronage and preferment which he is at present without. The noble Lord on the Second Reading quoted a past Poet Laureate. He said, "You do not want to spiritualise the parson by dehumanising him," and we ought not to make the clergyman less than a man. I do not want to make a clergyman less than a man, or less than human; I want to make him something better than a politician.
LORD CHARNWOOD: The noble Lord asks for an explanation why I have omitted Roman Catholic clergy from this Bill. The explanation is extremely simple. It arose from my ignorance. I was wholly unaware, I am ashamed to say, that Roman Catholic clergy were under any statutory disqualification as candidates for Parliament; otherwise I should certainly have included them in the scope of the Bill.
In the Second Reading debate a question arose about the position of beneficed clergymen should the Bill be passed. I admitted that the Bill did require amendment to meet the case of the beneficed clergy. I confess I am rather disappointed with the Amendment which has been brought forward. It is far wider in scope than that, and attempts to maintain the principle that the holding of Holy Orders should ipso facto be a disqualification for sitting in the House of Commons. I addressed your Lordships at some length on a previous occasion and expressed my views on that subject. I am not going to repeat them now.
I have listened with great respect to the observations of the right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, and the noble and learned Lord opposite. I cannot at all understand why they should suggest that there is anything in the Ordination vows of a clergyman which should disqualify him, while he remains in Holy Orders, from any of the honourable activities of citizenship. Still less can I understand a noble Lord, who has passed the whole of his life in political career, suggesting that there is something necessarily base or second rate about the career of politicians. However, the case is fully before you and I am afraid

397
it will be my duty to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division. I hope the feeling will prevail that, in this respect, as in others, we ought to cease to treat the clergy as a class apart and as something less than men.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether your Lordships will allow me to say a word or two on this subject. I do not take quite the same view as some of my noble friends on this particular issue. I feel very strongly the point which has been put in respect of the beneficed clergy. I share the noble Lord's feelings that if a man had got a cure of souls he cannot also profitably sit in the House of Commons, not because he is unfit to do so but because he would not be able to take care of his cure of souls. For that reason I should have some difficulty in voting for the noble Lord, because he makes no distinction, as the Bill stands, between the beneficed clergyman and the other; but upon the broad issue of the disability of a clergyman to sit in Parliament I think it would be only candid of me to say that. I do not quite take the view which has been expressed by some of my noble friends.
There is nobody in this House for whom I have greater respect than Lord Stuart of Wortley. Yet I think that some of his arguments were not really ones which, upon consideration, he himself would like to persist in. I cannot honestly say that I think that there is anything derogatory in being a Member of Parliament. Can it really be said that there is something lowering in being a Member of the House of Commons? Can it be said that the process of getting into the House of Commons necessarily degrades a man? Can it be said that in standing for the House of Commons we necessarily quarrel with half the inhabitants of the constituency for whose suffrages we ask? Why, my Lords, I am perfectly certain that that never happened to my noble friend Lord Stuart of Wortley, and that when he became a Member of the House of Commons he was equally popular with both sides of politics in his constituency. They did not agree with him, some of them, politically, but they all had profound respect for him. I admit, of course, that there are in the House of Commons—I speak with great respect—gentlemen who do not occupy such a position as my noble friend did in the City of Sheffield, but I am
398
perfectly certain of this, that no man ought to feel under the necessity of doing what he ought not to do in order to get into the House of Commons.
If that be true of a layman, why should it not be true of a clergyman? I am afraid that that class of argument belongs to the order of mind of men who think that there are some things which are discreditable in a clergyman which would not be discreditable in a layman. I do not say that any right rev. Prelate advanced such an argument, but it seems to me that that sort of argument lies behind what has been said, and I cannot subscribe to it. I do think there is very great importance nowadays in convincing the public that the clergy are not a caste apart. I should have thought that that was one of the great lessons we learn from all that was told us by chaplains at the Front. When they came back from the Front some of them said that the difficulty was to get men to believe that the clergy looked at things from the same point of view as those they talked to—I do not mean to say that they looked at evils from the same point of view as evil men would do, but that they had a temper of mind with which the ordinary man could not sympathise, or that they could not sympathise with the temper of mind of the ordinary man.
All this fencing aside of the clergyman, as being unfit to take part in the ordinary work of the world except in so far as that interferes with his own work, seems to me to be a mistake. May I say that even in the attitude of those who criticise Clause 1 of the Bill there is a very great inconsistency. They do not criticise Clause 2 of the Bill. Perhaps Lord Parmoor does, but a great many critics do not. It seems that a clergyman may properly and profitably take part in municipal business. Does my noble friend disagree?
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I will tell you what I think when we get to Clause 2.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I support Clause 2, but object to Clause 1.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am much obliged to the most rev. Primate for his explanation. Is there any very great difference between the two so far as this particular side of the question to

399
which I am addressing myself is concerned? Is there anything likely to be degrading to a clergyman in mixing in high politics? Why is it not at least as degrading to mix in local politics? What is the difference? My noble friend Lord Stuart of Wortley spoke of mud thrown at men who were standing. Is there no mud in municipal elections? And who are to be preserved from mud nowadays? Why! even women are not preserved from having mud thrown at them at contested elections. I feel that those arguments do not really have a solid foundation. If the noble Lord opposite would engage to remove the beneficed clergy from Clause 1 of the Bill I for one should have no objection.
LORD CHARNWOOD: It is my intention to take steps to do so.
THE EARL OF MEATH: I am very pleased to hear the remarks of the noble Marquess, for I share very intensely the view which he has expressed. Of course if those who are very closely connected with the Church consider that it is not a wise thing that this Bill should be passed, I bow to that decision, but at the same time I am very pleased to hear from so distinguished a statesman as the noble Marquess that there is another side to the question. Owing to the circumstances of my life I have had a great deal to do with the clergy, and my whole feeling is that the real trouble is that they are not sufficiently cognisant of the way in which business is carried on in the secular world—that there are a great many things which clergymen would be far better for if they passed through the House of Commons or through some secular profession, by which they were brought more closely in contact with human nature. I believe that one of the great troubles is that they do consider themselves as a special sort of porcelain which is easily broken and cracked. I want to get rid of that feeling altogether. I am sure that many of them feel themselves that they could get on much better if they had the experience which most men have had in the world, and I believe that their ministrations would not suffer in the smallest degree.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I had no intention to-night when I came down to the House of taking part in this debate, because on
400
the Second Reading I dealt with this subject I am afraid at rather wearisome length, and I had the good fortune of having among my hearers the noble Lord who sits on the Woolsack. I should like to say one or two words on some of the points that have been raised.
In the first place in regard to what the noble Marquess opposite stated, I said then and I repeat now that I have in the course of a somewhat prolonged public life in Church matters taken the most active part I could in urging the breaking down of that distinction which he desires to see broken down, and I am certain that the noble Marquess will give me credit for having tried in every way to see the clergy take their full part in the responsibilities of our social life in all its departments. Nothing is more mischievous or disadvantageous to the usefulness of the clergy or the influence that they are likely to exercise than to set them apart, and to make the kind of chasm or distinction which is so rightly deprecated. I have always taken that line, and take it now; but I believe that the value of the work that the clergy are able to do in these matters is due to the fact that they do stand outside what is called the ordinary work of political partisanship. They are able to bear their part best by not being subjected to the Party Whip or to any alliance of a partisan character, as are very many of those whose action in public matters is supposed to be more or less dictated by the partisan allegiance which they owe. Therefore I do not in the least differ from the noble Marquess on that point. But I believe we should not help forward what he desires by asking that the clergy should ally themselves with political parties and take a political part on the one side or the other at each Parliamentary election. I believe we should do harm in that direction and not good. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who spoke to-night as a private member, reminded us that he had referred to the Act of 1801 (the Horne Tooke Act) as having for the first time, I think he said—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, I did not say so.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I thought the noble and learned Lord implied, or at least used words which seemed to imply, and which might have been misunderstood as meaning

401
that it was then only that the clergy were not eligible for the House of Commons. But if any one will look back at the debates in 1801—I referred to them a few weeks ago in my speech—he will see how unusually full they are and how much they tell. We see that the highest authorities refer both in this House and in the other House to the fact that it probably was the law already that the clergy could not sit. And the clergy did not sit. Horne Tooke was an exceptional person, and ought never to have been originally elected. I think that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack at that time took that line, and suggested that it was desirable to pass the Act then proposed, not because it was in fact a new thing, but in order to clear away what seem to have been a doubt upon the matter. Therefore it would be a great mistake to suppose that something happened in 1801 which for the first time said that men who had hitherto been eligible to sit in the House of Commons had become ineligible. It had become clear in the course of centuries that the clergy could not sit, and it was an exceptional thing that Horne Tooke had been elected. That Act was passed only to make the law perfectly clear. That statement seems to me to correspond with what I believe to be the real facts of the case.
The noble and learned Lord to-night, and others who have spoken, referred to the vows taken when a man is ordained for the Church. There is nothing inconsistent between those vows and the work of a Member of Parliament. It is perfectly true that the clergy make promises of a very solemn kind. The duties of a politician also are of a very solemn kind. The duties to be performed in the House of Commons are very solemn duties. If any one will take the pains to read straight through our Ordination Service as it appears in our Prayer Book he will find that in page after page it is laid down what is enjoined upon a man taking the solemn vow, what it is that in the larger sense he accepts in the way of responsibility, and the way in which his life is to be devoted, and he will find it extremely hard to reconcile what is there contained with the duty of daily sittings and daily membership of the House of Commons. Such a duty I say at once is nothing but a most honourable duty, and one most highly to be commended, and a duty to which one desires to give the highest possible respect. Instead of regarding it as derogatory I should take exactly the opposite
402
line; and say it has so many responsibilities and so many large and varied trusts that I feel it would be very unfair to put the discharge of them upon a man who has also undertaken in the larger sense of the word to enter upon a ministry the duties of which are prescribed in so much detail and with which such large directions in the Prayer Book.
Allusions were made to-night, I think by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, to the position of Bishops in this House. I tried on a former occasion to point out that there are several differences between them and members of the House of Commons. One marked difference is that Bishops do not sit in this House as members of one or another Party in the State. I should find it very difficult myself, and most of your Lordships perhaps still more so, to define on what side of politics you would assign the right rev. Prelates who now occupy a seat upon these Benches. In the next place they do not arrive there by the process which I think would be so disadvantageous to the usefulness of clergy if they were subjected to it. In the third place, however great is the responsibility of a seat in this House it is not supposed to carry—at all events, it does not in practice carry—the same obligation of necessary attendance on all occasions as belongs ordinarily to membership of the House of Commons, and in some respects the fact that a man occupies a seat in your Lordships' House does not involve that absorption in the duties of the Legislature which presumably belongs, or is supposed to belong, to a man who occupies a seat in the House of Commons. I should be prepared on this and on other grounds to make the strongest possible difference between a man standing as a candidate for the House of Commons, and doing his part in that House, and the position which from time immemorial, as the oldest part of this House, Bishops have taken in forming part of this House and of the Legislature.
One other point I should like to deal with, though perhaps it would come more properly on the second clause. It has been said that if it is undesirable that a man should sit in the House of Commons why is it not undesirable that he should sit upon municipal bodies. I should like to say that the facts are entirely different. It is true that a great deal of mud may be thrown in parochial and county council elections, but is it not the experience of

403
your Lordships that there are many men taking part in those bodies who are not political partisans in any sense at all? It is certain that there are many men who are serving not as politicians but as men who are interested in the social well-being of their neighbours, and are trying to bear their part in a borough or district council not as politicians but as men who are thinking about the common welfare. That seems to me to make the greatest possible differences. I know instances myself where men at this moment would be quite invaluable upon local bodies who are kept off them by the law though they have both the skill and the time to attend to the duties of such bodies.
Having touched upon these points now—I dwelt upon them more fully upon the previous occasion—I want to rest my real argument in supporting the omission of this clause upon the fact that this is not really desired in the country, for if it had been we should have heard a great deal more about it. What outside support has been given, and what outside arguments have been heard? What bodies of a representative character within the Church have been making their voice heard in the direction of asking us to make this change? I say "to make this change" advisedly, for if the law did not exclude the clergy from sitting in the House of Commons I certainly should not think of moving to alter it. I do not feel so heatedly upon the subject as that, but there is all the difference in the world between acquiescing in something which has come down to you from the past and taking a strong overt act which is going to be interpreted widely as a demonstration of special opinion to bring about a change unless there be behind you a great public demand.
The noble Marquess opposite has had a great deal to do with ecclesiastical or semi-ecclesiastical assemblies of all kinds, local and central. Can his memory recall a single case when any clerical assembly, or any assembly partly clerical and partly lay, has given a vote on this subject, asking that this change should be made, except in the small organisations of a few men who have been banded together for the particular purpose of bringing about this special movement—and that, so far as I am aware, only within the last year or two, and with so little pressure by them upon even persons like myself, who are usually the recipients of a good many
404
communications, though I have received literally only one postcard on this subject. Is it desirable that we should make a change which is far-reaching in its character, which is contrary to our whole traditions, which has very strong feelings against it on the part of many unless we were backed by a great desire on the part of those outside that the change should be made? Had there been such a desire I do not think I should stand here to oppose it—I do not feel hotly upon it to that extent; but I do feel that I am not desirous of taking part in bringing about such a change unless I am backed by a public opinion which is at present totally lacking in the Church of England at large.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LLANDAFF: My Lords, I come from a part of the country where, as your Lordships are aware, the disability against which this Bill is aimed will be entirely removed in four months' time. By an Act of Parliament which comes into force on March 31 next all disabilities which prevent the clergy from sitting in Parliament will be absolutely removed in Wales, and I have not heard a single word against that provision, though there is a great deal said about the rest of the Act.
I venture to think that there is a great deal to be said in favour of removing these disabilities. I cannot help thinking that it would be a good thing both for the House of Commons and for the clergy. Anything that tends to remove the barrier that sometimes separates the clerical from the lay mind is good. Everything that brings them together, and widens and broadens the horizon over which we look, and the subjects in which we are interested, to the extent not only of municipal subjects but of world-wide subjects, is good for the country and good for the Church. I should deplore it if clergymen generally rushed forward to get seats in Parliament, but there are exceptional cases in which it is highly desirable that the clergy should be elected. There are men who do not hold benefices, or who hold very small benefices, and who have not got other work, and who could provide for the duties if they were necessarily away.
It seems to me that there are a considerable number of clergy in the country whose occupations at present are not such as will prevent them from discharging Parliamentary duties. I think it is a very great

405
pity that such men as those—men of great intellectual ability and wide outlook, men of great thought and study—should be excluded from Parliament, and I believe that bringing a number of them into the House of Commons would have a salutary effect. It would help to raise the tone of that House, and at the same time the fact of their being there would, I think, help to remove the barrier which too often exists between the clerical mind and the lay mind, and would help to broaden and increase the usefulness of the clergy.
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to say a few words in answer to objections which have been raised to the Amendment. So far as the Lord Chancellor is concerned, I think he will probably remember that Horne Tooke's plea was that he had ceased to be an ordained member of the Church of England. As far as I am aware, at any rate from the time that Convocation sat apart from laymen, there is no instance in our history of an ordained clergyman sitting in the House of Commons. There may, of course, be some unique case, but I am sure the general statement is true.
Then I should like to say a word or two in reference to what was said by the noble Marquess. No one wants—at any rate I do not want—to, what he calls, separate the ordinary spiritual and lay persons. I have often enough argued to the contrary. But my view is this, and I want to bring the debate back to the ground on which I originally moved my Amendment. I entirely agree with what the most rev. Primate has said, that if any one reads through the Ordination Service, and believes it, it is hardly possible for him to come to any other conclusion than that the duties there undertaken are, in themselves, inconsistent with service in the House of Commons. That does not mean that service in the House of Commons is not perfectly honourable. It means that, as between those services and the services undertaken in the Ordination Service, there is a necessary and essential inconsistency.
I should be the very last person to suggest that my opposition was founded on any attack upon the position of a politician or a member of the House of Commons. You might just as well say, as Lord Stuart of Wortley said, that you were throwing mud at the Civil Service because, owing to the inconsistency of his duties with membership of the House of Commons, a Civil Servant cannot become a member of that
406
House. On the contrary, it is to the honour of both sides, because no one individual can possibly honourably perform his duties in those two inconsistent positions at the same moment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I ask the noble and learned Lord a question for greater clearness? Does the consideration which he is now pressing upon your. Lordships apply to the case of a clergyman without a benefice?
LORD PARMOOR: What I have said about ordination up to this point applies equally to the beneficed or unbeneficed clergyman. I am going to draw a distinction, as far as there is a distinction between the two, in a moment. But my objection attaches both to the beneficed and the unbeneficed clergyman. I think the Lord Chancellor spoke of there being thousands of persons who under the present disability were debarred from entering the House of Commons.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Did I say that?
LORD PARMOOR:Thousands, I think. I am bound to say my experience is more amongst laymen, as I have the honour to be Chairman of the Canterbury House of Laymen, and my religious views are more in accordance with the views of laymen than of clergy. That does not mean an inconsistency between the two, but one has naturally been brought to look upon this question from that standpoint. I am satisfied with what the most rev. Primate said from the clergy standpoint. I have never heard any laymen advocating this policy, though, of course, there may be some who do. I have come across a very large number of Anglican laymen indeed, and, so far as the clergy are concerned, I should like to corroborate what the most rev. Primate has said. The first time I ever heard of any claim of this sort on behalf of the clergy, as a matter of fact, was last night, when two members of the small organisation to which his Grace referred approached me on the topic, asking me in effect not to oppose what this small society desired. But apart from that I have, not heard a word advanced in favour of the policy of this Bill or of a desire to alter the existing conditions.
I appreciate, of course, that there is a difference between the beneficed and the

407
unbeneficed clergy and in that respect I am afraid I profoundly differ from the Lord Bishop of Llandaff, who classed them both in the same category, because he said his argument applied to beneficed clergymen who might happen to have a small benefice. Not only in that case have you the ordination vow, but you have the actual every-day duties. You have the duty of residence, you have the duty of daily service—which ought to be carried out and is carried out, I am glad to say, in an increasing number of cases—you have the duty connected with those two of the cure of souls; you have the duty of the administration of the Sacrament; you have what I call a great duty, the looking after not only of the general religious life of the village or district and administering to the sick, but being ready to perform such duties as marriage, baptism, burial, and confirmation. I cannot imagine a clergyman with such duties to fulfil seeking to come to the House of Commons in London. It is not that I want in any way to disparage the politician's life, but the two positions are absolutely inconsistent. I will
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Short title.
3. This Act may be cited as the house of Commons and Municipal Corporations (Qualification of Clergymen) Act, 1919.
not go over again the matters on which I spoke before; I merely wanted to make it clear that my objection is based on the inconsistency of the duties of the two offices, and on that ground I shall press my Amendment to a Division.
LORD CHARNWOOD: If this Amendment should be rejected I would certainly upon the Report stage bring up words which I think would deal with the ease of the beneficed clergy, because I fully recognise that there is an objection in that case. I have read the ordination service to which my noble friend has referred, and I am rather surprised that in this debate we have not had any indication of what specific thing it is which the ordination service requires a priest to do which a Member of the House of Commons could not cheerfully, and, perhaps beneficially to himself, undertake.
On Question, whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-contents, 31.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L.(L. Chancellor.)

Sandhurst, V.(L. Chamberlain.)

Chaworth, L.(E. Meath.) [Teller.]

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Lincolnshire, M.

Denman, L.

Salisbury, M.

Peel, V.

Emmott, L.

Erskine, L.

Bradford, E.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Hylton, L.

Caithness, E.

Llandaff, L. Bp.

Ranksborough, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Rathereedan, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Anslow, L.

St. Audries, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Somerleyton, L

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Askwith, L.

Strachie, L.

Charnwood, L.[Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Lamington, L.

Avebury, L.

Lawrence, L.

Craven, E.

Balfour, L.

Parmoor, L. [Teller.]

Eldon,E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Roundway, L.

Mayo, E.

Clwyd, L.

Shandon, L.

Reading, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Stanmore, L.

Selborne, E.

Desborough, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L. [Teller.]

Knollys, V.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Sumner, L.

Greville, L.

Sydenham, L.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Islington, L.

Wittenham, L.

Ripon, L. Bp.

Killanin, L,

Wyfold, L.

LORD CHARNWOOD LORD CHARNWOOD moved to omit the words "House of Commons and" from the short title.
Amendment moved—
lines 16 and 17 omit ("House of Commons and").—(Lord Charnwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Title:
An Act to remove the disqualification of Clerks in Holy Orders and other Ministers of Religion as members of the House of Commons and as Municipal Councillors.
LORD PARMOOR: The words "as Members of the House of Commons and" must be omitted to make the Title in accord with the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Omit ("as Members of the House of Commons and").—(Lord parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.

CURRENCY AND PRICES.
LORD D'ABERNON LORD D'ABERNON rose to call attention to the influence of currency on the present high prices. The noble Lord said: My Lords, some of your Lordships may perhaps remember that about six months ago I put forward the view that currency disturbance was the main cause of many of the troubles from which the world is now suffering, and more particularly of high prices and of industrial unrest. I do not know whether I was fortunate enough on that occasion to convince any of your Lordships, but in my judgment everything which has since occurred has gone to confirm the general justice of the views I then submitted to the House. Various expedients on lines other than those I suggested have been tried, both in this and other countries, but they have failed signally to bring about either industrial peace or any sense of financial security for the future. They have, above all, failed to produce the fall in prices which was confidently predicted at that time.
I venture, therefore, to return to the subject. In doing so I shall endeavour to throw some light on the problem of the high cost of living, which is, by general admission, the most grievous of the present causes of discontent and one of the causes, I think, of disquietude with regard to the future. It is not only that the cost of living is so high, but that the public does not understand why it is so high. No valid and lucid reason has been put forward, and the public is alarmed not only at the present level but also at the fear that things may yet get worse, notably in the matter of exchange, which at New York is lower than it has ever been. Every day sees a further rise in the price of silver measured in currency, which is equivalent to a fall of currency as measured in silver.
Two main reasons have been assigned in the past for this rise in the cost of living. In the first place, the deficiency of production—in other words, to scarcity; and, secondly, profiteering. I propose to test the first of these views by means of the figures which have just been published by His Majesty's Government and which throw a very interesting light upon the problem. Table II shows that we have to explain the rise of wholesale prices between 1913 and 1919 which amounts to 100 per cent. in the United States, to 150 per cent. in the United Kingdom, and to 230 per cent. in France and Italy. In the case of other countries—namely, Germany, Russia, and Austria—the rise has gone much further. It has attained in Germany something like 600 per cent. and in Russia something like 1,000 per cent. But I will deal particularly with those countries for which accurate figures are obtainable and are contained in the Paper laid on the Table.
I submit that if reduced production was the real cause of this unprecedented dislocation of prices, we should expect to find a very large reduction in the available amount of the larger articles of consumption. This reduction might be anticipated a priori, since a vast number of men have been engaged up to a few months ago on military service, and a further large draft of available labour has been absorbed in the manufacture of munitions.
But instead of the enormous decrease which might have been expected, Table I shows that, in those countries of the world from which particulars are available, the wheat production of 1919 was 99 per cent. of the pre-war average; barley was 104 per cent.; oats, 97 per cent.; maize, 104 per cent.; linseed, 53 per cent.; tobacco, 128 per cent.; cotton, 73 per cent.; sugar, 96 per cent. Roughly speaking, in those countries for which returns are available production is equal to pre-war production.
VISCOUNT PEEL: In 1918.
LORD D'ABERNON: I quite admit that this Return does not include the whole world. It includes, in different cases, one-half the world, one-third, two-thirds, and three-quarters; but, even allowing for the fact that in those countries for which returns are not included in this Paper the proportion might be slightly reduced, and allowing also for the fact that a given shortage might produce a higher percentage of rise, it seems to me difficult to attribute

411
to scarcity any large portion of the rise which has occurred.
Prices have increased to the extent of 100 per cent. or more in one case, 230 per cent. in another, and 1,000 per cent. in another, and in no case has production decreased to an extent corresponding to such a rise, while, in the case of half the staple articles, production has actually increased. Take coal. The monthly average production of coal in the United Kingdom, the United States, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany in 1918 was 99·6 per cent. of the production in 1913. That is practically equal to the pre-war production. Take pig iron. The output of the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany was 106 per cent. in 1918 as against 100 per cent. in 1913. Steel has increased in a similar proportion. It is true that the output both of coal and pig iron has fallen off during the present year, but this diminution has occurred after the rise in prices to near the present level, and cannot therefore have been the cause of the rise which was antecedent to the diminution. I will deal with the special war demand side of the subject later. The world's production of wool in 1919 is estimated at 91·8 per cent. of the 1913 production.
I will not weary the House with further statements of comparative production. Your Lordships will agree with me that when large staple commodities have been produced as abundantly as is shown by the Tables, we have to look elsewhere for the main cause of the great rise in prices which has taken place. There are two grave defects in the scarcity theory—first, that scarcity does not exist to the required extent to explain the phenomena; and, second, that if it did exist it would not have produced the particular phenomena which we find. It would produce a high price level, but not the widely differing scales of high price which now obtain in different countries.
There are two subsidiary methods of forming an opinion as to the influence that the short supply of commodities has had on prices. Take the prices of articles such as old books, pictures by old masters, jewels, old furniture—that is to say, articles where the question of new production does not come in, or comes in to a very minor extent. You will find that they have gone up practically in the same proportion as articles of annual production such as wheat, meat, sugar, coal. How can this be explained on the diminished production
412
theory? There has been no diminished production. The quantity available for the market has been practically constant throughout the whole period. Take, again, articles of annual production and immediate consumption. Divide them into two classes: articles where short-fall has occurred, and articles where it has not. You will find a comparatively small difference between the rise in one class and the rise in the other—less than the arithmetical proportion of the deficiency to the total. A similar reply may be made to those who allege the special war demand for certain articles, such as iron and steel. The relative rise in these articles compared with others not specially affected by war, though considerable, has been smaller than the enormous special demand would have led one to expect.
Is any explanation of these paradoxical facts possible other than that the action and effect of short supply and of abnormal demand has been snowed under and largely obliterated by the action and effect of a more powerful cause—namely, the depreciation of money which has affected similarly both the plentiful and the deficient, both the articles in exceptional war demand and the rest. I shall deal in a few moments with what I believe to be the true explanation of this phenomena. I will ask the Government to prepare tables of comparative prices to illustrate and test these lines of argument; they will elucidate and illustrate the whole question.
The second popular theory regarding high prices is that they are caused by profiteering. I believe the recent experience of Profiteering Tribunals has convinced all classes that profiteering has existed to a much smaller extent than was supposed. With a steadily rising market like that which has existed for the last five years, and with prices fixed to keep small firms alive, abnormal profits in certain articles are inevitable, but the view of the Supreme Economic Council appears to be that the rise in retail prices since the outbreak of war has been somewhat less than the rise of wholesale prices, and that the rise of wholesale prices has been less than the rise in the price paid to the producer. That is to the credit of Food Control. I note that the Food Controller recently said—
"If it were possible to abolish profiteering altogether, you would not materially affect the present level of high prices."
I have now discussed briefly the two

413
popular explanations of high prices, and have given some reason to think that these explanations are erroneous, or, to put it in the mildest form, quite inadequate to explain the prices that prevail. There is a third theory regarding high prices which is not so widely held, but which has gained credence in very important quarters—namely, that the high prices of commodities are due to the heavy indebtedness of the countries in which these prices prevail. There is even less substance in this theory than in the first two. If those who hold this theory will step across the way to Moscow or Petrograd they would find that the effective abolition of all public debt in Russia is consistent with prices of commodities about ten times as high as they are in this country. In Egypt, in the time of Ismail Pasha, the existence of a gigantic debt, both permanent and floating, was quite consistent with extremely low prices for all the necessaries of life. The theory has only to be examined in the light of history and in the light of well-known facts in other countries to be completely discounted. In addition to the arguments which I have stated, the data given in Table IV completely disprove any connection of cause and effect between increase of indebtedness and increase of retail prices. There is no sort of parallelism between the two columns of figures.
I come now to what is, in my judgment, the main and preponderant cause of the high cost of living—namely, the vast increase which has taken place in currency and paper money. Whether the rise was originally caused by excessive currency issues, or whether these currency issues have merely served to maintain the rise produced by other war causes, is immaterial to the argument. Currency appears unquestionably to be the main cause of high prices to-day. While we have found that the production of commodities in 1918 had not fallen far below the production of 1913, the world amount being probably over 90 per cent. of the pre-war production, we shall find that in the matter of currency in the principal countries of the world the amount now in circulation is about five times as great as that in circulation in 1913. Whereas in 1913 the total amount of paper money in the principal countries of the world was approximately £1,250,000,000, the amount in December, 1918, was £6,000,000,000. This total excludes Russia Austria, and Turkey, who are arch-inflators. It is consequently an under-statement.
414
Does it not seem probable, therefore, that the real cause of the high prices which now prevail is not deficiency of production—for we have seen that production has been maintained within 10 per cent. of the previous level—but inflation proceeding from the huge currency issues throughout the world which have increased the aggregate amount of paper money in circulation by about 400 per cent. The Tables presented by the Government are strongly confirmatory of this view, for they show that prices in each country have risen very closely in accordance with the excessive issues of paper currency which have been made. If your Lordships will refer to Table II, you will see that where the amount of currency in circulation is highest as in France and Italy, where you have a currency of 365 as compared with 100 in 1913—there prices have risen the most; whereas in the United States, where currency has increased by only 73 per cent. compared with 1913, the rise both in wholesale and retail prices has been considerably less than in other belligerent countries. The progression and parallelism are strangely uniform, allowance being made for the influence of world prices and world currency conditions on local prices in each country. If Table II included the figures for Germany, Russia, and Austria the parallelism would be still more striking. for it would be seen that an expansion of currency—far greater than that in any of the countries contained in the Table—has led in each case to prices infinitely higher than anything we know. I hope that further figures regarding these countries will be obtained by His Majesty's Government. Mr. O'Grady might, perhaps, take advantage of his propinquity to take observations.
In studying Table II it must be borne in mind that world conditions moderate local currency prices, particularly where there is wide divergence between world conditions and local conditions.
This is evident in the case of America at one end of the scale and of Italy at the other end—prices in each case being nearer the average than local conditions alone would have made them.
I turn now to the question of exchange, and would refer your Lordships to Table III, where you will find that precisely the same phenomenon has occurred—namely, that with trifling and unimportant exceptions the order in which countries have expanded their currency is the order in which their

415
rates of exchange on London have fallen. It is impossible not to be impressed by the concurrence between these two facts, and I venture to think that quite insufficient attention has been devoted to the influence of currency upon exchange, while an excessive amount of attention has been devoted to balance of trade and the relation of exports to imports—efforts made to reduce imports and encourage exports—all sorts of steps which in my judgment do not go at all to the root of the matter.
The rate of exchange between two countries is admittedly the expression of the value of the unit of currency of one country in terms of the unit of currency of the other. The usual theory of Foreign Exchanges is that fluctuations of exchange are generally due to a greater or less demand for remittances and payments from one country to the other, due either to fluctuation in the balance of trade, to borrowing, or to some similar cause. But apart from such fluctuations—on which alone attention is generally fixed—it is clear that another cause of fluctuation of prices may arise if anything occurs to alter the value of the currency unit of one or other of the countries in question. This will be made clear if we suppose that between two countries on a metallic basis the coin of one is clipped so as to represent half its original value. No one would expect exchange to remain steady under such conditions.
But between the two countries on a paper issue basis approximately the same result occurs if one of them doubles its paper currency, the other country preserving its currency unchanged. No one would anticipate a steady or normal exchange under such circumstances; the fluctuations caused would be expected to far exceed the usual movements caused by temporary excess demands for remittance proceeding from balance of trade causes. And this is exactly what has occurred in the countries of which I have been speaking. Units of currency in certain countries have declined in value far more than if the original coin had been clipped to half its original size. In Russia, Germany, and Austria the unit of currency has diminished in value through excessive issues to between one-eighth and one-twentieth its original value; in France to one-third or one-fourth; in England to one-half or one-third. In America, and in some neutral countries, the paper issues have been less excessive. There you have
416
the main, though not of course the only, cause of the enormous currency fluctuations which have taken place—a cause so incomparably more powerful than the rise and fall of the balance of trade that to talk of correcting exchange by increasing exports or diminishing imports is as effective and useful as endeavouring to stem a surging tide by creating a contrary wave action through some slight artificial breeze upon the surface of the waters. You are dealing with the superficial and minor cause and leaving the essential cause untouched.
The value of a paper currency is governed by its volume in relation to the requirements for it, and exchange cannot by any trick or device or artificial modification of trade balance escape fluctuating in obedience to the fluctuations in the value of the two units of currency whose relative value at the moment it expresses. During the last century this country has been spoilt by having no currency problems and no large fluctuations in exchange. The result is that even our greatest authorities find themselves in quite novel conditions. The most capable captain accustomed to the tranquil navigation of inland waters may well be perplexed and troubled in a tide-race with a gale blowing. That gives you a true picture of currency conditions in the world as left at the end of the war. There have been currency fluctuations unparallelled in the world's history.
My Lords, the publication of the Tables now before us is an economic event of the highest importance, and I venture to think that the Government deserve the greatest credit for their courage and wisdom in issuing them. The publication of these Tables, which will be improved as further information becomes available, is an event which will exercise very considerable influence upon policy, both here and abroad. The new knowledge in our possession will enable us to get away from the erroneous diagnosis hitherto accepted—a diagnosis so false that it could not by any possibility lead to right action. If you ask what immediate measures should be taken, I reply: In the present condition of public opinion it is too soon to talk of specific measures of reform. We have only just obtained the data. The only practical course is by a full public inquiry and full public discussion to get a truer appreciation of the facts and causes into the minds of the public. Once this is done, the particular

417
measures of reform which should be adopted, the particular remedies which should be applied, will be fairly obvious and will, I believe, be adopted with general consent. I repeat that fuller knowledge must precede specific action, and it is no good wrangling about action until we have come to fuller agreement about causes.
My proposal is first that a new Committee or a Royal Commission be appointed to report on the cause of high prices and the influence of currency policy on them in the light of the new information now available. Secondly, that steps should be taken by the Government to call an International Conference on Currency and Prices. The Tables now published, incomplete as they may be but useful and informing as they unquestionably are, utterly shatter the theory on which most Governments of the world have been acting. It is therefore imperative to discover a new basis on which to work. At first sight it might be replied that the national enquiry I ask for is being carried out by the Cunliffe Committee. But the reference to that Committee was much too narrow, and noticeably did not include the effect of currency issues on prices. Moreover, without impugning the authority of the existing Committee or diminishing the value and the great importance of their findings—with many of which I find myself in agreement—I venture to think that the composition of this Commission is too sectional to command general assent.
If the question is asked, What results may be expected from suitable treatment of the currency problem? I am inclined to answer that six months of appropriate effective currency policy throughout the world would produce a far greater reduction in the cost of living than has been produced during the last three years by the whole of the operations of the Food Control, of the Profiteering Tribunals, and of all the exhortations to greater production and smaller expenditure which have been lavished on the producing and spending classes. Let there be adequate control of currency and you can abolish all the harassing restrictions on the import of goods, all the vexatious prohibitions on the export of money. It is the fashion to talk of high prices as if they were the act of God, and as if human agency was quite powerless to prevent or control them. Nothing could be more false. High prices have been made by definite
418
acts of policy and administration throughout the world—acts which may be defended on the ground that they were commanded by a dire emergency and under pressure of enormous difficulty and were possibly justified by the circumstances, but acts nevertheless of definite volition which, whether they were necessary or not at the time, are clearly reversible and remediable to-day.
My Lords, I beg of you not to turn from this problem on the ground that it is so complicated and technical that only experts can discuss it, or on the other ground that it is so theoretical that it has no practical importance. The main lines of argument on both sides are quite straightforward and well within the understanding of any ordinary man of affairs who will devote a few hours to their study. As to its practical importance, I hold that it is more vital and more urgent than any question now before the country. It transcends and pervades all other problems. Unless right views are attained on this, all efforts towards reform in other directions will be overborne and submerged. The housing reforms and health reforms, all the apparatus for avoiding or composing industrial strife, all the ingenious efforts to restrain prices and to curb profiteering, will be of no lasting benefit if the whole economic fabric is not based upon a sound and steady standard of value.
Most of the great social upheavals in the world's history have been preceded by, or accompanied by, a crisis of prices and a debasement of currency. There is no cause so powerful as this in setting class against class and in sowing suspicion and animosity between those who employ and those who are employed. And in the nature of things it can hardly be otherwise. The French have a saying, "The guillotine follows the paper money press—the two machines are complementary one to the other." The truth of this saying has never been more terribly exemplified than during the last few years in Russia. The revolution was nurtured in currency debasement. What Russia has experienced may well be in store for other countries who are not warned by her example. Take the case of Egypt. If the figures which have been produced lately are correct it would appear undoubted that political unrest has been fomented if not caused by economic causes and by incredible inflation.

419
My Lords, with many of the causes of social unrest and economic disturbance which darken the future we may be unable to deal quickly and effectively. But in the case of currency, which is not the least powerful or the least menacing of such causes, there is a clear path to follow. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will demand impartial and immediate inquiry—with full publicity—into the whole problem of high prices, in the light of the data now for the first time brought to the knowledge of the public. I also trust that His Majesty's Government will take international action without undue delay.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I feel sure that your Lordships will agree that no more important subject could have been brought before this House for consideration than this matter of high prices. You will also agree as to the necessity of diagnosing the precise causes of those high prices, which are worthy of long and careful study. We are most grateful to the noble Lord for having brought this complicated subject before us in so luminous, so dramatic, and occasionally so poetical a manner. My noble friend has thanked the Government for having issued these documents. Those thanks come rather gratefully, anyhow to the Government Departments concerned, because they received this morning a very severe chastisement, in one organ especially. Therefore I am gratified and the Department will be pleased to know that the figures in this Paper are considered to be of such great value by one so experienced in these matters as my noble friend. As to the suggestion of my noble friend that there should be a further Royal Commission instituted to inquire into the relation of prices and the currency, and his further suggestion of an International Committee to deal with the general world causes, I think he will appreciate the fact that I can promise no more at the present moment than that I will bring the suggestions to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
My noble friend has also called attention to the question of production, and, as he says, it is really most remarkable, looking at these figures, to see how up to the end of 1918 there was in these great leading industries practically no diminution. In some industries there was actually an increase, and only in the least important
420
ones a diminution. It is worth observing that in the year 1919—of course, we have not yet come to an end of it—there is a percentage diminution in the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany, both in the output of coal and pig iron and also in the output and in the world's production of steel.
The Notice on the Paper in the name of my noble friend is to call attention to the influence of currency on the present high prices, and the Return he has asked for shows, and is designed to show, that the rise in prices in any country is approximately in proportion to the increase in the quantity of currency in circulation, and that depreciation in the foreign exchanges follows the same law. The Government are ready to admit at once that those relations, which are not unknown, do follow agreeably to those figures. Of course, no one would expect exact proportion, but the general tendency is very clearly brought out. If you put the matter in a crude form you might state it thus, that when currency becomes cheap in terms of commodities and in terms of foreign currencies commodities become dearer, and foreign currencies, as quoted in the foreign exchange market, command a premium. My noble friend has alluded to the fact that there is in ordinary times a certain ebb and flow in the relative value of different currencies, dependent on the balance of trade, but no doubt, as he has said, the tremendous increases and relative depreciations that have taken place in the different currencies of the world really entirely absorb and sweep over this comparatively small cause.
I should like for a moment to point to one or two cases which I think are of some interest. They are to be found in the White Paper. It is rather difficult in speaking of these wide subjects which present so many points of variation to make statements which are absolutely accurate in every respect when you are necessarily speaking with some brevity. But take for a moment the position of currency and prices in the United Kingdom. If you take the United Kingdom currency on the whole—I am taking the figures mentioned in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on April 30, 1919—the circulation before the war was £214,000,000 and on the latest date then available £540,000,000. Taking the index figure of

421
1913 as 100, the currency available in August, 1919, was 244; while wholesale prices were 257·2 and retail prices of food 217, (wholesale prices for 1913 and retail prices for 1914 being taken as 100). Therefore it is clear from that that there is apparently a very close proportion between the different amounts of the currency at the different times and of those food prices.
But I think it goes further than that. If you take the 20 leading English banks which had £751,000,000 on deposit on June 30, 1914. (including undivided profits) the same banks, which were reduced, as your Lordships know, by amalgamation to 13, had £1,761,900,000 on deposit on June 30, 1919. Taking 1914 as being 100, that represents 234·6, while on the same comparative basis wholesale prices were 236·8 and retail prices of food were 204 (taking July, 1914, as 100). Therefore you reach the same view if you take two tests—first the test of the actual amount of currency, comparing the two periods, and also the test of deposits in the banks corresponding to the fresh creations of credit during those periods.
Now take for a moment the position in the United States, There the connection between currency and prices is not quite so close or so obvious as it is in the case of the United Kingdom, because the proportional rise in prices is greater than the proportional rise in currency. Of course one might institute a very interesting investigation into every one of these cases; I am only taking one or two to illustrate one or two points. This may be accounted for in part by the increased velocity of circulation and speculation, but the main cause is that the United States and the United Kingdom are connected in the world's market. The prices of goods produced in the United States and partly consumed there and partly exported to the United Kingdom cannot rise in England without causing a corresponding rise in the United States, otherwise export would be stimulated at the cost of domestic consumption. That illustrates the fact that prices in other countries, though they are apparently not so closely connected with the rise of currency in those countries, nevertheless rise in sympathy with the general governing prices in the market, which are themselves controlled by the increase of currency in some of the larger countries. The same cause produces the rise in prices in neutral countries which had very little war expenditure,
422
but in their case the increase of currency is a consequence of high prices and its expansion was necessary for the financing of business. But there again those are due to the same general causes which my noble friend has been discussing.
All this points, therefore, to the conclusion that a high world level of prices is in the main due to the creation of credit by the belligerent Governments for war purposes. That credit takes the form of larger currency and larger borrowing. The goods bought by Government credits were immediately destroyed without producing new goods, and therefore fresh credits had accordingly to be created for the acquisition of additional war supplies, while at each stage the previously created credits remained in existence.
There is one point to notice here which is interesting, and that is the effect of control over prices. In 1917 and 1918 the existence of Government control over prices of many commodities counteracted currency influences, especially by keeping the exchanges steady, but in 1919 the results of comparative freedom are manifest. I notice that my noble friend expressed himself to some extent indifferent as to the precise cause of this very great increase of currency, that is to say, he did not draw a very wide distinction between countries which created currency and paid their debts directly to contractors out of currency, and those countries, like our own, which created credit and the currency was only created by the necessities of the banks, who had to meet larger credits that were established at the banks as the result of this largely inflated credit. My noble friend brushed aside the distinction between the course of policy followed in such countries as Russia and in more prudently conducted places.
May I say one word now as to other causes besides the currency and the inflation of credit causes? As to production and shortage of supply, while credit inflation was the main determinant of the general rise in world prices production factors decided the distribution of the rise among the various groups of commodities. In some cases intensity of demand, in others shortage of supply through lack of labour or shipping caused very sharp rises—for even a small discrepancy between supply and demand has a very great influence on prices, especially when the demand is very urgent. Then, of course, in certain

423
cases Government control, as I have said, did have some effect and placed limits on the increase of cost.
I do not think I need say very much about the increase of debt because I think my noble friend has shown conclusively by the figures that the actual increase of debt in itself, apart from the way that debt is raised and apart from the effect it may have on credit, does not really affect prices very much; and in some cases where there has been no increase of credit there was a very large increase in prices, though I think that was due to the growth of world prices which affected that particular market as it did other markets. No doubt the question of debt does make a great difference when we consider where it is raised—whether it is raised by interest on savings or by the creation of fresh credits. There you get more inflation, more spending power, and more currency and more purchasing power on the part of a large number of persons in the country. The noble Lord also alluded to profiteering causes. I suppose it is pretty clear that profiteering causes are rather more local in their effect on prices and do not have effect on world prices; but the other causes are so more general that large profits being taken by particular individuals in particular cases where there are special shortages cannot affect the wider question of the general balance of prices.
To go for a moment to the question of inflation and of the policy that this country has followed with regard to the creation of credit, and the financing of its large expenditure during the war. The inflation of the currency in war time is a sign of financial strain. The amount of money that can be raised at any time by legitimate methods—that is to say, by taxation and by leans subscribed out of bona fide savings —is limited. If it is not enough to meet the presing needs of war it must be supplemented by artificially created means of payment put into circulation for that purpose. All the European belligerents have suffered in this manner from financial strain. The extent of the strain might be supposed to be proportionately to the increase of debt per head. By this test fir the greatest strain has fallen on this country; but even this test does not do justice to the full effort made by this country. France and Italy include in their debt figures sums which we have lent them, and the strain of raising which has therefore fallen on us. We on the other hand have
424
lent to our Allies more than twice as much as the United States Government have lent to us. We have also raised more money by taxation than any of the Allies. It is a great tribute to our financial strength that we have experienced a smaller rise of prices and a smaller depreciation of the exchanges—great as these have been—than any of our European Allies and even some of the neutrals.
We have had two great advantages in our financial methods. We have raised large sums by taxation, and we have never financed ourselves by printing notes; we have always first drawn on the credit facilities of the City and issued so much paper money as went naturally into circulation as credit extended. The great Continental banks of issue have been used practically as the agents of their Governments for issuing paper money as the direct means of defraying Government expenditure. By issuing interest-bearing securities in whatever form seemed most. likely to attract money, we have endeavoured to ensure that the available financial resources should be drawn upon as far as possible, and that only the residue should be provided by the creation of credit. Unfortunately, as my noble friend knows, that residue has been very large. As compared with the United States we have experienced a large degree of currency inflation, a larger rise of prices, and a larger depreciation of the exchanges. In fact, the American dollar is not technically depreciated at all but is circulating at par with gold. Here, again, the debt figures may be used to measure the financial strain. Even after abating from the total the sums we have borrowed from abroad—chiefly from the United States—our debt works out at £130 per head, or nearly two and a-half times that of America. The Americans have had very severe taxation, but taxation not so severe as ours. When they entered the war they took some of the financial burden off our shoulders, but not all, since it was their policy to limit their advances to Allies to sums required for expenditure in the United States.
Above all, America's entry into the war was preceded by a period of more than two and a-half years of exceedingly prosperous neutrality. No less than £300,000,000 worth of gold was imported into America in part payment of the goods supplied by her to the belligerents, and she was thus placed in a position of unprecedented

425
financial strength. The statistics of prices show that while wholesale prices have risen by no less than 157 per cent. here, they have risen by 106 per cent. in America and 114 per cent. in Japan, both of which countries are enjoying an effective gold standard. This shows that the greater part of the rise in prices is due not to the depreciation of paper money in comparison with gold but to the depreciation of gold itself in comparison with commodities. The problem of deflation is not, of course, that of returning to pre-war prices, but may be said to be limited to such an attraction of credit as will restore our currency to a gold standard. To effect this a mere restriction upon the issue of currency notes would not be enough; the attempt would, indeed, be doomed to failure.
Your Lordships may have read some interesting letters which have appeared in the last few months from the Chairman of Barclay's Bank, Mr. Goodenough, in which he makes some suggestions as to the restriction of currency notes. He fully realises, of course, that they are the result of the inflated credit, but he takes the view that you can operate (as it were) on credit at the other end; that by checking the issue of currency you can gradually check credit, and that by placing a certain proportion of Bank of England notes as cover behind these Treasury Notes then these Treasury Notes would be gradually connected with the reserve at the Bank of England; that the ordinary operations will then affect the supply of Treasury Notes and in that way there may slowly and gradually be the beginning of some deflation of credit. The governing factor in the creation of credit is, of course, credit; and once the credit is there it can be turned into legal tender on demand, and the Banks must be supplied with the money they want. If their requirements are to be reduced the very delicate operation of a contraction of credit must be entered upon. To effect this too suddenly might be disastrous. A collapse of values, bringing widespread bankruptcy and extensive unemployment, would be a very heavy price to pay; but it need not be doubted that with caution we can restore the gold standard in the course of time without bringing about any such catastrophe.
There is only one more point to which I should like to allude—namely, the statement of my noble friend about production.
426
He passed, I think, rather lightly over that aspect of the question, perhaps naturally as he was dealing mainly with the question of currency. But the level of prices is a function not only of the quantity of money but also of several other factors, one of which is the quantity of business to be financed. Therefore I think it is always necessary in these financial discussions to lay very great stress on the question of production; because if every one in the country were to do 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. more work during the year, it is quite clear that more goods would be produced and there would be a fall in price, because the currency would have more to do. No doubt that addition to the work of the country from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. would have a far greater effect on prices than the mere addition of 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. to production.
I should like to give one instance of how currency may, so to speak, be absorbed, and prices consequently made to fall. After the Civil War the United States ceased to contract the note issue in 1868, and in the succeeding ten years, though there were fluctuations, increased production was the main cause of the "greenback" gradually rising from a discount of 30 per cent. to par. So I should not like, in the consideration of this question, that the subject of production should be put out of mind for a moment, or that the whole matter should be considered to be merely a question of dealing with the currency either by a National Committee or by some International Commission. I think I made it clear, speaking of the general causes, that there is no question that there is a very intimate connection, and a proportionate connection, between high prices and the increase in currency, although, at the same time, it may have been absolutely necessary, for the purpose of financing the war, to have this very large increase of currency. That makes it all the more desirable at the present time to deal with the matter of the inflated and increased currency.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, my noble friend (Lord D'Abernon) made a very luminous speech. I am quite certain he has given to the Paper which was laid before us so short a time ago a study which most of your Lordships have not been able to give. But I deprecate a little one or two of the observations made by the noble Viscount who has just sat down, because

427
I think he treated this question rather as if it would have to settle itself, as if the Government cannot themselves, to a large extent, control the issue. I have some doubt whether my noble friend's plan of having a Royal Commission is likely to help us very much in this matter, because I have before me the recommendations of a very important city Committee, with the Governor of the Bank of England as Chairman, which sat up to, I think, a year ago. That Committee made very definite recommendations on this question, and so far the Government have not seen fit to take advantage of them.
Take one recommendation which they made. They recommended that there should be a decrease in the currency as soon as possible after the war. The noble Viscount is a master of the art of mashing up together a number of different questions as if they were all equally the result of the war and of what has followed, and as if the Government can have no control over them. Let me take one illustration. The noble Viscount said that the amount raised legitimately by taxation to meet the large charges in past years and in the present year was not sufficient. It was when the Government had to draw on other sources that the difficulty began. Yes; but they have taken the very course which the Committee of experts advised them not to take, in having based the greater part of their increased expenses this year on the very services which involved a great inflation of the currency.
Suppose, for example, they had made a large purchase of wheat in Argentina. That, I apprehend, would not have increased the currency. But in the present year it was quite obvious, with the discharge of five or six millions of persons, all of whom had served the Government and were entitled to considerable sums on retirement from Government service, that already it would be necessary, so to speak, to pay across the counter something like £500,000.000 or £600,000,000—I cannot give the exact amount. I think it would facilitate the comprehension of this Paper if the noble Viscount would consider whether the Government could not add to it a statement of the actual sums paid in what I call donatives, quite legitimately—I am not suggesting that they ought to have been avoided—but still they are nonrecurring payments to those who have served the Government on the one hand
428
and donations in connection with unemployment on the other hand. The latter make comparatively a small amount compared with the first, but it is that amount which the Government have week by week been drawing—I believe to the extent of something like £10,000,000 a week—which accounts for the fact, which otherwise ought not to have been, that there was a greater circulation in the middle of this year than there was even when the war was actually going on.
I want the country to realise the effect if you give a fresh donative. If to-morrow, for some reason, the Government were to say, "Such and such persons have lost heavily by the war; we will begin afresh; there are one million of them and we will give them £20 each, making £20,000,000 in all and go at once to the printing press"—at once they take the step which prevents the Bank of England or the Treasury cancelling more notes. That is really at the bottom of the difficulty—that the Government have continuously throughout this year, until the last few weeks when the House of Commons finally asserted itself, given fresh donatives, having regard solely to what they thought was advisable and leaving the question of currency altogether in the background. That is the first point. The second point I wish to make—I am most anxious to have the noble Viscount's attention—
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am listening.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My second point is this. The noble Viscount says that the one thing which can help us is the increase of output. I agree.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not say it was the one thing. I said it ought not to be forgotten.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I agree. On every occasion when the Government have interfered this year, when there has been an increase of output, they have immediately admitted that those who have increased the output have a right to an increased amount of pay, irrespective of whether or not the pay given was commensurate with their services, based on prices now as compared with prices before the war. What is the result of that? We have had, let us say for the sake of argument, one million tons more coal and that product has been gained in seven

429
or eight hours, instead of as before. Immediately there is a demand that all prices should rise in comparison with the extra production. I really think that if the noble Viscount will look back he will see that in the conduct of the Government throughout this year there has been, perforce in some cases but not quite so much perforce in others, a policy which has directly led to the state of panic so well portrayed by Lord D'Abernon a few moments ago.
I wish to make only one more point. If you are going to deal with this question you must lay down as adamant that there is going to be a reduction of the currency, and that people must do with less from this time forth. I would impress on the Government that they should take the Report of the expert Committee, and that they should not hoard their stocks. This is not the occasion to trouble your Lordships, but I could give you facts of what is going on now in France where the Government have men guarding these stocks, lorries running with provisions to the men who are guarding them, and medical officers keeping hospitals for these men. It is a legitimate desire of the Government to save as much for the country in their sales as possible, but this thing is going on in any number of camps in France which the military authorities would gladly disperse but which the Dispersal Board hold up in the hope of better prices. It would be far better to count in all these things together and take the lesser price. These stores will not gain by keeping them during the next winter, and nothing will tend to bring down prices in this country more than the fact that the stocks which the Government can disperse, and all imports which can be brought in without ruining British trade, should be sold at reasonable prices and so restrict the currency.
I do not want to sound a pessimistic note, but if you will look back one hundred years you will find that exactly the same difficulties which beset us now beset our forefathers in those days. They had the same inflation of currency, the same unrest, and the same great increase of prices. They found it difficult to see their way through, but they did so, mainly because they allowed prices to fall to their own level and because they allowed men who were willing to use their industry and intelligence to profit by it. We must be
430
a little hard-hearted in this matter and allow prices to find their proper level. If the Government themselves would only set an example of limiting the occasions of an inflation of the currency they would take a long step towards relieving us from the very difficult position which confronts us.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, at this hour of the evening I have no wish to trespass long on your patience, but as one of those plain-minded people to whom the noble Lord referred in introducing this matter I have done my best to examine the figures and circumstances affecting our present financial position, and I am anxious to lay before the Government two further considerations which I do not think have been sufficiently dealt with.
The first is this. The noble Viscount who answered for the Government did not, I think, give sufficient effect to the position of our National Debt in connection with this question. It may well be, and I think it is, that the mere existence of the National Debt is not in itself a reason why prices should rise. It depends far more upon the way in which that debt has been incurred than in its existence; and this view finds notable confirmation in the figures which are before us in this valuable White Paper. But when the noble Viscount took some credit to this country for not having resorted to the unwise and unsafe methods of increasing the National Debt which have been adopted by other countries, I do not think he did full justice to the position, because, unless I misunderstood it, this is what occurs.
The Government at the present moment, and I trust only for the present moment, has very largely drawn upon the public credit, and it finds that it is no longer easy to raise money by way of public loan at existing rates of interest. I do not want to put the case more strongly than that, but I think noble Lords will agree that that is true. What are the other methods to which they were bound to have recourse? There is the one of raising money by means of Treasury Bills, which are discounted through the banks and passed into circulation in the ordinary way. But there is another way, which appears to me as the one they most frequently adopt. It is this. They go to the Bank of England and get further credit, against which they draw, and to secure that credit they issue to the Bank of England Treasury Bills which are

431
not necessarily put into circulation but held in reserve as security against overdraft. That, to my mind, speaking again as one of those plain-minded people, is nothing but the ordinary overdraft of a private individual on his bank. You have by that means taken the first step towards the necessary inflation of currency which follows, because that overdraft is always succeeded by an issue of the necessary media of demand, which are represented to-day by our £ and 10s. notes. It is a means of borrowing which is the easiest and, which every one will agree, is by far the worst, and it has no doubt been very considerably resorted to in the last year or two.
There is another way in which the National Debt is associated with our inflated currency—and it is this. It was pointed out by the noble Lord, Viscount Milner, the other day—and every one who heard him must have been struck at once with the truth of what he said—that as the National Debt had been built up upon an inflated currency, and as the rates of interest were all paid in inflated currency, if you proceeded to stabilise and reduce your currency to its normal level you necessarily increase the amount you are paying by way of interest on your National Debt. You do not increase it in figures, but you increase it in the purchasing power of the money you pay. That is a very grave thing indeed, because—of course the noble Viscount himself would have realised what the logical consequence of his argument would be—the more you inflate your currency the less you pay in interest on your debt, and the easiest way to make the country bear the burden of the debt would be to inflate the currency to the highest possible degree. That would be the obvious thing to do; but it is equally obvious that it would have other grave effects. Every one who has given attention to this matter will feel that the currency has sooner or later to be reduced, and we must face this position, that when your currency is reduced you will be paying more than you are to-day for your interest upon the National Debt. Therefore, unless at the same time that you reduce your currency you reduce the interest you are paying on your National Debt you will throw an increased burden on the State by every 10 per cent. that you reduce your inflation.
We are led to this conclusion. By some means or other the Debt has to be reduced,
432
but it is not easy to see what those means should be. It was suggested the other day, when this matter was under discussion, that a very effective reduction might be obtained by means of a levy upon war fortunes. The obvious justice of such a levy, I think, appeals to every one. It seems to me that everybody in this country ought to be thankful that at the end of this war—I was going to say that they are in the enjoyment of their personal liberty—at any rate they have no right to complain if they find themselves in the enjoyment of their personal liberty together with the same amount of possessions which they enjoyed when the war began. On the other hand I doubt the efficacy of this plan. I doubt if you would get enough. It is calculated that you would get a thousand millions. I do not think that is adequate. I think you want two or three thousand millions at least to effect anything vital.
I am sure the noble Viscount will tolerantly receive any humble suggestion, which is put forward for consideration only. Might I suggest this, that if any form of capital levy is to be resorted to—and so many people are discussing it with favour at the present time that it seems probable it will be resorted to—that when the capital valuation which must precede that levy has taken place it would be a much fairer thing that, instead of extracting money from the people in the form of a tax, you should re-distribute the debt among them proportionately to their capital holdings, so that by this means everybody would hold, as indeed he ought to hold, a rateable portion of the national burden. If once it were possible to effect that it would then be possible to reduce the interest on a proportion of that debt, say 25 or 30 or 40 per cent. of it, without any harm to any one, and concurrently with that the deflation of currency would proceed automatically. It could be done without any hardship so far as the capitalists are concerned, because the saving on the interest would he such that at the end of 10 or 15 years it would be possible to provide a sinking fund, to redeem at par the whole capital value of the debt dealt with. I hope I may be pardoned for making that suggestion for consideration on the part of the Government.
I want to say one thing further about the effect of the present inflation, and why, among other reasons, it is so very important that it should be quickly brought down. That it must correspond closely with the

433
rise in prices is I think not only established by these figures but must necessarily result from a consideration of what it means. Supposing a man's wages be a pound a week and it is decided to raise them to two pounds, and that when he came round for his wages it was said: Here are two half sovereigns instead of a pound, and each has a mark upon it which will enable you to use it in any shop as the equivalent of a pound. The result of that, if every one were paid in the same way, would be to increase prices by double, but that is exactly what is meant by the issue of paper money. If this were done everywhere and everybody's means were treated in exactly the same way it might be perfectly possible to say that nobody was hurt, but unfortunately that is not what occurs.
At the present moment there is a body of people in this country who for want of a better definition I will call the Middle Class, and I do it, as your Lordships will understand, merely in order that you may appreciate the people to whom I refer. I mean the people who are engaged as civil servants, doctors, lawyers, writers, schoolmasters, and all the people who earn relatively small incomes, say from £300 to £1,000 a year, and who, I venture to say, are the most thrifty and the most self sacrificing class in the whole community. They are people who stint themselves, sometimes almost of the necessities of life, in order that they may give their sons a, better chance at school and college. They are the class who recruit all our finest people all over the world. They are people whose sons joined up practically without exception in 1914. They are a class who have no union, who never make a fuss, and who have practically no representatives. They are a class whose incomes have not been increased while everybody' else's wages have grown. It means this, that every time the currency is inflated the hand of the State is put into the pockets of these people, and from their small hardwon earnings sums are taken away in order that other people may have more. There are added to that class of people a class who deserve very well from the State—namely, the civil servant on his pension and the people who by very hard lives have just saved enough to keep themselves in their old age, and who depend on fixed immovable incomes for their livelihood. Those are the people who are slowly being ground to powder under the present condition
434
of affairs; and I say, my Lords, that it is a class which represents the live and growing point of the nation, and if this class is once destroyed it will be impossible that it should ever be replaced.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, there was one point in the very interesting and lucid speech of the noble Lord which could not quite understand. He laid great stress upon the fact that the shortage of production had not caused the rise in prices, and he pointed to the figures of production. I think he forgot that an immense part of this production was absolutely thrown away during the war. Will your Lordships look at Table I. Take coal. That was burnt in huge amounts by sending warships and other ships all over the world for the purposes of the war. That made a very great demand upon the production of coal, and therefore left a shortage for other purposes. Then take pig-iron and steel. Vast amounts of pig-iron and steel were used for the purposes of the war and were all practically thrown away. The worst of it is that where they were not actually fired away we cannot now use for other purposes the material used in the manufacture of guns. It is all lost, and therefore most of this great production was thrown away. Then take wool. We had to use an enormous amount of wool to clothe the men who had to be sent to parts of the world where they required such clothing, but who would not have had to use so much wool for their clothing if they had not had to go to such places. Consequently for the purposes of the war larger amounts of wool had to be used, making a shortage for other purposes. Therefore I contend that there is a very great shortage of production, not because production did not keep up wonderfully during the war but because what was produced was thrown away. It is that shortage of production, and the growing deficiency of materials which we want so much in manufacture which is accountable to a great extent for the high prices that reign in regard to a very large number of necessaries at the present moment.
[From Minutes of November 25].

SWINTON AND MEXBOROUGH GAS BOARD BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.