Sitting of 27 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],
Consideration deferred till To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  PALM KERNELS (EXPORT DUTIES).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French Government have imposed an Export Duty on palm kernels and other raw material used in the manufacture of oils and cattle foods exported to this country in retaliation for the duty imposed on similar products exported to France from our Colonies and Protectorates; and whether he has information as to similar Export Duties imposed by any other of our Allies or by neutrals on raw materials exported from their Colonies or Protectorates to Great Brtain?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD (Vice-Chamberlain): The French Government have imposed Export Duties on oleaginous produce shipped from French West African Colonies to all destinations, including France. It is therefore evident that these duties have not been levied as a retaliatory measure for the duty imposed on palm kernels exported from British West African Colonies to destinations other than the British Empire. have no information as to other similar Export Duties imposed by any other country.

  BUDAPEST.
  Mr. SITCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, when Admiral Horthey's Army entered
  1860
  Budapest, a number of Socialist leaders were arrested; whether Sir George Clerk issued a protest against these arrests, and whether the men have now been released?
  Mr. D. WARD: Before the entry of Admiral Horthey's Army, Sir George Clerk had obtained the most complete guarantees from him, that order would be maintained. On the 16th November, Sir George Clerk telegraphed that order has so far been completely maintained and that the general life of the city was quite normal, but that there had occurred instances of unauthorised arrests and attempted arrests of prominent Socialists and Social Democrats. Against this Sir George Clerk made the strongest possible representations to the Government, who assured him that the incidents were entirely unauthorised acts of individual officers or soldiers. Sir George Clerk demanded the immediate release of those arrested, and declared that, unless he had definite guarantees that there would be no more molestation of political opponents, he would at once leave Budapest. On 19th November Sir George Clerk was able to report that the attitude of the Government in regard to this matter was entirely satisfactory, that individual Opposition leaders had been provided with Hungarian guards when they desired this, and that he now had little fear of political persecution.

  MONTENEGRO.
  Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information to the effect that Gabriele D'Annunzio is preparing an expeditionary force to attack Montenegro?
  Mr. D. WARD: I have received reports to that effect, but they remain without confirmation.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will explain in what manner the representation of Montenegro in the Peace Conference was accepted in principle; why, if it was accepted in principle, was it not acted upon in fact; and if he will say what difficulty, if any, prevented a representative of Montenegro from; sitting in the Conference?
  Mr. WARD: I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. and learned Friend on 24th November.
  Mr. McNEILL: Does the hon. Member know there was no answer whatever given to the last part of the question?
  Mr. WARD: No.
  Mr. McNEILLasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether at any time during his mission to Montenegro Count De Salis or any member of his mission was interned or subjected to any indignity; if so, by whom was such insult offered to His Majesty's representative; and what steps have been taken by the Government to exact apology or reparation?
  Mr. WARD: Count De Salis has not reported the internment or subjection to any indignity of himself or any member of his mission in Montenegro.
  Mr. McNEILLasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that more than 3,000 dwellings in Montenegro have been burnt by the Serbian troops in occupation of the country, and that numbers of Montenegrins, including women and children, have been murdered, imprisoned, or driven. as refugees to the mountains, whether he will propose to the Allied Council in Paris that compensation from Serbia be demanded on behalf of Montenegro for these wrongs, seeing that this Ally has been excluded from the Peace Conference and from the Allied Council?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): As my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated on 24th November, His. Majesty's Government have no confirmation of the allegation contained in. this question, and it is not, therefore, possible for me to take the course which he suggests.
  Mr. McNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to take any steps to find out whether these allegations are true or false, and is he himself familiar with the transaction which has been so deeply staining the good name of this country in its relations to Montenegro?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure my hon. Friend that Montenegro is one of the most difficult questions with which we have had to deal. The people are divided, and it is very difficult to ascertain what are their views or what is their condition.
  Mr. McNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Under-Secretary of State for War continually refuses to give the House any information, and, now that
  1862
  he is here, can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any more information than the Under-Secretary?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If I had any information should certainly be happy to communicate it to my hon. Friend. I know the trouble and complexity that this question has caused to those who have attempted to settle it.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not the real difficulty the fact that there is an ex-King related to the Royal family in Italy?
  Sir J. D. REES: Does any special responsibility for Montenegro attach to Great Britain other than such as attaches to the other Allies?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly not. We have to act together. Of course, it would be quite impossible for us to act except in conjunction with our Allies.

  SPITSBERGEN.
  Sir MARTIN CONWAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state what securities have been taken for the protection of British enterprises in Spitsbergen under the terms of the proposed Grant of the sovereignty of that country to Norway?
  Mr. D. WARD: I cannot at present give the exact terms. The treaty, however, granting the sovereignty of Spitsbergen to Norway contains the most careful provisions for the protection of British enterprises in Spitsbergen, which will be entitled to the same privileges as those enjoyed by the nationals of any other Power, including Norway.
  Sir M. CONWAY: May I ask whether the actual terms will be published, also whether they are capable of modification, and whether the parties interested in British enterprise will have an opportunity of expressing their views on these terms before they are finally accepted?
  Mr. WARD: I must ask for notice of that question.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    STATUS OF EGYPT.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for

    1863
    Foreign Affairs whether Egypt will be invited to send a representative to attend the first meeting of the assembly of the League of Nations; and, if not, what is the reason for her different treatment in this respect to that of the Empire of India?
    Mr. D. WARD: The status of Egypt in relation to the League of Nations can only be determined when the details of her future Constitution under the Protectorate and her position in relation to the British Empire have been finally settled. Her present position offers no analogy; to that of India.

    FIRST MEETING OF COUNCIL.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he can state whose duty it will be to summon the first meeting of the assembly and the first meeting of the council of the League of Nations in view of the refusal of the United States Senate; to ratify the Treaty?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Article 5 of the Treaty of Peace stipulates that the President of the United States of America shall summon the meetings. I do not understand that this will be in any way affected by the refusal of the United States to ratify the Treaty.

  RUSSIA.

    BOLSHEVIK GOVERNMENT.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what meaning the Foreign Office attaches to the word "Soviet"; and whether the present form of authority in Russia answers to this description?
    Mr. D. WARD: The word "Soviet" means "Council." The name is commonly applied, both by themselves and by others, to the Bolshevik Government in Russia.

    TRANSIT OF GOODS.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of either an armistice or peace being agreed to between the Baltic States and Soviet Russia, we will place any hindrance in the way of the transit of goods to Soviet Russia by way of Libau, Win-dau, or other ice-free ports in the Baltic?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it is desirable to answer hypothetical questions in reference to the highly difficult and complicated situation in Russia. I have already stated that the British Fleet cannot undertake to resume their patrol of the Baltic.

    CONFERENCE OF POWERS.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Prime Minister when the International Conference which is to discuss the future of Russia will be convened; what Powers or de facto Governments will be represented; what sections of the former Russian Empire will be represented; whether representatives of the Soviet Government will be invited; and what will be the terms of reference to this Conference?
    Mr. RAPERasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state when and where the Conference of the Allied and Associated Powers which is to meet to discuss and, if possible, settle the Russian, question, is to be held?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything to what I said on Thursday last in reply to questions on this subject.

    SUPPLIES FROM GREAT BRITAIN.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether he can state at what date Great Britain will cease sending supplies to any of the belligerent bodies in Russia?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the information already given to the House on this subject.

    VLADIVOSTOK.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have any information as to a revolutionary movement at Vladivostok, supported by the Czecko Slovak General Guida and the Socialistic parties, which is alleged to have as its object the opening of negotiations with the Soviet Government; whether this movement was suppressed by the representatives of the Allies; and, if so, why?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and, as to the second part, in the negative.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The revolution was not suppressed by the; Allies?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No.

    PEACE TREATIES (SIGNATORIES).
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will say what Governments are signatories of the Treaties of Peace with Germany and with Austria-Hungary, respectively?
    Mr. D. WARD: The name of the States whose Governments are signatories to the Treaties of Peace with Germany and Austria are contained in the copies of the Treaties which have already been laid before the House.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    MOST-FAVOURED NATION RIGHTS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what Treaties or arrangements which confer most-favoured-nation rights upon other countries are still in force, and also if any such treaties have been denounced; and, if so, when?
    Mr. D. WARD: The greater part of the information required by the hon. Member will be found in the "Return of Most-favoured-nation Clauses in Existing Treaties of Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain and Foreign Powers," which was laid before Parliament as Cd. 3395, Commercial No. 3 (1907).
    Since the date of that Return, commercial Treaties containing most-favoured-nation Clauses have been concluded with Bolivia, Honduras, Japan, Portugal and Serbia. The former commercial Treaties with enemy Powers have lapsed owing to the War, and those with the Congo Free State and Corea have disappeared upon the annexation of those countries. The Treaties with Russia, Salvador and Uruguay have terminated upon denunciation, and the Treaties with France and Greece have been denouncd, but remain operative subject to three months' notice of denunciation on either side.

    TRUSTS AND COMBINATIONS.
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Prime Minister what action has been taken or will be taken on the Report of the Committee on Trusts?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. Section 3 of the Profiteering
    1866
    Act empowered the Board of Trade to make investigations into Trusts and Combinations, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee; and a number of investigations are now being conducted by the Central Committee established under that Act.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    DEPRIVATION FOR IMPRISONMENT.
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Pensions Minister if his attention has been called to the fact that magistrates and judges are frequently embarrassed by the present pensions rule that imprisonment for a certain period of time of an ex-soldier in receipt of pension automatically deprives that soldier of pension rights; and if, in view of the fact that soldiers' pensions are now regarded as of right and not of grace, he will consider the advisability of taking steps to remove what would appear to be an anomaly?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I am considering this question with others, of which it forms a part.
    Captain LOSEBY: Is it not a fact that the soldier's pension now is a right and no longer a grace?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is a right, and it is not a grace, and I am considering the reaction which follows from that fact.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Pensions Minister if he will state the number of medical men permanently employed in his Department who have not served in His Majesty's forces overseas during the War, the number so employed who have served overseas, how many who have not served overseas now hold high administrative rank, including deputy commissioners of medical services and assessors, the number of medical men who have applied for permanent appointments, and how many have been granted; if he is aware that many, if not most, of the well-paid posts have never been advertised in the medical or other Press; if he can give any information as to how these posts were filled; if the official in charge of the Appointments Department of the Ministry of Pensions

    1867
    (Director - General's Department, 14, Great Smith Street, S.W.), Dr. R. M'Queen, has served overseas in His Majesty's forces; and if he will take steps to see that ex-Royal Army Medical Corps and naval medical officers get preference for all appointments before the appointments are made permanent?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In reply to that part of the question which relates to Dr. M'Queen, I may inform my hon. Friend that this officer was mobilised on the first day of the War and served, continuously until four months after the, signing of the Armistice, when he was invalided with a 30 per cent, disability resulting from service in France, Belgium, and Macedonia. In appointments to the; Medical Services Division of the Ministry it is the invariable practice to give preference to men who have seen war service overseas.
    The answer to the remaining parts of the question is of such length and involves; so many figures that I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the remaining portion of the Answer:
    The medical officers of the Ministry are almost without exception, serving on temporary engagements terminable at a; month's notice. There are only three permanent officials, of whom one has served overseas.
    There are fifty-nine temporary officers who have not served overseas, of whom forty-eight have served at home, and others with the British Red Cross or similar units.
    Since 1st April between 1,600 and 1,700 applicants have been interviewed. The present number of salaried appointments is 244. As will be seen from these figures, the material for selection for the few posts available has been so great that advertisement has been unnecessary.
    Each applicant is personally interviewed, and his suitability is carefully considered in the light of his former service, and general qualification and experience, special attention being given to his experience of the kind of work at which it is proposed to employ him. Since 1st April no applicant has been favourably considered unless he has had war service; in the Navy, Army, or Air Force.
    Mr. ROSEasked the Minister of Pensions if he will state the grades and
    1868
    average salaries of the 283 officials removed from his Department during the month of September; and how many, if any, of them were transferred to other Government Departments?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The net reduction in staff at Headquarters in September was 497. Against this the staff in the Regions and in medical institutions showed a net increase of 214, giving a net reduction for the whole Ministry of 283. The reduction was practically entirely in the clerical grades with wages averaging about 46s. a week. No transfers were made to other Government Departments.

    ROYAL NAVY (ERNEST BUTCHER, INJURIES).
    Mr. ALFRED SHORTasked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Ernest Butcher, who was injured in the Royal Navy in 1888, and who was awarded a pension of £13 10s. per annum (pension certificate No. N.G.B. 3,078); whether he is aware that Mr. Butcher received this pension for one year only; that after repeated applications the pension was renewed in 1915, stopped again in 1916, and finally in 1917 a lesser amount was awarded for life; and whether, in view of the fact that this man's disability is permanent, he will give instructions for the payment of the pension for the period during which it was withheld?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The pre-war Regulations under which this pension is granted, are based, not on the extent of disablement, but on a man's ability to contribute to his own support. Mr. Butcher's original pension of £13 12s. a year was awarded by the Admiralty for one year only, its renewal depending on further survey. Mr. Butcher, however, went to Australia, and made no further application until August. 1914. He was then re-examined and found ineligible for continuation of pension, but was informed that, should he lose his employment as-a result of his disability, his case would be reconsidered. On a further application in March, 1915, reconsideration took place, and pension, at the rate of 3s. 6d. a week, again awarded for one year. In view of the medical report at the end of that period, the pension was not renewed, but as a result of a further later examination, pension was granted at the rate of 3s. 6d. a week for life. Mr. Butcher is not eligible for an award in respect of the periods during which the pension was discontinued.

    DISABLEMENT AND SERVICE PENSIONS.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Pensions Minister if he can state the reason why disabled men in receipt of service pensions are only being paid disablement pensions under the scales laid down in the 1918 warrant instead of the higher scales, with wife allowance, as laid down in the warrant of September last; whether he is aware that disabled service pensioners who have received disablement pensions under the last-named warrant are now being asked to refund the overpayments; and if he will state the authority for this action?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The facts are not quite as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend. The scales of service pension have been increased for certain classes of pension to meet the increased cost of living. As following the recommendation of the Select Committee on Pensions, the rates of Disablement Pensions were increased for precisely the same reason, the Government deciding that in cases where both disablement and service pensions were payable, payment should not be made at the increased rates for both classes of pensions concurrently. The new warrant will, therefore, provide that in cases where the service pension is payable at the higher rate, the disablement pension shall be based on a maximum of 33s. instead of 40s., but the allowance for a wife and the new rates of children's allowances will be payable.
    It is not intended to ask for a refund from future issues of pension in any of the few cases where, prior to the Government's decision, payment at the higher rates both of disablement and service pension may already have been made. If my hon. and gallant Friend can give me particulars of any cases where repayment has been claimed, I will investigate them.
    Colonel ASHLEY: In respect to the general principle, is not the Government doing exactly what is objected to in private individuals, namely, reducing a man's wages by asking what is the amount of his disability pension?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think not. It is only with regard to the element of increase in cost of living that it is taken into account at all.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Does not that apply-equally to wages?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, wages are not taken into account at all, but these are both payments from public funds which overlap with regard to the cost of living.

    WIDOWS REMARRYING (GRATUITY).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Pensions Minister if he can state the reason why a widow who remarries is only entitled to draw a gratuity based on the rates of pension laid down in the Pensions Warrant of April, 1918, instead of at the higher rates as introduced on the 3rd September, 1918?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The general increase in the rates of widows' pensions consequent upon the high cost of living is not considered to afford any ground for a corresponding increase in the amount which is given to a widow gratuitously, and not for current maintenance, on her remarriage. The new Royal Warrant which is shortly to be issued will, accordingly, provide that these gratuities shall continue to be paid at the rates laid down in the 1918 Warrant.

    OFFICERS (DISABILITY RETIRED PAY).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that officers in receipt of disability retired pay, after winning their commission from the ranks, are subject to a deduction from this pay of the amount of service pension earned for service in the ranks; and whether he is prepared to introduce an Amendment to the Warrant which will make it possible for such an officer to receive his retired pay in full independent of any pension which he may have earned by reason of long service in the ranks before the War and under an entirely different and distinct engagement?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As I explained in reply to a question put to me on the 11th August, an officer holding a temporary commission receives disability retired pay made up of his service pension as a soldier, with an addition, according to the degree of disablement, varying from £100 for total disability. In cases where the rate arrived at is less than the disability rate in the prescribed scale he receives retired pay at that rate. The ques-

    1871
    tion has, however, been before the Select Committee, who may possibly deal with it in their next Report.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Is not the Government doing the same thing here again, namely, taking into consideration the rate of service pension in assessing disability?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: I think not. We are following the principle which has been applied right through pensions for both officers and men. So far as it affects officers, it is before the Select Committee, and I shall, of course, consider any recommendation they may make on the subject.

    LOCAL WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEES.
    Captain MOREINGasked the Pensions Minister whether he will explain why he has closed the banking account of the East Ham Local War Pensions Committee and withdrawn their powers; and whether he is aware that the committee have in the past made themselves liable to surcharges amounting to £100,000?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: From the reports of the inspectors of my Department it appeared that the East Ham committee were making, and threatening to make, unauthorised payments out of public moneys committed to their charge. As a precautionary measure, I, therefore, stopped their power to draw upon public moneys. I ordered a local inquiry to be held into the action of the committee, and this is now proceeding.
    Mr. JOHN DAVISONasked the Pensions Minister whether the scale of expenses allowed to a member of a local war pensions committee is 1s. per hour for time lost through attending meetings of the committee; whether he is aware that, in comparison with the present earnings and the high cost of living, 1s. per hour does not meet the loss incurred; whether he is aware that members of local advisory committees under the Ministry of Labour are entitled to the actual wages lost up to a maximum of 20s. per day; and whether he will consider the advisability of adopting the same scale for members of war pensions committees?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I regret that am not yet in a position to make an announcement on this subject, which is being considered in consultation with other Departments.

    CONVALESCENT TRAINING CENTRES.
    Mr. HALLASasked the Pensions Minister whether, in view of the practical failure which has so far attended all his other schemes for the establishment of convalescent training centres, he proposes to go on with the further scheme at the Beacon and Lickey Hostels, Birmingham, which does, as a matter of fact, deprive; 1,500 people of employment and housing at Longbridge, and which offers no better prospects of success than any of his previous schemes?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot usefully add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the subject of these hostels on the 5th instant.

    TEMPORARY PENSION (LIEUIENANT G. A. M. LEATHEM).
    Mr. DONALDasked the Pensions Minister the result of the special medical examination on Lieut. G. A. M. Leathern, No. 13030–, L. 3, Royal Irish Rifles, at Whitehall Buildings, Ann Street, Belfast, on the 21st October last; whether, as the result of this examination, this officer is now entitled to his wound gratuity which has been refused by the War Office; and will his temporary pension of £35 plus twenty per cent., which expires in; January, 1920, be extended till January, 1921.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I must refer the hon. Member to the War Office for information as to the wound gratuity. Following the consideration of the medical board's reports the grant of retired pay has been revised. An award has now been made at the rate of £52 10s. a year, with bonus, for the period from 25th March, 1919, to 29th April next. Before the expiration of this period the question of renewal will be considered.

    WIDOWS.
    Mr. STURROCKasked the Pensions Minister the number of pensions which have been awarded under Article 15 of the Royal Warrant on Pensions; whether these are of a temporary nature and amount to 15s. weekly to widows and no allowances for children are provided for in this Article; and whether the pensions will be assessed on a proportionate basis to widows whose pensions are awarded under Article 11 or a war bonus added owing to the increased cost of the necessaries of life?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The number awarded is approximately 1,000. The temporary pension granted under Article 15 of the Royal Warrant to a widow whose husband's death was in no way connected with his military service is a gratuity given in circumstances which cannot be said to justify a claim for assistance from the State. It was not intended to be a maintenance grant, and was, therefore, excluded from the scope of the 20 per cent, bonus.
    Mr. STURROCKasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that Private James Law, No. 2013, 5th Black Watch, died at a camp at Hawick in April, 1915, through being choked while at a meal; that he was buried with full military honours; that his widow, Mrs. Law, Smithy Croft, Arbroath, is in receipt of a temporary pension of 15s. weekly, while no allowances are given for his child; and that the deceased soldier heroically rescued from drowning, at great danger to his own life, a comrade who had fallen into a rushing mill tide; and whether he will explain why Mrs. Law is not receiving full pension?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Private Law's death could not be ascribed to his military service, and, therefore, it was only possible to grant to his widow the temporary pension under Article 15 of the Royal Warrant.
    Mr. SPEAKERcalled upon Sir Clement Kinloch-Cooke to ask question No. 25.
    Major O'NEILL: Before this question is put, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, as the first question answered by him on Thursday is No. 25, the effect of it is, as I stated last week, that no Irish question can be answered verbally?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not relevant to the question on the Paper.
    Major O'NEILL: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, how I can raise this point?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Member will put his question down in the ordinary way, as other Members do.

    WOMEN INCAPACITATED.
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the fact that many women who served in various capacities in forward areas
    1874
    during the War, and were incapacitated owing to such service, do not come within the scope of any pensions scheme; and will he consider the advisability of instituting an Inquiry into the whole system under which these pensions are administered, with a view to the removal of grievances and bringing under one Department the whole administration?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have been asked to take this question, but I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend on the 20th instant.
    Captain LOSEBY: Could the right hon. Gentleman reply to that part of the question in which I ask him if his attention has been, called to the fact that many of these unfortunate and gallant women do not come within the scope of any pension, and also the other part of my question in which I ask him if he will consider the advisability of bringing the whole administration under one Department?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I told my hon. and gallant Friend on the 20th instant that these cases either came under the Workmen's Compensation Act or the Injuries of War Act, and that was in communication with the First Lord of the Admiralty and with the Secretary of State for War with regard to the matter. I really cannot add anything to that statement.

    HOSPITAL TREATMENT.
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Prime Minister whether approximately 400 disabled men are still awaiting hospital treatment as bed cases in the London district?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have been asked to answer this question. There are at present about 130 discharged disabled men awaiting hospital treatment as bed cases in the London area. The surgical cases will be admitted forth with, and other cases with as little delay as possible.

    SOLDIERS IMPRISONMENT.
    Mr. KILEYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that during the War many soldiers were sentenced to terms of imprisonment for offences other than criminal; is he aware that these men were not then imprisoned but were put in the firing line, and those who were not killed or maimed were sent to prison

    1875
    after the Armistice was signed; and, in view of the fact that nearly all the Great Powers have released their military prisoners, is he prepared to advise similar action so far as British soldiers are concerned?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): This question only reached me a short time before the House assembled. The terms of the question do not at all represent the actual facts, but I am anxious to make a full statement, and if the hon. Member will put a question down early next week I will answer him.
    Mr. KILEY: I will be very glad to do so, and to supply the right hon. Gentleman with a case which bears upon what I have said.

    UNEMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have this year at any time considered the question of preventing unemployment, other than the question of insurance against unemployment; and, if so, what is their intention on this matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The policy of the Government with regard to the prevention of unemployment has been to do everything in their power to hasten the return of industry to normal lines. The general question of the prevention of unemployment was considered by the Provisional Joint Committee of the Industrial Conference in the early part of this year, and so far as this could be done by Government action, the Minister of Labour has done his best to have the recommendations of this Conference carried into effect.

    FIUME.
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to make any statement as to the existing state of affairs at Fiume; and what further steps are contemplated, if any, by the Supreme Council to deal with the situation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This matter is receiving the close attention of the Supreme Council, but I regret I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.
    Viscount CURZON: Is it a fact that this irresponsible adventurer is preparing an attack on the Dalmatian coast and also Montenegro? Would not the British Navy be called in to deal with that?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that is not the way to deal with it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have we any ships in the Adriatic to protect Spalato and the other Dalmatian towns from this adventurer?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must have notice of that.

    LIQUOR TRADE (CARLISLE).
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of pending legislation with regard to the drink trade, the Government will provide facilities to enable Members of the House of Commons who desire to visit Carlisle and acquaint themselves with the facts of the experiment in direct control that has been made there to do so?
    The DEPUTY-MINISTER Of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to answer this question. I am informed by the Central Control Board that any Member who may wish to visit Carlisle, for the purpose indicated in my hon. Friend's question, should communicate with their local representative, Sir E. C. Sanders, 19, Castle Street, Carlisle, who will provide all necessary facilities.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is hardly possible for a Member or anybody else to avoid visiting Carlisle, and that it is extremely hard when you arrive there to get anything to drink anywhere, at any time?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: That is probably the explanation why so many Members have not yet visited it.

    BLACK SEA ARMY.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the immediate withdrawal of the Black Sea Army, which is costing the country £24,000 a day, and the employment of the money formerly spent on the Black Sea Army on building houses or other reconstruction schemes to provide employment and alleviate distress?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As what is termed the Black Sea Army includes troops at Constantinople and the Straits, it is not possible to adopt the suggestion in the question till Peace has been made with Turkey.

  PROFITEERING ACT.

    MESSRS. J. AND P. COATS.
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a working-class protest demonstration held on 20th November outside a building in which the shareholders of Messrs. J. and P. Coats were meeting in Glasgow; whether the protest was against the high price of thread and the great increase in the profits of the firm; and whether, in view of the discontent, which is extending, because of high prices and enormous profits, he can take some step, by legislation or otherwise, to reduce both or make effective use of the Profiteering Act in this case?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. My attention had been drawn to newspaper reports of a demonstration of the kind referred to. With regard to the last part of the question, would refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to a question by the hon. Member for South Salford on 13th November, in which it was explained that prices, costs and profit in all stages in the manufacture of sewing cotton have been for some time under investigation, through machinery established under the Profiteering Act.
    Mr. CLYNES: Is it possible for the Profiteering Act to be applied in a case of this kind?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: At any rate, it is possible to have it applied so far as investigation goes.
    Mr. CLYNES: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, after investigation, the Act can be applied by any act of the Government, instead of it being on the initiative of an aggrieved person?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think I should like to have notice of that.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not the case that even under the Act a fine of £100 can be imposed?
    Mr. ACLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be possible to make a statement about the investigation, seeing the matter has given rise to a great deal of unrest?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid it cannot be very soon, because figures from abroad as well as at home have to be collected.

  PEACE TREATY.

    UNITED STATES SENATE.
    Mr. A. T. DAVIESasked the Prime Minister what effect the delay in the ratification of the Treaty of Paris by the United States Senate has had on the Plebiscite and Missions under Clauses of the Treaty; whether the guarantees to Belgium will be carried into effect by His Majesty's Government should the United States fail to ratify the Treaty; whether the British and French Governments have already conferred on this possible eventuality; and whether he is in a position to indicate what effect, if any, a decision by the United States not to ratify the Treaty of Paris will have on the Tripartite Treaty defending France in case of wanton attack?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the first part of the question, the Supreme Council have decided that the German Delegation should be informed that all Commissions to be constituted by the Allied and Associated Powers should be duly composed and should function regularly with the representatives designated by the Powers ratifying the Treaty, or who, without having ratified, have agreed to designate representatives. The only effect which the delay in ratification by the U.S.A. has had on these Commissions has been an indirect one due to the necessity, thereby falling on the other Powers, of finding a larger quota of representatives. As regards the second part of the question, I do not know what the hon. Member has in mind. As far as His Majesty's Government is concerned, the Treaty of 1839 remains in force until it is abrogated, and the British and French Governments are at present considering the position of Belgium should that contingency arise. As regards the last part of the question, the ratification by the British Government of the Tripartite Treaty is contingent on the ratification by

    1879
    the U.S.A., but the refusal of that Government to ratify the Treaty of Peace will not necessarily affect the Treaty of Peace provided that they ratify the tripartite part separately.

    OTTOMAN EMPIRE.
    Major GLYNasked the Prime Minister whether such representations to the Allied and Associated Powers can now be made as will enable the Peace Treaty with the Ottoman Empire to be considered and ratified in London, since the interests of the British Empire are so deeply concerned by the conclusion of an early peace with Turkey, and so far no progress in this direction has been found possible?
    Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Prime Minister whether steps will be taken to accelerate the conclusion of peace with Turkey, in view of the fact that the United States of America cannot now be expected to accept a mandate for any part of the Turkish Empire?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The British Government are anxious to have an early meeting for the settlement of the Turkish problem. They are in communication with the Allied and Associated Governments with that object. I quite agree with my hon Friend the Member for Clackmannan and Eastern Stirling that the conclusion of an early peace is in the interest not only of the British Empire, but of the whole world.

    PUBLIC STATISTICS.
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a petition praying that an immediate inquiry may be instituted into the existing methods of the collection and presentation of public statistics; and whether he would be prepared to fix an early day for the reception of a small deputation to urge the prayer of the petitioners?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not yet received the petition in question. Perhaps those interested might send me their views in writing, and I could then judge whether a deputation would be necessary.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I am much obliged.

    UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
    Mr. GIDEON MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether he can give any indication as to when the new insurance scheme, against unemployment is likely to be ready for submission to the House of Commons, and how many months from the present time he anticipates it will take before the scheme can be brought into force?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): I have been asked to reply to this question. As I stated yesterday in reply to the hon. Member for Lincoln, it is hoped to introduce a Bill dealing with this subject very shortly. It is not possible to say what period is likely to elapse before the scheme comes into operation, since this must depend on the nature of the scheme as finally adopted and the date of its adoption.
    Mr. MURRAY: May I ask whether, when the Government decided to repeal the unemployment doles to civilian workers, they had any definite idea in their heads as to how long it would take to bring in this unemployment Bill?
    Mr. WARDLE: I think they have a very definite idea of how long it will be, because the Bill is now being prepared.
    Mr. ACLAND: Does "very shortly" mean before Christmas, or after Christmas?
    Mr. WARDLE: I think so!
    Mr. ACLAND: Which?
    Mr. WARDLE: Before!

    AGRICULTURE.

      GOVERNMENT POLICY.
      Lieut.-Colonel WEIGALLasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to embody in one Bill the Government agricultural policy as to guaranteed prices, security of tenure, and improved standards of cultivation; and, if so, when will this Bill be introduced?
      The PRIME MINISTER: It will probably be found convenient to deal with the matters referred to in one Bill. I cannot at present state when this legislation will be introduced
      Mr. TURTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister not aware of the

      1881
      very natural anxiety of the agricultural community that the promises made by the Prime Minister should be put into print at the earliest possible moment?
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that anxiety is also felt by the consumers of this country?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Turton), but the work which is in front of Parliament between now and Christmas is very considerable. As soon as possible this pledge will materialise. The Government have authorised me to make this statement on their behalf. We propose to honour it at the earliest possible opportunity.

      ROYAL COMMISSION.
      Captain TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the delay in the production of the Interim Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture is, owing to the uncertainty of the outlook, causing serious inconvenience to farmers; and can he tell the House when this Report may be expected?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I have no information as to the cause of the delay referred to in the question of my hon. and gallant Friend, but I am advised that a Report may be expected within two or three weeks.
      Captain TERRELL: May I ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that the land under cereals has decreased this year by 20 per cent.?
      Mr. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of any question relating to figures.

    EGYPT AND SOUDAN (CIVIL SERVICES).
    Major GLYNasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to reconstitute the Egyptian and Soudan Civil Services, in view of the depleted condition of those services through casualties in the War and the suspension of recruiting during the War; whether the existing situation is one of the main causes of the present disturbed condition of Egypt, since adequate supervision of native officials was, and is, impossible; whether the new obligations of this country to other Arabic-speaking countries necessitates a
    1882
    new system by the formation of a Civil Service responsible for assisting in the good government of all Arabic-speaking countries under a British Protectorate or Mandate; and whether, without improved conditions of service, chances of promotion, and rate of pension on retirement, it is considered probable that suitable individuals will offer themselves for employment in the Civil Service of Egypt, the Soudan, Palestine, etc.?
    Mr. D. WARD: A selection board representing the Egyptian and Soudanese Governments assembled in London during August and appointed candidates to fill vacancies in the Civil Service of the countries. As regards the second part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, it is impossible to analyse all the causes contributing to bring about the present disturbed condition of Egypt, but it is undoubtedly the case that the absence of sufficient British Civil servants during the War rendered the inspection and control of the work of minor Egyptian officials almost impossible. As regards the third part of the question, the proposal will receive consideration when the extent of our new obligations towards Arabic-speaking countries is determined. As regards the last part of the question, substantial improvement in the conditions of service in Egypt and the Soudan has already been effected, and further improvements are being considered.
    Major GLYN: Arising out of the question, may ask the hon. Gentleman whether Lord Milner's Commission, before they proceed to Egypt, will be able to consider the future government of Egypt with the knowledge that the British Government are prepared to set up a Civil Service which will embrace all Arabic-speaking countries over which we have either Protectorate interests or a Mandate.
    Mr. WARD: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.
    Earl WINTERTON: May ask whether the Milner Commission will be competent to inquire into the grievances, either individual or collective, of the existing British Civil servants in Egypt? Will that be one of their instructions?
    Mr. WARD: I am afraid cannot answer that question. Notice should be given.
    Earl WINTERTON: Cannot we have an answer to the question—it is a very important matter?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord must be aware that the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs is abroad on public business, and that the hon. Member for Southampton is only answering on his behalf.
    Earl WINTERTON: But cannot we have an answer from the Prime Minister?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think notice should be given of these questions in reference to Egypt. As my Noble Friend is well aware, this is a very delicate matter.

    BESSARABIA.
    Sir SAMUEL HOAREasked the Prime Minister whether Roumania has agreed to the requirements of the Allied Powers with reference to Bessarabia; and what steps are being taken to enable the population to determine their future government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question of Bessarabia has still to be discussed at the Peace Conference.

    MESSRS. KRUPP'S.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether his Majesty's Government have any information with regard to the establishment of Messrs. Krupp in Germany; whether this firm is continuing to produce large quantities of munitions; and whether any steps are being taken to ensure that adequate supervision is exercised to avoid any possibility of secret production of munitions on an extensive scale?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Our information does not confirm the suggestions in the first two parts of the question. It is the duty of the Supreme Council to have regard to such questions, and this, I am sure, is being done.

  AUSTRIA.

    ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CONDITIONS.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether the British High Com-
    1884
    missioner for Austria has reported that unless speedy assistance is given to Austria the day is not far distant when the whole of the Republics from the Swiss frontier to the confines of Hungary will dissolve into total anarchy; whether His Majesty's Government share that view; and whether the Supreme Council in Paris, including the United States of America, or His Majesty's Government are taking steps to deal with the situation?
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH- BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, with a view to restoring the economic life of Europe, the Government will propose that international credits be given for the purchase of raw materials by those countries of Central and Eastern Europe which are at present suffering from inability to purchase such materials, owing to the breakdown of their exchanges;
    (2) whether he is aware that considerable suffering exists in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Austria, and Jugo-Slovakia owing to the fact that the economic and financial breakdown is preventing the exchange of food, raw materials, and manufactured goods; and whether His Majesty's Government will endeavour to bring together the responsible statesmen of these countries with a view, to making the adjustments necessary for securing the free exchange of goods between them?
    The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are fully conscious of the very serious economic situation existing in Central Europe, and, in conjunction with the Supreme Council in Paris, are taking all possible means to alleviate the difficulties. They have reached the conclusion that only a comprehensive arrangement for a large international credit would adequately meet the situation, and it is essential for the success of such a proposal that the United States should contribute that part of the expenditure which has to be incurred in dollars. Urgent representations have accordingly been made to the United States Government in this sense. The Noble Lord's proposal for free exchange of goods between the various countries would undoubtedly tend to make conditions easier, and His Majesty's Government will certainly lose no opportunity of promoting such an arrangement, as they feel that the seriousness of the situation is such that all possible measures should be taken.

    Ex-SOVIET LEADERS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the refusal of Austria to surrender the ex-Soviet leaders; whether the surrender of these leaders meets with the approval of His Majesty's Government; and, if not, whether he will inform Sir George Clerk accordingly?
    Mr. D. WARD: Unless the hon. Member refers to the same incidents as the hon. Member for Kingswinford in the question which have already to-day answered, have no information on the subject.

    VATICAN (BRITISH MISSION).
    Mr. LYNNasked the Prime Minister the entire cost of the British Mission to the Vatican; whether he is aware that the presence of such a Mission is a violation of the Act of Settlement; and whether, in view of the attitude of the Vatican, towards Great Britain and her Allies during the War, he will consider the advisability of bringing the Mission to an end at the earliest possible moment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The total cost of the Mission from its inception until 31st March, 1919, is £16,920 19s. 2d. I have not yet received figures for the period subsequent to 31st March. His Majesty's Government are carefully considering the question of the maintenance of the Mission and will take a decision in the near future.
    Sir S. HOARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great political value this Mission has been during the last five years?
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be considerable opposition to the Mission being withdrawn?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware of both facts; that is why we are taking them into serious consideration. I fully realise the point put by the hon. Gentleman (Sir S. Hoare), that the Mission has been of great value during the War.
    Captain REDMOND: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will kindly inform the House what was the "attitude of the Vatican towards Great Britain and the Allies during the War"? It is stated hypothetically in the question.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think there is anything arising on that point out of the question.
    Captain REDMOND: "In view of the attitude of the Vatican "—what was it?

    GOVERNMENT CLERICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFS.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Prime Minister if he will give the figures for the number of people earning £3 per week and under employed in the Government's clerical and administrative work discharged during the last six months who were not in Government employ before the War, and the number still employed; the correspondng figures for those paid over £3 per week; the number of permanent Government officials not employed before the War and being paid over £400 per year who had been discharged, and how many were now employed; if those Government Servants whose salaries had been raised because they were in charge of large staffs, or because they were heads of Departments, have now had their salaries correspondingly reduced, the reason given for such increase no longer holding good; how many complete clerical and administrative staffs have been abolished, and whether any of the permanent Government servants formerly in charge of these had had their salaries reduced; and how many officers in receipt of retired pay are still being employed by the Government, and of these how many are being paid over £500 per year?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EX-CHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The various particulars desired by the hon. Member could only be obtained by calling for detailed returns from Government Departments, the preparation of which would involve an expenditure of time and labour altogether out of proportion to the value of the information obtained. If the hon. Member has a particular case or cases in mind, perhaps he will address a specific inquiry to the Minister concerned. As regards the fifth part of the question, temporary increases of pay to permanent Civil servants for extra duties or responsibilities are withdrawable when those extra duties or responsibilites cease, and have no reason to doubt that this condition is duly observed.
    Mr. ROSE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not think that the process adopted by the Pensions Ministry would relieve the situation, and that the easiest way would be to sack all the low-paid officials, rather than trouble about their wages?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that it is the desire of the House, as it is the desire of the Government, to dispense with any officials whose services are no longer required.
    Mr. ROSE: Is it only those who are getting low salaries who are not required? Are there none who are getting large salaries who are not required?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly. The question of whether the salary is high or low does not affect the usefulness or necessity of the services rendered.
    Mr. ROSE: Then why sack all the low-paid ones?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is singularly unfortunate in insinuating as a statement of fact something which is not the case.

    IRISH QUESTION.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he gave any undertaking to President Wilson at the Peace Conference that he would endeavour to settle the Irish question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to this question is in the negative.

    HUNGARY.
    Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Prime Minister when steps will be taken to make peace with Hungary?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Allies have been ready for some time to present their terms of peace to Hungary. Unfortunately, there was no Government in existence that could be fairly held to represent that country. At last, however, largely owing to the exertions of Sir George Clerk, a Government, representative of all parties in Hungary, has been formed to hold elections immediately. I trust that this will be the prelude to an early peace between Hungary and the Allied and Associated Powers.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that peace with Hungary cannot take place until after there has been a general election in Hungary?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it would be possible to negotiate peace until there is in Hungary a Government that is really representative of the people.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: And does that depend upon the election?
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he has information to the effect that the Catholic extremists are co-operating with Admiral Troubridge to retain the pro-Hapsburg Friedrich in power in Hungary in opposition to Sir George Clerk; whether this is contrary to the policy of His Majesty's Government; and will he have Admiral Troubridge informed of the necessity of supporting Sir George Clerk in all things?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I have information that the rumour referred to is without foundation.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this statement has been made in the Austrian Press?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

    GENERAL YUDENITCH.
    Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Prime Minister whether £1,000,000 has been placed to the credit of General Yudenitch in a London bank; if so, whether this money has been advanced by the British Government; and whether General Yudenitch will be entitled to withdraw it now that his expedition is a failure?
    The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government have no knowledge of such a transaction as that alleged. The last two parts of the question, therefore, do not arise.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    FOOD FROM DOMINIONS (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).
    Major M'KENZIE WOODasked the Prime Minister whether food coming from the Overseas Dominions will be subject to-the provisions of the Exports and Imports. Regulation Bill?
    Mr. BRIDGEMANI have been asked to reply. If the hon. and gallant Member will study the provisions of the Bill he will find that no article of food is included in the list of key industries; and that the powers to prohibit the import of goods on the ground of collapsed exchanges relate only to foreign countries. The only provisions which restrict importation from the Overseas Dominions into this country, therefore, are those to prevent dumping. These are confined to no particular class of article, but may be applied to any goods coming from any source. The application of these provisions, however, will in all cases take place only with the authority of a statutory body on which hon. Members of this House will be in a large majority.

    DUTCH BUTTER.
    Mr. CLYNES(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that there are 2,000 tons of best Dutch butter awaiting export to this country; that unless this butter be shipped to this country this week it will go elsewhere as the permits for export to this country expire on the 29th instant; whether it is a fact that the Treasury have refused to sanction the necessary expenditure for the purchase of this butter through the Food Ministry, and, if so, whether, in view of the present great scarcity of butter—a scarcity which will become accentuated—he will state the grounds upon which the Treasury refused to sanction the expenditure?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Treasury sanction was given some time ago for the purchase of Dutch butter at a price not exceeding £283 a ton, c.i.f., which may be taken as approximately equivalent to the price of 2s. 6d. a pound, which is the selling rate to the public in the United Kingdom. The price now asked is understood to be £330 a ton, f.o.b., and the Treasury has refused to sanction purchase at this price.
    In view of the condition of the foreign exchanges it is not in my opinion desirable that this country should make competitive bids for imported butter at prices which not only tend to cause further exchange difficulties but also a loss to the Exchequer when the butter is resold to the British consumer. It is essential that the available purchasing power of this country in foreign markets should be conserved to the utmost extent possible for the purchase of absolutely essential foodstuffs and raw materials.

    LEGAL TERMINATION OF WAR.
    Major M'KENZIE WOODasked the Prime Minister whether the legal termination of the War will not take place until the ratification of the last of the Treaties with countries which have been at war with His Majesty and his Allies?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Major WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what will happen if Turkey, or Hungary, or any other country refuses to ratify the Treaty?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The War cannot come to an end until there is a Treaty of Peace.
    Major WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great hardship that is being caused by the continued uncertainty as to the legal termination of the War?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have already said so with special reference to Turkey.

    GERMANY.

      FINANCIAL CREDITS.
      Mr. CHARLES WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the amount of the credits which have been granted to Germany by each of the Allied and Associated Powers?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The British Government have given no credits to Germany, and they have no information as to credits given by any other Government.

      INDEMNITIES (PAYMENT).
      Mr. WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the amount already paid by Germany by way of reparation or indemnity to each of the Allied and Associated Powers; and in what form payment has been made?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The Treaty of Peace with Germany has not yet come into force.

    GOVERNMENT ORDERS (ALLOCATION).
    Mr. CHADWICKasked the Prime Minister whether the Government, in placing orders on Home, Colonial, or

    1891
    Indian account, will have regard to the special hardships under which towns such as Barrow-in-Furness, which were engaged almost exclusively in the manufacture of material for the War, are now suffering; and will he ensure that so far as possible some clear priority in the allocation of such orders be made promptly to enable the workers in those places to weather the coming winter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have devoted a good deal of attention to the case of industrial centres which have been engaged in the production of war material where dislocation and suffering have been caused by the termination of war contracts. Much has already been done to mitigate the evils which inevitably arise owing to the change from war to peace conditions, and, in consequence, there has been little actual distress, and the conditions compare very favourably with those which ensued after previous great wars in which the country has been engaged.
    Mr. CHADWICK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the locality in question approximately 10 per cent, of the adult working population are out of employment to-day; and will he, considering that, give a reply to the second part of the question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I shall certainly bear in mind the statement of my hon. Friend.

    PRINCE OF WALES' FUND.
    Mr. CHADWICKasked the Prime Minister if he can now make any statement as to the steps which the Government feel able to take to facilitate the use of the Prince of Wales' Fund for the relief of cases of distress due to the cessation of the unemployment benefit; and whether he can recommend greater decentralisation of authority in dealing with purely local cases?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything to the replies which have already been given on this subject.
    Mr. KILEY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to consider the setting up of a Committee to consider what is the best use to which these funds can be put?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather not answer that now, because the
    1892
    subject is being considered very carefully at this very moment by the Ministry of Labour.

  COAL PRODUCTION.

    COAL-OWNERS' PROFITS (FIXATION).
    Mr. WILSON-FOXasked the Prime Minister whether the Government is pledged to fix the profits of the coal-owners at 1s. 2d. per ton; and, if so, to whom, on what occasion, and on what terms, this pledge was given?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, the Government pledge was given in this House by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the 20th of March, 1919, when he stated, on behalf of the Government, that they were prepared to adopt the Sankey Interim Report.
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: May I ask whether the pledge is absolute, or will it take into consideration the fact that the recommendations of the Sankey Committee on this point were based on considerations of output?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think my hon. Friend had better wait until the Bill is introduced.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has received, with reference to the proposed limitation of profits, any protest from the Cobden Club?

    RESTRICTIONS.
    Mr. KILEYasked the Prime Minister when legislation will be introduced to provide for a limitation on the export of coal, a limitation on the owners' profits, and a limitation on the price of coal supplied for domestic purposes?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. Legislation for limiting the export of coal is already in existence, such export being restricted by licences granted in accordance with the provisions of the Royal Proclamation issued under the Customs Acts. The profits of coal-owners for this year will be limited, by a Bill to be introduced very shortly, to 1s. 2d. per ton on coal raised. The price of coal for inland consumption, including coal for domestic purposes, is governed by the provisions of the Price of Coal (Limitation) Act. 1915, and the subsequent Coal (Pit's Mouth) Prices Orders.

    COAL CONTROL DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDSasked the Lord Privy Seal what is the explanation for the delay in presenting the Financial Statement of and Report upon the Coal Control Department which, by the terms of the Coal Mines. Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act, 1918, had to be made up to 31st March last and presented to Parliament; and if, having regard to the importance of this House being placed in possession of exact information with regard to the administration of the Coal Controller for the purpose of forming a right judgment on Government policy in relation to the coal trade of this country, he can state; when the said statutory Financial Statement and Report will be in the hands of Members?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. The accounts referred to by the hon. Member only relate to the receipts and expenditure under the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act, 1918 (Section 3), and do not include the cost of the Coal Mines Department. Particulars of such receipts and expenditure down to 31st March, 1919, will be found in Vote 26 of the Unclassified Services for the year 1919–20. Final accounts in respect of the years 1917–18 and 1918–19 have recently been rendered to the Comptroller and Auditor-General in the form prescribed by the Treasury, and will in due course be laid before Parliament with any Report thereon which he may see fit to make.

    HOUSEHOLD COAL (TEN-SHILLING REDUCTION).
    Captain BOWYER (by Private Notice)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, and, if so, how, the recent reduction of 10s. per ton in household coal applies to electric and gas companies; and whether any arrangements have been made that a corresponding reduction should take place in the price of electricity and gas to consumers?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, Sir; gas and electricity undertakings will receive at the reduced price that proportion of their total requirements of coal which the amount of gas or electricity supplied by them for domestic or household purposes bears to the total amount supplied by them. There will be an adjustment in the price of electricity and gas supplied for domestic or household purposes; and as to
    1894
    this, the Coal Mines Department is in touch with the interests concerned.
    Captain BOWYER: Have arrangements already been made to that effect with the gas and electrical companies?
    Mr. KILEY: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how electrical companies are to differentiate between electricity for private consumption and that for power?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid I cannot answer either of those questions offhand.
    Dr. MURRAY: Does that apply also to the price of coal for coastal steamers?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That does not arise out of the question.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Who is to pay the loss?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Answer !

  TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION.

    RAILWAY SERVICES (REORGANISATION).
    Mr. ATKEYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction amongst all classes of the commercial community with the inefficiency of the railway services of the country, and of the desire to see the railways restored to their owners and competitive conditions; and if he will state whether the negotiations with the railway workers' unions are known to and approved by the directors of the railway companies, or are of such a nature that they will not prejudice the return to those companies of their property when the temporary control assumed by the Government comes to an end?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot altogether accept the accuracy of the suggestions made in the first part of the question.
    The railways in all belligerent countries, including ours, are suffering from the failure to keep up their rolling stock during the War. The wagon supply is still deficient, although all wagon works are under full pressure doing their best to repair old and construct new wagons. But all this is due to the inevitable consequences of war, and it is unfair to attribute it to inefficiency on the railways or on the part of those controlling them.

    1895
    With regard to the second part of the question, the directors of the various railway companies are aware of the course of the negotiations with the men, and I do not think that these negotiations prejudice the question of the return of the property when the Government control ceases.

    RAILWAY MANAGEMENT (GOVERNMENT POLICY).
    Mr. ACLANDasked the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to make a statement to the House as to the Government's proposals for the future management of the railways and as to the negotiations with the National Union of Railwaymen on standardisation of wages?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No proposals for the future management of the railways have been put forward by the Government, though new machinery for the settlement of wages disputes and for the inclusion of representatives of railway labour on a railway advisory committee are under discussion, and hope to make an announcement on this point at an early date. Negotiations on standardisation of wages are not completed, and cannot say when I am likely to be able to make a statement of the result.
    Mr. ACLAND: Does an early date mean in this case before Christmas?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It depends on the progress of the negotiations. I have no complete control over them.

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH (INSURANCE PRACTITIONERS).
    Mr. A. SHORTasked the Prime Minister whether at a recent conference of medical men, held at Wigmore Hall, London, it was decided to recommend practitioners not to accept service under the Ministry of Health until a satisfactory rate had been secured; and whether he will afford this House facilities to discuss the matter?
    Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): The Minister of Health has been requested to reply to this question. A general conference of representatives of all local medical and panel committees is being held to-day to discuss the terms and conditions of service of insurance practitioners, and he proposes to receive a deputation
    1896
    from that conference to learn from them the outcome of their deliberations. In these circumstances he is not in a position to make any statement to-day on the subject.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM WAR LOSSES COMMISSION.
    Mr. HICHAMasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the Defence of the Realm War Losses Commission was appointed in order to prevent hardship to any of His Majesty's subjects through the operation of the Defence of the Realm Act, whether he is aware that applicants who have suffered direct and substantial loss have, in some cases, been ruined by the commandeering of certain commodities on which their businesses depended, have been refused compensation by the Commission on the ground that the interference of the State was indirect, and only those large companies, trusts, and others who controlled the commandeered article have received any consideration; whether, as the instructions to the Commissioners contained in the Royal Warrant make no distinction between direct and indirect interference, this differential treatment between His Majesty's subjects is with the knowledge and approval of His Majesty's Government; and, if so, what is being done to meet the hardships suffered by those whose claims have been refused by the Commission and who are not so well able to bear such losses as those to whom awards have been made?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The terms of reference to the Defence of the Realm Losses Royal Commission are not as stated by the hon. Member, but are
    "to inquire and determine, and to report what sums (in cases not otherwise provided for) ought in reason and fairness to be paid out of public funds to applicants (not being subjects of an enemy State) in respect of direct and substantial loss incurred and damage sustained by them by reason of interference with their property or business in the United Kingdom through the exercise by the Crown of its rights and duties in the defence of the realm."
    I am satisfied that every applicant who has suffered such direct and substantial loss who has come before the Commission has been granted adequate compensation in respect thereof. I am aware that certain applicants have been refused compensation on the ground that the interference of which they complained was not with their property or business but with

    1897
    the property or business of other firms or individuals with whom they had business connections which were adversely affected by such interference. This is in accordance with the Commission's interpretation of their terms of reference as expressed in their first Report, which has the entire approval of His Majesty's Government, and I am not prepared to advise any modification of those terms.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (DISCHARGES).
    Mr. WALLACEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the number of men being discharged from His Majesty's Dockyard, Rosyth, he will state when the Committee to inquire into the question of adapting dockyards for the building of mercantile ships will begin their work?
    The FIRST LORD Of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): I have been asked to answer this question. As I explained yesterday, the Committee will hold its first meeting on Monday, and will continue to meet day by day until its work is accomplished.
    As indicated yesterday, the Board had arranged to go into the whole matter of the dockyard discharges later in the day, which they did, and think it due to hon. Members who put questions to me yesterday, shortly to say that we have notified Portsmouth, Devonport, Sheer-ness, Pembroke, Haulbowline, and Dover, to the effect that
    "It has been decided to modify programme of discharges on reduction for present, in view of unemployment conditions, and pending result of inquiry already announced into possibility of undertaking commercial work. This will be done by still further bringing forward work which it was originally proposed to spread over a longer period. Steps are accordingly to be taken to reduce notices of discharge due to take effect on Saturday next, 29th November, and in subsequent weeks, down to one-sixth of number previously authorised, pending further instructions. In selecting employés for discharge on this new basis, every care is to be taken to provide for cases of hardship. As far as possible, men with families should be retained in preference to single men."
    As regards Chatham, where, as hon. Members will remember, there was much more definite willingness expressed to go on short time, we have decided to continue the policy in that yard of issuing no discharges on reduction. But in consideration of the steps which have enabled so substantially to reduce discharges
    1898
    elsewhere, the application of short time at Chatham will be so arranged as not to prejudice that yard.
    Mr. WALLACE: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue instructions to this Committee to expedite their inquiry and produce their report at the earliest possible date?
    Mr. LONG: It is quite obvious that the Government cannot issue instructions to a Committee, but that there will be no delay is indicated by the fact that the Committee proposes to sit de die in diem.

    EX-KAISER (TRIAL).
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Prime Minister in view of his reiterated pledges that the ex-Kaiser shall be brought to trial and the strong monarchical agitation in Germany, if the Allied Governments have made any representations to the Dutch Government to prevent his escape to Germany; if the latter Government has given satisfactory assurances on this point; and if the recent legal conference in Paris made final arrangements as to the trial and when it shall take place?
    The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first and the second parts of the question there is nothing to be added to the answers already given. With regard to the third part, the recent conference in Paris was not concerned with the trial of the ex-Emperor.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his information does not point to the fact that public opinion in. all the Allied countries is favourable to leaving the ex-Kaiser where he is? [HON. MEMBERS: No!]

  ARMY OF OCCUPATION.

    GERMANY'S CONTRIBUTION TO COST.
    Mr. KILEYasked the Prime Minister whether any payment has been received from Germany towards the cost of the Army of Occupation; and, if so, in what form the payment has been made?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been asked to answer this question. I must refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen on the 29th October and to the

    1899
    hon. Member for West Toxteth of the 27th October on the question of payment to be made by Germany under the Separation Section of the Treaty.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that our economic recovery is very much hampered by uncertainty as to the amount of the indemnity to be paid?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My Noble Friend knows that that does not arise out of the question.

    ULSTER DEPUTATION TO AMERICA.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that a delegation from Ulster is proceeding to the United States of America; can he state what are the objects of the delegation; and why passports have been granted?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My attention was called to the fact for the first time by the hon. Member's question. As to the motive of the delegation I have no information on the subject. I understand that passports were granted in the ordinary course.

    ORDERS IN COUNCIL (PROCEDURE).
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will arrange in future that Orders in Council and Regulations, which under various Acts of Parliament have to lie upon the Table of the House for a specified number of days, shall be printed and circulated to Members as soon as they are laid, to avoid difficulties such as arose over the Regulations of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, when Members were in ignorance of their provisions and unable to obtain copies of the Regulations in the Vote Office?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): In view of the expense which it would involve, I am afraid I cannot recommend the adoption of my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. GWYNNE: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to inform the House when the Orders are laid on the Table?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have made inquiries. I think I am right in saying there are six copies which hon. Members can see. I think it would be a waste of money to print and circulate them with the paper.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that hon. Members' attention is called to the fact when these documents are laid on the Table?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. Member means that something shall be done to notify Members of the fact that the documents are laid, I think that is reasonable and I will see what is possible.

    PENSIONS (TAXATION).
    Mr. SUGDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared to consider the revision or revocation of the taxation of pensions granted to the widows of fallen soldiers, sailors, and airmen, just as pensions granted direct to disabled soldiers, officers, and nurses are exempt from taxation?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The statutory exemption to which my hon. Friend refers is restricted to the pension, or part of the pension, attributable to the disablement or disability of the pensioner. Pensions to widows are by law chargeable to Income Tax at the reduced rates of tax applicable to earned income. In this connection, would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Hull S.W., and on the 10th instant to the hon. Member for Burslem. I am sending copies to my hon. Friend.

    BREWERS' CHARGES.
    Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the complaints that are being made by licence holders with regard to the increased charges imposed on them by brewers, in some cases amounting to an advance of 18s. per barrel since March, 1918, and whether he can take steps to ensure that the licence holders shall not be called upon to bear the major portion of extra taxation?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): I have been asked to reply. The Food Controller is not aware that complaints have been made

    1901
    except in a very few cases. On the whole question of the machinery which has been set up to deal with any disagreements arising as to wholesale prices and which is working well, would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on this subject on 3rd November to the hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge.

    INCOME TAX (ABATEMENT FOR WIDOWS).
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked this Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that by Section 13 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1918, an abatement for the purpose of Income Tax is given to a widower who has a female relation resident with him for the purpose of looking after his children, he will consider the advisability of granting a similar abatement to a widow who is earning her livelihood by outside work, and who has a female relative or other person residing with her for the purpose of looking after her children?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer, a copy of which I am sending him, given on the 5th instant in reply to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Newton.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will my right hon. Friend in considering the matter consider the necessity of equalising the rights of the two sexes?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If hon. Members had made suggestions when we were discussing the concessions made on the Budget I might have met them favourably, but now these things must await the Report of the Royal Commission, which I dare say will deal with the question, or it may be next year's Finance Bill.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Major - General SEELY (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether the Air Policy of the Government in respect to the Air Ministry is the same as it was on 14th November, 1917, when the present Lord Privy Seal stated that the
    1902
    whole of the Air Service must be independent of either the Admiralty or the Army Council; why the Secretary of State for War is now President, both of the Army Council and the Air Council, and whether the Air Council is now independent of, or dependent on the President of the Army Council?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that my right hon. Friend did not see his way to put notice of this question down on the Paper. Nothing has arisen in the course of the last two days which was not in existence before, and, therefore, notice might have been given. I will, however, do my best to answer, as far as I Can, in the short time at my disposal.
    It has already been stated that there is no change whatever in the Air Policy of the Government, which remains the same as it was when my right hon. Friend accepted the position from which, to my regret, he has recently retired.
    Major-General SEELY: May I ask the Prime Minister how he can say that there is no change in the policy of the Government as announced by the Lord Privy Seal when he said that the Air Ministry must be independent of the Admiralty and the Army Council; further, will he give an opportunity to this House to express its opinion on a change of policy from a decision which was so strongly endorsed by his own colleagues?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Army Council has no control whatever over the Air Force—none. It is perfectly independent of the Army Council.
    Lord H. CECIL: Not of the President of the Army Council.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is the Secretary of State for War, who holds both positions. That has been done many times in the history of this country, and it is thought desirable in this case. With regard to the latter part of my right hon. Friend's question, I have already said, in answer to my Noble Friend, that if there is a general desire on the part of the House for a discussion of the subject, the Government will find time—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no !"]—but I would point out that the pressure of business is very great, and we do not wish to allocate time unless there is a general desire on the part of hon. Members.
    Lord H. CECIL: Will the Prime Minister consider whether a few hours or half a day would not be quite sufficient for this purpose; has not recent experience shown that there is often half a day at the disposal of the Government, if they cannot promise a whole day, and could we not have a friendly arrangement that half a day should be assigned, without any inconvenience to the Government, to give the Government an opportunity of explaining to the House the rather metaphysical obscurities which have arisen.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ACLAND: Can the Leader of the House say what the business of the House will be for next week?
Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday there will be the discussion on Premium Bonds.
Tuesday, Land Settlement (Scotland) Bill, Report.
Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, the Government of India Bill.
I hope it may be found possible to take the National Assembly of the Church of England (Powers) Bill, if there be time, on Friday.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Carr and Major Steel; and had appointed in substitution: Major Farquharson and Sir Kingsley Wood.
  Report to lie upon the table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  AGRICULTURE (COUNCILS, ETC.) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  AGRICULTURE (COUNCILS, ETC.) BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.— (Substitution of Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries for Board of Agri culture and fisheries.)
    (1) It shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries who shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure, and from and after the date of the first appointment any reference in any Act or document to the Board of Agriculture and fisheries, or to the President of that Board shall be construed as a reference to the Minister.
    (2) For the purpose of acquiring and holding land the Minister for the time being shall be a Corporation sole by the name of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and all land transferred to the Minister by this Act or otherwise vested in the Minister shall (except where and to such extent as the land is held on other trusts) be held in trust for His Majesty for the purposes of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
    (3) Upon and by virtue of the appointment of any person to be Minister the benefit of all deeds, contracts, bonds, securities, or things in action vested in his predecessor at the time of his predecessor ceasing to hold office shall be transferred to and vested in and enure for the benefit of the person so appointed, in the same manner as if he had been contracted with instead of his predecessor, and if his name had been inserted in all such deeds, contracts, bonds, or securities instead of the name of his predecessor. For the purposes of this provision the Board shall be deemed to be the predecessor of the person first appointed to be the Minister.
    (4) Section one of the Board of Agriculture 4ct, 1889, is hereby repealed.
    (5) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Acts, 1889 to 1909, as amended by this Section, may be cited as the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Acts, 1889 to 1919.— [Captain Fitzroy]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Captain FITZROY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    4.0 P.M.
    This proposal has for its object the substitution of a Ministry of Agriculture for the present Board of Agriculture. It is not necessary to state at great length the reasons which make it desirable that this change should take place. Those who have interested themselves in the agricultural industry during the last few years are aware of the general desire throughout the country for a real revival of that industry, and must be impressed with the necessity of making the Department of the State which has to deal with it one of
    1956
    of first grade. It will be remembered that before the House rose last autumn there was a proposal made, by the Government before the House for raising the salary of the President of the Board of Agriculture to an amount similar to that received by the heads of the other big Departments of State, but through the vary proper desire of the House that at this particular time expenditure of that kind, if it could be, should be avoided, the proposal of the Government fell to the ground. That does not alter the case for this Department being under a Minister instead of being a Board. So far as I am aware, the importance of a Government Department does not consist in. the amount of the salaries which are paid, either to the head of the Department or to his subordinates, but in the status of the Department in being presided over by a, Minister. The other side of the question is the increasing responsibilities and duties which are rightly being put upon the Department which deals with agriculture. Not only is it dealing with many new questions, but it is also becoming the trustee, as it were, of the State for an enormous amount of land. For that reason, if for no other, it seems to me necessary that the Ministry of Agriculture should be a first grade Department.
    Captain FALCON: I beg to second the Motion.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): The effect of this would be to abolish the Board of Agriculture, as a Board of Agriculture, and to substitute a Ministry of Agriculture. Of course, this is a big change in name. We have always been known as the Board of Agriculture, and in the old days, long before the present Board was constituted, there was a board, at the beginning of the eighteenth century. But the Board is a name, and nothing else, at present. The Board itself is a perfectly ineffectual body, which consists, no doubt, of very eminent persons, such as all His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State. It has met whenever it has been summoned, but as it has never been summoned the effect of its meetings has not been very great. I do not quite know what particular advantage is conferred by the change of name, but if there is a general feeling in the country that it would be better to have a Ministry which would be a real Ministry, and would not be a Board which is what may be called a

    1957
    sham Board, we are quite willing to accept the Amendment, to disappear as a Board and reappear immediately under I the altered style of a Ministry. Some people think that if they call us by another: name we shall be better, probably, than we were before, I do not think we can be I better. However, if the idea is that we might conceivably be a little better, I am quite willing to accept the change; and if it is the general wish of the House, I shall be perfectly willing to accept the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause accordingly read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Duties of Councils of Agriculture.)
    Each Council of Agriculture shall meet at least twice a year for the purpose of discussing matters of public interest relating to agriculture or other rural industries.
    Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words "and these meetings shall be held in public."
    My object is to provide that the meetings of the councils of agriculture for England and for Wales shall be held in public. The Bill provides for the setting up in each county and county borough of an agricultural committee, and provides for the setting up for England and for Wales of separate agricultural councils. I lay great stress on the establishment of these councils if the Bill is to be a success at all, because for the first time it provides a statutory body which will be able to discuss agricultural questions, and we shall have a means of arriving at what is the real opinion of agriculture on questions affecting agricultural policy. It is quite true that, these councils have no legislative or administrative powers at all; they are merely consultative bodies, but if they are to have value it is absolutely essential that everyone who is interested in agriculture should know not only what are the decisions they arrive at, but what takes place at their discussions and on what grounds they have arrived at those decisions. It is a great mistake, in my view, that we should have public bodies meeting in private. The Royal Commission on Agriculture carefully shuts out the public from all its discussions, and its decisions carry no weight or authority. I am very anxious to see that avoided in the case of the new council.
    Mr. E. GARDNER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    1958
    I think it absolutely essential, if these councils are lo be of value, that their meetings should be held in public. I see no point in them holding them in any other way. It is useless to suppose for a moment that anything that goes on among ninety persons will do other than leak out in some form or other, and very likely in a very inaccurate form.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is quite reasonable and proper that the meetings of these large bodies should be in public. One of their objects is to arouse as much interest in the industry as possible, and if there are full accounts in the local Press and the London Press of their meetings, so much the better. I accept the Amendment.
    Mr. ACLAND: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the Amendment. These bodies are much too big to be any real good as deliberative bodies. When people really deliberate they should do it in private, but these would be such bodies that everyone would want to play up to the constituents whom he represents. In fact, every six months there will be a sort of general blow-off on agricultural matters in general, and when you are having a blow-off of that kind the more publicly it takes place the better.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment is out of order. It imposes a charge. You cannot impose a charge on the Report stage.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: As I understand the Amendment, it would not impose any charge upon public funds, but only on the rates.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is the reason for which I ruled it out. We cannot impose a charge on the rates on the Report stage. The next Amendment, proposing to apply the Bill to Scotland, is also out of order. The House passed this Bill on the distinct understanding that it was only applicable lo England. In order to extend it to Scotland or Ireland it would be necessary to move an Instruction to the Committee. No such Instruction was before the House.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: I raised this question on the Second Reading, and the Parliamentary Secretary promised to consider it before the Report stage. No question was raised then of its being out of order.
    Mr. SPEAKER: In order to extend the Bill to Scotland it would have been necessary to have an Instruction to the Committee. Of course the question of an Instruction cannot arise upon the Second Reading of the Bill, but when the Second Reading was passed, then would have been the time to apply for an Instruction to extend the Bill to Scotland. That was not done. You cannot take a Bill limited to one country, and suddenly, without any notice that you are going to do it, extend its provisions to another.

    FIRST SCHEDULE.
    (Composition of Councils and Committees.)
    1.—(1) The Council of Agriculture for England shall consist of the following members:
    (a) One member of each of the Agricultural Committees established by the councils of the counties and county boroughs in England to be nominated by the committee:
    Provided that, if the Agricultural Committees established by councils of county boroughs shall exceed twelve in number, the total number of members nominated by those committees shall be twelve and the members shall be nominated by the committees in such manner as the Board may by regulation prescribe.
    (b) Six members of the Agricultural Wages Board to be nominated by that Board in equal numbers from the representatives of employers and workmen.
    (e) Twenty-four persons nominated by the Board, of whom eight shall be representative of workmen engaged in agriculture, and of the remainder three at least shall be women, six shall be representative of the industry of horticulture, and three representative of agricultural education or research.
    (3) The Advisory Agricultural Committee shall consist of the following members:

    (a) Four of the members of the Council of Agriculture for England who have been nominated by the Agricultural Committees to be nominated by the whole body of such members representing the Agricultural Committees.

    (b) Four of the members of the Council of Agriculture for England who have been nominated by the Board to be nominated by the whole body of such members, and so that one of the persons so nominated shall be representative of workmen engaged in agriculture, another shall be a woman, and a third shall be representative of agricultural education or research.

    (c) Two members to be nominated by the Board in equal numbers from representatives of employers and workmen.

    (d) Two members of the Council of Agriculture for Wales to be nominated by that council.

    Mr. E. GARDNER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1c), after the word "work-men" ["of whom eight shall be repre-
    1960
    sentative of workmen"] to insert the words, "and eight employers of whom four shall be landowners."
    The paragraph provides for twenty-four members nominated by the Board, of whom eight shall be representative of workmen engaged in agriculture and of the remainder three at least shall be women, six shall be representative of the industry of horticulture and three representative of agricultural education or research. It is difficult to understand why employers of those concerned in agriculture are left out. They are mentioned in the preceding paragraph, but not in this. It may have been thought by those responsible for the Bill that the agricultural committees in the counties would nominate employers, but I am not sure about that. This is an Agricultural Bill, and although it is of great interest to all the country, it is principally interesting to agriculture, and it is for the purpose of furthering the interests of the industry in the whole country. Whatever the character of the county councils may have been in by-gone days they at present tend to become more and more urban. The rise of the small towns and larger villages will make them very much more urban. In, addition, the agricultural council has already twelve members to be appointed by the urban districts. Then the Board of Agriculture has the right to nominate one-third of these agricultural councils. I have the greatest confidence in the present Board and its chief officers, and I am sure they will not do anything that is not absolutely fair to agriculture; but this is a Bill, practically speaking, for all time—not a war emergency Bill—and I have not such confidence in the future of the county councils as to think that they will have that great interest in agriculture that I should like them to have. The interests of the employers and landowners ought to be considered in the composition of the councils. Reports appeared in the papers the other day of a conference held in London, and we were told that they had split on the question of who ought to be represented. Strong objection was taken to any landowners being represented. That gives some indication of the trend of opinion in regard to representation. The Amendments which I propose are, in paragraph (c) after the word "workmen," to insert the words "and eight others, of whom four shall be landowners and four employers of labour"; to omit the word "six," and to

    1961
    insert instead thereof the word "four"; and to omit the word "three," and insert instead thereof the word "two." Horticulture is to have six representatives. Although horticulture is a very important part of land cultivation, six members is a very large proportion to allow to an industry which is, comparatively speaking, only a small part of the great industry of agriculture. Three representatives are provided for research. I think two might do equally well. If the Parliamentary Secretary would be prepared to increase the present total number of twenty-four, the representation of horticulture and research could be kept at their present figure, and I should not insist upon those Amendments The inclusion of landowner representatives is indispensable. The landowners are a very small minority of the population, but in agriculture it is admitted that they provide two-thirds of the capital necessary to carry on. There is a grave danger that in future representation the landowning class should not have adequate representation on the councils. It would be in the interests of the councils that such representation should be given.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: I beg to second the Amendment. I do not tie myself to any particular numbers to be nominated by the Board, but it is very important that among the twenty-four persons there should be a certain number who are representative of landowners, and also of tenant farmers working upon the land. It is quite clear that when these councils meet for the discussion of agricultural questions it will be a serious omission if no voice is able to be raised there representing the interests of the owners of the land. It would be a disadvantage from many points of view. If these councils perform, as I hope they will, a useful purpose in friendly discussion on all matters of interest to agriculture- it will be a benefit, apart from other practical benefits, that all the various interests concerned in the land should be brought into amicable relations and have opportunities of hearing each others points of view. If the representatives of horticulture, education, research, labour and so forth meet to discuss matters, it would be of great advantage for them to know what was likely to be the view taken by owners and occupiers of land. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will recognise the principle of this Amendment, and, if necessary, in-
    1962
    crease the total number, in order that there may be room for a certain number of representatives of the classes covered by this Amendment.
    Mr. ACLAND: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not give way on this matter. The landowners and farmers will be adequately represented among the sixty odd representatives from the agricultural committees. I sit on one of these committees and it is practically composed of prominent farmers in the county of Devon, or landowners. Probably in this case they would appoint as their representative either the past or present chairman of the county council who happen to be members of the committee, both of whom are landowners, or possibly if they want someone who is likely to be in London they may appoint myself I happen to be a landowner—or one or other prominent farmers on the committee. I would not do anything to cut down the representation of the workmen or the representation of women, horticulture, education or research.
    Mr. McNEILL: Is there anything to necessitate the representation of the landowners and tenant farmers on the agricultural committee? I agree that in point of fact they are there now, but there is no security that they will always be there.
    Mr. ACLAND: The committees do in fact consist of prominent farmers or landowners in the county. It is extremely difficult for workmen to sit on the agricultural committees, and I think the House will be safe in assuming that the great majority of the sixty representatives of the agricultural committees will be farmers or landowners.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I hope this Amendment will not be pressed. The hon. Members who are supporting were not on the Committee which considered this matter. If they had been they would realise that we went into it very carefully, and after considerable discussion between the two sides, a compromise was arrived at. In the composition of the agricultural councils as originally proposed in the Bill, there was a, danger that urban representation would be too large. We provided that every county borough which established an agricultural committee should be entitled to representation. As there are eighty county boroughs in England it must be obvious that if they had all been represented, they might have

    1963
    outvoted the representatives of the country districts altogether. I met that point by a proposal which received general acceptance, limiting the number of borough representatives to twelve. It was further pointed out that the Agricultural Wages Hoard had too large a representation. I met that again by reducing the representation from twelve to six. Inasmuch as I am anxious that the Labour movement should be adequately represented I increased the number of Labour representatives who are to be nominated by the Board from six to eight, in view of the fact that by the reduction in the number of representatives of the Agricultural Wages Board, the number of direct representatives of Labour who would come from that board was reduced from six to three. In many ways it is undesirable that we should have this special representation at all. If we could have avoided it nobody would have been more pleased than I, but it seemed to me, as my right hon. Friend opposite has said, the chances were that practically all, or a very large majority, of the representatives of the county councils would be either landowners or farmers, and inasmuch as we want the councils to be an adequate mirror of the various interests in the land, and especially as we wish to take agricultural labour along with us and identify Labour as much as possible with the general prosperity of the industry, we felt it necessary to protect those which were likely to be a minority on the councils and we put in special words to enable Labour, horticulture, research and other interests, which might not get representation in the ordinary way, to have such representation. The whole matter was fought out in Committee, we came to a compromise, and I hope the House will not upset what was done in Committee, although, of course, it has a perfect right to do so if it thinks fit. The landowners and farmers will get adequate representation. We want to have an adequate representation of Labour. We want horticulture to be adequately represented.
    Mr. ACLAND: That includes allotments.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, horticulture includes allotments, which is a very important matter. Nothing is more likely to break down the difference's between the urban and rural areas than the allotment movement. Having regard to the
    1964
    importance of developing what is called intensive cultivation of the soil, I hold that six representatives of horticulture on a council of over ninety is not an undue proportion. Nor would anyone say that it was an undue proportion to provide that three should consist of women, nor is it unfair that we should ask for three representatives of agricultural research. It is to agricultural research, to such splendid work as has been done in places like Rothamsted, originally thanks to private enterprise and initiative, and to the dissemination of the knowledge thus gained, that we must look forward for the improvement of agricultural methods and the production of better results, and it would be unfortunate if we were to reduce the number of representatives of agricultural research. I do not wish to increase the total. The matter has been carefully considered; it is the result of a compromise, and I regret, that I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment. The existing proposal is, as has been said, the result of a compromise. If this proposal were granted I am not sure that there would not at once be a demand for an increased number of Labour representatives. We are all trying to create a better spirit between employers and employés for the development of agricultural industry, and if the workman thinks that the strength of his representation is to be diminished by including on these councils, as is suggested, more landowners, I am quite certain that, that will not help to produce the desired result.
    Mr. GARDNER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not convinced me, but in face of the opposition I have no alternative but to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Captain BROWN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "members" ["following members"], to insert the words "to be nominated with due regard to their geographical distribution."
    There seems to me to be a slight danger that members of this committee might be drawn from one portion of the United Kingdom. If that is so, I have very grave doubts whether other portions of the country will be satisfied with the decisions at which they may arrive. I admit that in the case of a somewhat mixed body, as

    1965
    this committee is, it may be a little difficult to arrange, but I do think that this is not a binding form of words, and it can be laid down as a general principle, as the Board is given powers of nomination, it can fill up gaps, so as to see that every district is fairly represented on the committee. In the North of England there is considerable feeling on the matter. We are afraid that if these matters are arranged by people who live close to London our interests may not be sufficiently considered. In this connection it is instructive to see how the committee which actually discussed this Bill was composed. Cumberland, Northumberland, Westmorland, Durham, and the North Riding of Yorkshire had three members. I only got on as one of the three with the greatest difficulty, while other counties nearer London had more representation. The county Sussex, which is smaller in area than many of the others, was given three members, and yet we find great areas of country unrepresented in matters which affect all areas alike. I am sorry to speak from the northern point of view, but it is not solely a northern point of view. It affects try part of the country equally, but I use the North for the sake of argument, because it is the place which I know, and we do claim that in this we represent what might be called the Highlands of England. What would Scotland think of a committee set up to regulate agriculture in Scotland if the Highlands of Scotland were absolutely unrepresented?
    We are in area something like one-eighth of the total acreage of the country, and out of that one-eighth we produce one-fifth of the total sheep. In the circumstances we are entitled to have some safeguard that our interests shall be preserved. I believe that Wales has special representation from the geographical point of view, and I am told that one of the difficulties with regard to Wales is the language difficulty. Is not there the same difficulty all over England? Have we not got difficulties of language in North, South, East and West? What sort of an animal would the House think I was referring to if I started to talk about a mule hog? They would wonder if I was, referring to a mule or a pig, and yet it is a kind of sheep. A committee cannot understand matters of that sort unless they have a local man to explain what the local people mean. The committee is a purely advisory committee with no
    1966
    executive powers, but the Board of Agriculture has to take advice. Take as an illustration the question of rabies, I am told that in the North the muzzling order is not enforced because of the fear that the miners would not submit to it. I quite agree, but this might be obviated if there was someone to explain to the miners why the order would have to be imposed. But if an order of this sort is issued by the Board alone naturally every miner does everything he can to get round the orders of the Board, while if he had someone who was more or less a local person whom he could abuse, he would obey the order and merely abuse his representative. But there is more in this than meets the eye. There is a great deal of sentiment in it. We feel in the North that unless there is representation to safeguard our interests there may be a very great deal of anxiety and that this committee may not have the confidence of farmers, as I sincerely hope they will.
    Commander WILLIAMS: I beg formally to second the Amendment.
    I would point out the necessity of trying to distribute the members of the committee as far as possible on purely geographical lines. One argument which might be used in favour of the Amendment is the different climatic conditions which affect various parts of the country. This is a matter which affects us more in the South than it docs those in the North, as climatic conditions are much more seriously interchangeable within a comparatively short distance.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: While I sympathise entirely with the object of my hon. and gallant Friend, I cannot accept the Amendment, because I do not know how it would work in practice. This is a plan for distributing on geographical lines the members of a body which is a very small body, consisting of only twelve members, who are distributed into four categories. I think that in practice to distribute these members on geographical lines would be absolutely impossible, but I can assure my hon. Friend that in choosing representatives on this advisory body the first thing that any county agricultural committee and any Board of Agriculture would endeavour to do would be, as far as possible, to get proper representation for every part of the country, and I hope, therefore, that he will not press the Amendment.
    Mr. CAUTLEY: While I have sympathy with the spirit of the Amendment, I have great doubt as to whether it is really necessary to put such a provision in the Bill. Perhaps the position would be met if the Parliamentary Secretary would give a reasonable undertaking that when making Regulations under Clause 4 of the Bill, regulating the proceedings for appointing the members of each council and committee, he would endeavour to secure the object of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, and also of myself.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: As far as we are concerned, we shall be quite willing to indicate in our Regulations that as far as possible the members of the advisory committee should represent every part of the country.
    Captain BROWN: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: At an earlier stage of the Bill an Amendment which apparently had the effect of extending the Bill to Scotland was ruled out of order. Of course I can understand that any general extension to Scotland would be out of order, but as, I understand the Amendment, its intention was merely to lead up to a very limited provision as regards Scotland. I think that limited provision could be inserted now, even though the, original Sub-section was not inserted by this House. It has been pointed out by Members from various Scottish constituencies that a difficulty arises from the. fact that although the English Board of Agriculture has no general jurisdiction in Scotland it acts with regard to diseases of animals in Scotland as well as in England and Wales, and I understand the desire of the Scottish Members is that on the Advisory Council there should be some means whereby the special circumstances of Scotland may be brought before the attention of the President of the Board of Agriculture. Therefore, though I could not accept any general Amendment which would give Scotland a general right to interfere in the affairs of England and Wales, I am quite willing to accept a limited Amendment. I therefore move, as an Amendment to the First Schedule, to add at end of Subsection (3):
    "(e) Two members to be nominated by the Secretary for Scotland, who shall be entitled to act only in relation to matters and questions arising out of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1874 and 1914."
    1968
    That would mean that if there is an outbreak of, say, foot-and-mouth disease or something of that sort, the handling of which affects Scotland, then at the next meeting of the Advisory Council we should be only too glad to have with us two Scottish representatives, who would act in relation to that matter and nothing else. Perhaps the Amendment I have moved will be agreeable to my Scottish Friends?
    Mr. SPEAKER: When I ruled out the previous Amendment I had not grasped that it was intended to refer only to the one standing last on the Paper. I thought it was of much wider scope, but, having had more opportunity of looking at it, I do not see that the same objections arise on the Amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL [Lords.]
  Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: I had intended to move the recommittal of the Bill, but now there is a new Clause standing in the name of the Minister of Transport which will meet the case so far as those with whom I am working are concerned.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I am much obliged for the observations made by my hon. Friend, and I beg to move, if I am in order at this stage, "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House," in order that this proposed new Clause, which incidentally may impose some charge on the rates, may be dealt with.
  Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I wish to oppose the Motion of the learned Attorney-General, and for this reason: I submit that the procedure which my right hon. Friend is adopting is altogether wrong in this case. It affords a very cogent example of the way in which the Government are more and more in the habit of treating those Members who sit upstairs on Committees. This is a Bill which has twice or three times, certainly twice, been passed

  1969
  by the House of Lords and come down here, and it has never succeeded in getting a Second Reading until this year. It went to a Committee upstairs to be considered. There was a great deal of the usual difficulty in obtaining a quorum. The first meeting happened to be appointed for a day when members had to attend a certain function. The meeting had to be adjourned. When the adjourned meeting took place there was a long pause before we could get a sufficient number to form a quorum. Ultimately, by the individual efforts of members of the Committee, we secured a quorum. The Attorney-General for Ireland attended on behalf of the Government and confined his observations to the extension of the Bill to Ireland. Beyond that fact no member of the Government took the least interest in the Bill. The only thing that occurred was that I was asked, as I was in charge of the Bill, to accept an Amendment providing that soldiers should pass free over any ferries—a suggestion which I, of course, accepted. After a great deal of opposition the Bill went through. There was a series of Amendments proposed with the object of extending the operation of the Bill beyond the county councils to district councils. They were opposed, they were voted on, and they were lost. Now we come down to this House on Report, Hon. Members who moved Amendments in Committee extending the operation of the Bill to district councils have put the Amendments down again, as, of course, they are entitled to do. Then at the eleventh hour along comes the Minister of Transport and proposes to move a new Clause which absolutely alters the whole Bill. I should rather say it is not a new Clause but a new Bill. The proposal is to leave out Clause 1 and to insert a new Clause 1. It is Clause 1 which provides that any existing ferries may be taken over by county councils, that two of them can combine, that they can impose a rate for the purpose of obtaining expenses, and if they come to the conclusion that the advantage of an existing ferry will fall upon some particular locality they can call upon that locality to bear half the expense. Now the Government, who have taken no interest whatever in the Bill up to this time, and have treated it with contempt, come down here on Report and desire to redraft the whole Bill, and because they find they are out of order they ask the House to allow the Bill to be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House. That is
  1970
  not treating the Committee upstairs with proper and decent respect. If you are going to let it be known that that is the sort of thing which will happen to Committees upstairs, it will be still harder to obtain a quorum than it is now, and that is saying a great deal. Under these circumstances, I submit that the Government should not be allowed to re-commit the Bill. The Bill would then go through in the form in which it left the Standing Committee, who considered it with great care, and that would be a just and proper course.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not understand on what ground Mr. Speaker ruled the Clause of the Government out of order, but I presume it was on the ground that you cannot impose a charge on the Report stage. There is another point of Order which not only prevents the Government from moving the Clause now, but prevents them, I submit, from moving it if the Bill is recommitted. It is that the new Clause is beyond the scope of the Bill, and that if moved and carried in Committee it would make this a new Bill. The title of the Bill is "An Act to enable County Councils to acquire existing ferries by agreement," and Clause I says that a county council may do certain things. The whole Bill deals with county councils. The new Clause of the Government alters that altogether and brings in, all sorts of other local bodies. I contend that if the Bill is re-committed the new Clause will be out of order, first of all, because it is outside the scope of the title of the Bill, and secondly, I because if carried it would create a new and totally different Bill from that to which the House gave its consent on Second Reading.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have already considered that point, but I do not think it is one which ought to be fatal to the Bill. The Bill proposes, as the right hon. Baronet says, to give powers to county councils. It is quite open to the House to extend that to district councils, and I think it is equally open to the House to extend it to borough councils. They are authorities of the same nature as county councils. They are not, perhaps, so large, and possibly some of them do not represent so great a population; but they are of the same class of local authority, and it is open to the House to extend what was originally proposed for county councils to all other local authorities.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL [Lords.]

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Local Authorities to Acquire, etc., Existing ferries.)
    (1) A county council may, with the consent of the Local Government Board, purchase or accept the transfer of, and the owner of any existing ferry may sell or transfer to a county council, upon such terms as may be agreed on between the owner and the council, any existing ferry which is within the area of that council or which serves the inhabitants of that area.
    (2) Subject to the provisions of any Act of Parliament under which the ferry was established and to the rights of any other persons, the county council may work, maintain, and improve the ferry and charge such tolls as were legally chargeable in respect of the ferry before the sale or transfer thereof to the council, or such other tolls as the council, with the approval of the Local Government Board, may determine; or, with the approval of the Local Government Board, The council may, if they think fit, free the ferries from tolls, and shall have the rights and powers which the owner of the ferry possessed and shall be subject to the obligations and liabilities to which he was subject.
    (3) A county council may join with any other county council for the purchase or acceptance, working, maintenance, or improvement of a ferry under this Act, or may contribute towards the expenses of the purchase or acceptance, working, maintenance, or improvement of a ferry by another county council.
    (4) In this Act. the expression "existing ferry" means any ferry legally established by Act of Parliament or otherwise at the date of the purchase or transfer, and includes all boats and other vessels, landing stages, approaches, apparatus, plant, and other property used in convection with the ferry.
    (5) A county council may borrow for the purposes of this Act, under Section sixty-nine of the Local Government Act, 1888, as if those purposes were mentioned in that Section.
    (6) A county council may, if they consider that any expenses incurred by them under this Act in respect of any ferry not being not the purpose of a main road should, instead of being charged upon the whole county, be to an amount not exceeding one half specially charged on any parish or parishes in their county specially benefited by that ferry, charge those expenses upon that parish or those parishes as special expenses.
    (7) Section eighty-seven of the Local Government Act, 1888, which provides for local inquiries, shall apply to any cases where the Local Government Board are authorised to give any consent or approval under this Act as it applies to cases where the Local Government Board are authorised to give any consent or approval under the Local Government Act, 1888.
    (8) In this Act, the expression "county council" includes the council of a county borough, and the council of a county borough shall have the same power of borrowing for the purposes of this Act as they have under the Public Health
    1972
    Acts, 1875 to 1908, for the purpose of defraying any expenses incurred by them in the execution of those Acts.
    The CHAIRMAN: The new Clause must come at the end. Perhaps the better course would be to put the Question, That Clause I stand part of the Bill. It seems hardly worth while going through the series of Amendments on the Paper. If hon. Members insist they will be entitled to move those Amendments. But it would seem to be a waste of time to do that.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Bill is only recommitted in respect of the new Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: I listened to the question put by Mr. Speaker, and it was re-committed generally.
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: This is really the enabling Clause giving county councils power to do certain things, whilst the new Clause which they propose would do something totally different.
    Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I desire to support the existing Clause, and for these reasons: I do not think it ought to be entirely forgotten that this Bill has been passed by the House of Lords and sent down here, and it is to enable the county councils to do certain things. That is the sole purpose of this Bill, as it has been of two or three Bills which have preceded it, and all of which have come down to this House. I submit that the existing Clause is the best one in order to make the Bill operative and to carry out that which its framers really desired. The object of the Bill is to take over existing ferries and also, by Sub-section (6) of this Clause.
    "A county council may, if they consider that any expenses incurred by them under this Act in respect of any ferry not being for the purpose of a main road should, instead of being charged upon the whole county, be to an amount not exceeding one half specially charged on any parish or parishes in their county specially benefited by that ferry, charge those expenses upon that parish or those parishes as special expenses."
    In the case of some ferries in small places it is assumed that at least half the traffic carried would be purely local, and under the Sub-section I have quoted the county council would have power to charge one-half the expense on the locality and the other half on the county. I think that is much the better plan than giving power to acquire ferries to any local authority

    1973
    I very much fear if that is done the district council or other council will say that the expense of acquiring an existing local ferry would be too heavy, and they would have no power to impose half the burden on the county, while the county council would have no power to charge half the expense to the locality. Apart from the question as to whether the House of Lords will accept the Bill in a totally emasculated form, and an almost unrecognisable Bill, I think that on the pure facts of the case the Clause as it now stands is much more practical than that which the Minister of Transport desires to introduce. I oppose the Motion.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: The county councils arc very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken for the great time and trouble he has taken in the House and in Committee in piloting this Bill through. It is quite true that this Bill has been supported by the Association of County Councils for some years past, because they thought that it was in the public interest that county councils, should have power to acquire ferries. It is quite obvious that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred ferries come within The purview and duties of one or more of the county councils. The Bill went through Committee, and was brought here substantially in the form in which it came from the other place. An attempt in Committee to get concurrent power for the district councils was defeated. The county councils attach the greatest importance to getting this Bill, and I understand the Government were approached by the County Councils Association and asked to give facilities for its passage. I can quite understand that the Minister of Transport found that the condition of being able to give facilities for the Bill was to give to the district councils and boroughs the powers which they have asked for. Therefore, I understand that is the reason why the new Clause appears in the name of the right hon. Gentleman. We thank him, too. The difficulty we are in is this: We prefer, of course, the Clause in its original form, because that is what we think is best in the public interest; but we would very much rather get the Bill in the form in which the right hon. Gentleman's new Clause puts it than not get the Bill at all. In a nutshell, the position is, we require this power as to ferries, and we require it urgently. If Parliament says we can only have it if
    1974
    other people—who may or may not require it so urgently—are given it as well, then we would rather have it on those terms than not at all. We know how much is attempted and occasionally effected in this House by that kind of pressure. I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen not to vote in such a way as to prevent what is the kernel of the Bill becoming law. It is a necessary power required by the county councils, and without it they cannot do public work which requires to be done. We hope, therefore, that the Bill will pass, and that the time devoted to it will not be wasted.
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): I would like to join with the hon. Member who has just sat down in expressing the appreciation we all feel for the very large amount of time and ability which my hon. and learned friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) put into this Bill in Committee. He has suggested that the Government has treated the Committee with, perhaps, scant courtesy in coming in at this stage, when the Government did not come in upstairs; but the reason that I have come in at this Stage is because I did not exist at the earlier stage. The Ministry of Transport became a Ministry after this Bill left Committee, and I was asked if I could do anything to help this through. I believed it was uncontroversial, but I was told there was a very strong feeling—and the representations made to me showed it was very strong—that this permissive power to the minor local authorities should be given. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will believe that there was no intended discourtesy to the Committee, at all. As to what we have done in altering what is rightly called the kernel of the Bill, we have made two alterations, which have real significance, the remainder seeming to me to be mainly consequential. One is that the operation of the Bill, so far as any Ministry of State is concerned, is transferred from the Local Government Board to the new Ministry of Transport, which did not exist when this Bill loft Committee, and I think that requires no explanation, as Parliament decided that the Ministry should have control of roads, and, not unnaturally, the ferries come in with them. The other thing we have done is that. whereas the county councils had the power. if they wished, by agreement and with certain consents from the Local Government Board, to take over the ferries and to

    1975
    charge not exceeding half the cost of acquiring the ferries to the parish, the change has now been made that the power to take over by agreement has been extended to the rural district councils, the urban district councils, and the county boroughs There is no question of compulsion. In fact, there was compulsion on the parish to pay up to one half in the Bill as it left Committee, but now there is no compulsion to pay; but either the county council itself or one of the minor authorities, or any two or more of them jointly, can, if they so wish, take over these ferries, levy charges, and assume the responsibilities I of the ferry owners. That explains the principles of the new Clause which the Government have put down, and therefore I hope the Committee will support the Motion to leave out the existing Clause 1, in order that we may substitute at a later i stage the proposed Clause 1 which the Government have put on the Paper.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think any Member of the House under the circumstances would object to that part of the new Clause which gives power to the Ministry of Transport to say whether or not these ferries should be run. We have, rightly or wrongly, given that Department very great powers, and probably it is almost necessary that they should have the further power over the ferries. But there is a very different question, and that is the empowering of all these other bodies to take over and work ferries. The Minister says there is no compulsion, but there is no need for compulsion, because if any of the local authorities offer a sufficiently large sum belonging to the ratepayers in order that they may do more municipal trading—because that is what it amounts to—the owners of the ferries will be only too glad to sell, and you do not want any compulsion. If there wore any compulsion at all, it should be on the local authorities not to spend too much of the ratepayers' money, which is being done in a very free manner at present. The rise in the rates is very burdensome, and no sane man of business would suppose that a local authority is going to run a ferry at a profit, especially these smaller authorities. What they want them for I do not know, because in the majority of cases, unless we have ferries across the Thames, for instance, there are not many rivers in county boroughs. The fact remains that if the Government Amendment is car-
    1976
    ried in its entirety, we are going to add very greatly to the burden of the ratepayer. For what reason? Surely it will be quite sufficient if we allow the county councils to run ferries where necessary, and I see no reason for allowing the borough councils to have the same privilege
    My hon. and learned Friend (Sir R. Adkins) put what has taken place, and said that pressure was put on the supporters of the Bill to require them to include the borough councils and these other bodies, and he said he was afraid that unless this was done be might loose the Bill. In other words, ho has been blackmailed. There is no other word for it. These other local authorities, who would not have had a ghost of a chance to get a Bill of this sort, have come down and said, "Unless you are prepared to include us, we will oppose you and prevent you getting your Bill." I think everybody will agree that you could not have a worse thing than that. Under these circumstances, and at this very late hour, I think it is essential for us to support my hon. and learned Friend, who apparently has taken very great trouble in Committee, in order to get The measure passed in the form in which it passed Second Reading in. this House, and I hope the House will oppose any attempt to override all these decisions in Standing Committee. I do not say we are never to be allowed to make alterations in the House through matters which have arisen in Committee, but I do say that we are not entitled, after a Bill has been before a Standing Committee, to make a vital alteration on the Report stage merely because certain hon. Gentlemen see an opportunity of getting some of their own particular interests by a sidewind into the Bill, because that is what it comes to. The Standing Committees, we were told by the Government, were to be the panacea for all evils. I have had experience of Standing Committees, and I know you can very rarely get a quorum except with great pressure; but the Government urged all sorts of arguments in their favour, and therefore they ought to support their own arguments and not allow a vital alteration to be made in this Bill. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will go to a Division, in order that the Government may see that if they are going to send all these Bills upstairs to Standing Committees, they must pay some regard to what has taken place upon them.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I have listened to the whole of the Debate, and I think the most interesting speech of all, which showed the thoughts at the back of some of those who are supporting the Clause being retained, was that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). He had not gone on long before we got his old theories out, and it appeared that underneath all this was his fear of municipal trading, but he did not attempt to demonstrate how. I confess that in this matter I am one of the "blackmailers," because I have dared, in trying to get a measure through this House promoted for a good object, to extend it to other local authorities, which, I venture to say, are quite as honest and quite as good as the county councils but; according to the speech of the right hon. Baronet, the only thing that exists that is honest and pure is the county council. If you go beneath the county council to the district council, no matter what its size, they simply want to get in to create a job.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I never used the word "honest," and I never used the word "pure," and I did not apply either epithet to the county council or any other municipal body, or the reverse.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I accept the right hon. Baronet's correction. So long as he is prepared to put us all in the same category I do not mind. But what is the real issue? This Bill went to Committee upstairs, and by a small majority the Amendment in favour of extending it to other authorities was lost.
    Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: District councils only.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I am told that upstairs an assertion was made by someone that the county councils were against the extension of these powers to any other local authority. I only give this from what I am told, but surely neither of the hon. and learned Members who represent the County Councils' Association will say that that is a fact. I have in my hand the correspondence between the Secretary of the County Councils' Association and the Secretary of the District Councils' Association, and here is a letter going back to March:
    "I read your letter of the 25th instant in regard to the above Bill before a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on Wednesday, and am instructed by them to inform you that they have no objection to the Bill being amended so as to extend the power of acquiring ferries to
    1978
    rural district councils and to make provision for joint action between the county and rural district councils, but they cannot agree to the deletion of Clause 6."
    It may be said they changed their views after that, but I have another letter of the 15th August, which is much later:
    "In reply to your letter of the 12th, Sir Ellis Hume Williams and the members of the Committee were informed some time ago that the County Councils' Association had no objection whatever to the inclusion of district councils, whether urban or rural, and therefore I do not know why suggestions to the contrary have been made."
    Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: No such statement was made to me in Committee. Someone stated at the meeting of the Committee that the county councils approved of the Amendment. He was asked to give some evidence of the statement, but he did not give it there, and the question dropped.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I shall be pleased to show the hon. and learned Gentleman the correspondence I have here. This is a letter signed by Mr. Johnson, the secretary. Why, if that is the case, all this strong opposition to the inclusion of urban, district councils? It is said by some speakers that almost all the ferries are county ferries. I venture to say that is not correct. Whenever there is a desire to give powers to these other authorities, and whenever you speak up for these other authorities, you are charged with having some ulterior motive. Because you try to get the same power for these other local authorities, and put them on the same level with the county councils as regards integrity, ability, or whatever characteristic-you like, you are met in this way. I sincerely trust the Government will persevere in the course it is pursuing, and I shall welcome a Division on the proposal for the deletion of this Clause.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLAN NERY: The old argument appears to be used by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), that Standing Committees upstairs are sacrosanct, and that, whatever be their decision, it must not be reviewed, and certainly not reversed, by this House.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I never said so.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: That was one of the arguments.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On the contrary, I expressly said that, in my opinion, it would be absurd to say that this House was never

    1979
    to review or alter a decision arrived at in Grand Committee. But I said this was a totally different thing, and that you must not reverse the whole of the Bill if Grand Committee had considered the matter.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: I do not see much distinction between what I have said and the correction of my right hon. Friend. What he has said really amounts to this, that the House should not reverse the decision of the islanding Committee on large matters, although it may do so on Small matters. As one who has suffered in having been a member of a Standing Committee whose decisions were reversed, I venture to say there is no possible ground for such a contention. The absolute duty—not privilege, merely, but the duty—of this House is to review all the decisions of Committees, whether they be upstairs or downstairs and upon the merits of the question which may be put forward, it is the duty of the House to arrive at a correct conclusion. What is the crux of the matter in this case? It is this, Shall the authorisation be given by Parliament to acquire ferries to county councils alone, or shall that authorisation be given to district councils who, upon the merits of each case, would show, to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Transport, that they should be allowed to acquire ferries. That is the essence of the whole matter. What is the substantial distinction between the county council and district council? If it is right, in the interest of transport as a whole in connecting canals together or districts together, that local authorities should have the power given to them by Parliament to acquire ownership and management of ferries, why should that privilege, why should that right, why should that public service be limited to local authorities who are called county councils, when we know us a fact that there are many district councils whose scope, influence, authority and power are even greater than some of the smaller county councils? There is no case for such a distinction on the mere question as to whether the local body has the status of a county council or the status of a district council.
    Let me take the Committee to another point, and it is that whether it be a county council, or whether it be a district council which may be authorised by Parliament, that authorisation must be carried out and exercised under the supervision of a Department of State. There is no
    1980
    division of opinion, apparently, as to which Department of State should have that administration, but the question I want to emphasise is this, that die Department of State which has to do with transport as a whole from one end of the country to the other is the Department which shall control, which shall letter if necessary, and which shall give permission, if necessary, to these local authorities with regard to the acquisition and the working of ferries. What has that Department to do? Its main duty—and this duty almost every hon. Member here supported at the last General Election—is to connect up and facilitate transport from one part of the country to another. Will you be carrying out that pledge given to the country better by restricting the acquisition and management of ferries to a small number of local bodies, or will you be carrying out that broad pledge, given at the General Election by the Government and its supporters to facilitate transport, if you allow a larger number of district authorities to have the power to acquire and administer these means of transport and communication? For that reason, and upon that very ground, putting aside altogether the distinction between what the House and the Committee upstairs should do, on the merits of the whole case 1. for one, will support the proposition that the whole interest of transport from one end of the country to the other will be facilitated by enlarging the number of authorities who have the power to acquire and administer ferry communication.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Protection of General public.)
    In the case of every ferry acquired under this Act, regulations with rezard to the working shall be made by the county councils for the protection from injury of passengers and the general public: Provided that no such regulations shall have any force of validity until the same have beer, confirmed by the Board of Trade with or without Amendment. Offenders against such regulations shall be liable to such penalties, not exceeding forty shillings, as may be thereby prescribed.
    Amendments made:
    Leave out the words "county council," and insert instead thereof the words "local authority."
    Leave out the words "Board of Trade," and insert instead thereof the words "Minister of Transport."—[Sir E. Geddes.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Crown Rights.)
    Nothing in this Act affects prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege, or exemption of the Crown and in particular nothing herein contained authorises any county council to take, use, or in any manner interfere with any portion of the shore or bed of the sea or of any river, channel, creek, bay, or estuary or any land, hereditaments, subjects, or rights of whatsoever description belonging to His Majesty in right of His Crown and under the management of the Commissioners of Woods or of the Board of Trade respectively without the consent in writing of the Commissioners of Woods or the Board of Trade, as the case may be, on behalf of His Majesty first had and obtained for that purpose (which consent the said Commissioners and Board are hereby respectively authorised to give).
    Amendment made:
    Leave out the words "county council," and insert instead thereof the words "local authority."—[Sir E. Geddes.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  >Clause. 4 (Exemption from Tolls in case of persons in Service of Crown, etc.) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Application to Ireland.)
    This Act in its application to Ireland shall be subject to the following modifications (that is to say):

    (1) References to the Local Government Board shall be construed, as references to the Local Government Board for Ireland:

    (2) A reference to the Board of Trade in relation to the confirmation of by-laws made by a county council shall be construed as a reference to the Local Government Board:

    (3) The reference to Section sixty-nine of the Local Government Act, 1888, shall be construed as a reference to Article twenty-two of the Schedule to the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1858, and the reference to Section eighty-seven of the said Act shall be construed as a reference to Article thirty-two of the said Schedule, and any other references to the said Act shall be construed as a reference to the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898:

    (4) The reference to the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1908, shall be construed as a reference to the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1918:

    (5) The expression "county district" shall be substituted for the expression "parish":

    (6) The power of a county council to charge on any county district, or county districts expenses incurred by the county council under this Act in respect of a ferry may be exercised as regards the whole or any part of the expenses so incurred, and as regards expenses so incurred in respect of any ferry, whether for the purpose of a main road or act:

    Provided that where a county council consider that any expenses so incurred should be charged
    1982
    in whole or in part on any county district they: shall pass a resolution to that effect and shall communicate the resolution to the council of the district in such mariner as may be prescribed by the Local Government Board, and the council of the district, if aggrieved by the resolution, may appeal to the Board within such time and in such manner as may be so prescribed, and the Board shall have power either to dismiss the appeal or to rescind the resolution and make such Order as they think proper as respects the area of charge.
    Amendment made: Leave out Sub-sections (1) and (2) and insert instead thereof
    "(1) The reference to the Minister of Health; shall be construed as a reference to (he Local Government Board for Ireland.
    (2) The expenses incurred by a county council shall be raised as a county at large charge."— [Sir E. Geddes.]
    Sir E. GEDDES: I beg to move to leave out Sub-sections (5) and (6).
    Sir E. CARSON: May I ask why Sub-; section (6) is put out, and what is substituted for it?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. D. Henry): The substituted Sub-section (2) provides that expenses of I the county council shall be a county j charge.
    Sir R. ADKINS: If and when the county council does anything, it comes on the general county rate; if and when the district council, then the district must pay for itself.
    Mr. HENRY: Failing agreement
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Extent and Short Title.)
    (1) This Act shall not extend to Scotland.
    (2) This Act may be cited as the Ferries (Acquisition by County Councils) Act, 1919.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "county councils" and insert instead thereof the words "local authority."—[Sir E. Geddes.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of Local Authority to Acquire., etc., Existing ferries.)
    (1) A local authority may, with the consent of the Minister of Transport, purchase or accept the transfer of, and the owner of any existing ferry may sell or transfer to a local authority, upon such terms as may be agreed on between the owner and the local authority, any existing ferry which is within the area of that local authority or which serves the inhabitants of that area.
    (2) Subject to the provisions of any Act of Parliament under which the ferry was established and to the rights of any other persons the local authority may work, maintain, and improve the ferry and charge such tolls as were legally chargeable in respect of the ferry before the sale or transfer thereof to the local authority, or such other tolls as the local authority, with the approval of the Minister of Transport, may determine, or, with the approval of the Minister of Transport, the local authority may, if they think fit, free the ferry from tolls, and shall have the rights and powers which the owner of the ferry possessed and shall be subject to the obligations and liabilities to which he was subject.
    (3) A local authority may join with any other local authority for the purchase or acceptance, working, maintenance, or improvement of a ferry under this Act, or may contribute towards the expenses of the purchase or acceptance, working, maintenance, or improvement of a ferry by another local authority, and any difference which may arise between any local authorities who have agreed to take joint action under this Sub section shall be determined by the Minister of Transport or by an arbitrator appointed by him, and such determination shall be final and binding,
    (4) In this Act the expression "existing ferry" means any ferry legally established by Act of Parliament or otherwise at the date of the purchase or transfer, and includes all boats and other vessels, landing stages, approaches, apparatus, plant, and other property used in connection with the ferry.
    (5) The Minister of Transport shall have the like powers with respect to the holding of local inquiries for the purposes of this Act as are conferred by Section 87 of the Local Government Act, 1888, upon the Minister of Health for the purposes of that Act.
    (6) In this Act the expression "local authority" means and includes a county council, the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of a county or other borough, and the council of any urban or rural district. Any expenses incurred by a local authority under this Act may be defrayed, in the case of a county council out of the county fund, and in the case of the council of a borough or urban or rural district as part of the general expenses incurred in the execution of the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1908. A local authority, if a county council, may borrow for the purposes of this Act under Section sixty-nine of the Local Government Act, 1888, as if those purposes were mentioned in that Section, and, if a council of a county, or other borough, or a district council, shall have the same power of borrowing for the purposes of this Act as they have under the Public Health Acts. 1875 to 1908, for the purpose of defraying any expenses incurred by them in the execution of those Acts.—[Sir E. Geddes]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir E. GEDDES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this Clause is going to change the whole scope of the Bill. It will be a totally different Bill to that which obtained a Second Reading in this House. There is another
    1984
    and much more important point which I think the House ought to be acquainted with, especially the new Members. This is a private Member's Bill, brought in as such. As such it obtained the Second Reading, It went to Grand Committee and came to its Report stage as a private Member's Bill—that is to say, it wont through all its stages up to Report stage as a private Member's Bill. What happens then? The Government star it—that is to say, they make it a Government Bill. If the Government had not starred it it could not have been taken up, because the Government have all the time of the House, as is the custom when, we unfortunately are afflicted with an Autumn Session. Starring has been rarely resorted to during the years I have been in the House; only on very occasional circumstances and on very small matters. The reason is obvious. If the Government are going to star private Members' Bills at all frequently—and I think this is the third they have starred already this Autumn Session—what happens They get the whole advantage of the private Member's Bill which goes through without a majority of the House paying much attention to it, in all probability knowing little about it, and having thought that, as a private Member's Bill, it would never get any further. The Government are saved the trouble of taking any part in the Bill. They need not even condescend to come upstairs to the Grand Committee. Then, after all these stages have been gone through, they suddenly take it up as a Government Bill, and alter the whole scope and tenour of the Bill.
    All the years I have been in the House there has been strong objection from all parts of the House—in the old days, when the House of Commons was the House of Commons—against the procedure of centuries not being carried out with due regard to the proper exercise of its functions by the House. This sort of thing was never tolerated. I venture to make this protest before it is too late. We have had some explanation, but many of us do not know very much about the Bill. Bills are hurried through. Even the Government do not know the proper course to pursue with these. I speak of what occurred to-day. If, on the top of all this, private Members' Bills are to be taken at the fag-end of the Sescsion and altered in this way, well, then, I say we are parting with a great many of the safeguards which existed in the old days, and the country will find

    1985
    to its cost that—well, I do not know quite what word to use—will find that it will be subjected to Bills which members have never had any opportunity of knowing about or speaking about. They probably will regret it when they find themselves suffering under these legislative enactments.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause accordingly read a second time.
    The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: At the end of Sub-section (1) to add the words
    "Provided that where no ferry exists within the said area at the time of passing of this Act the local authority may, with the consent of the Minister of Transport, establish and work one in manner hereinafter provided."
    The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment and the two that follow in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman are, I think, outside the scope of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman desires to make provision to provide ferries. I cannot accept that as within the scope of the Bill.
    Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: The Clause as it stands not only gives power to acquire ferries, but to free them from all tolls. Does not this Amendment of mine approximately do the same thing? Will not the Bill cover the two identical things —in the one case to acquire a ferry and free it, and the other to start one? Is not that within the scope of the Bill?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think not. Clause added to the Bill.

    TITLE.— (An Act to Enable County Councils to Acquire Existing Ferries by Agreement.)
    Amendment made: Leave out the words "County Councils," and insert instead thereof the words "local authorities."— [Sir E. Geddes.]
    Bill reported with Amendments [Title amended]: as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 224.]

  IRISH RAILWAYS (CONFIRMATION OF AGREEMENT) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Sir E. GEDDES: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  1986
  In asking the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would like briefly to explain what it does, and why it is necessary. When the Irish railways were taken over under war conditions at the end of 1916 it became necessary to do for them what was done for the English railways under the Act of 71. By an agreement with the Irish railways the year 1913—a prewar year—was taken as the base year upon which their net receipts should be made good to them by the Government. In Ireland there are two complications, which have to be met—first of all, by agreement now by means which this Bill introduces for the consideration of the House. The two points are these: Owing to railways being required in certain backward districts in Ireland which would not pay by themselves, there have been a considerable number of guarantees of minimum return upon capital given by local authorities. Roughly speaking, the cash value of these guarantees is about £50,000 to £60,000 per year. The guarantees are based upon an accountant's scrutiny, partly by officials from the local authorities and partly by officials from the Board of Trade on the accounts; finding what the net receipts for any year may be, then from that making up the deficiency for the total guarantee.
  Obviously, when the receipts were no longer divided and the railways were being guaranteed by the Government, on the 1913 receipts, it was impossible for them to afford the audited statement necessary before the guarantors would pay the deficit on the railways. This Bill provides that for that purpose, as for the purposes of guaranteeing the whole of the net receipts of the railway, that 1913 should be taken as a base year. It was not at all an unfavourable year; in fact, it was a favourable year for the guarantors. The other thing the Bill does is somewhat similar. It provides that 1913 shall also be taken when one railway is working a line belonging to another railway company on a percentage-of-receipts basis. Obviously that, under normal circumstances, would be the net actual receipts paid to the line in question for each year. As these have not been separately ascertained, and as the railways have been given all over the Kingdom, both in Ireland and Great Britain, the 1913 figure, they cannot, as in the case of the guarantors, give the actual receipts of 1913. What

  1987
  this Bill does is that it provides that for these two purposes, and in slight variants, the year 1913, net receipts, shall be taken as the year upon which a calculation shall be made during the period of Government control.
  Sir F. FLANNERY: That is precisely the same as in Great Britain?
  Sir E. GEDDES: The same principle. But the question of guarantee and of making up the net receipts has not risen in this country as in Ireland. In Ireland those conditions exist and it is necessary to make 1913, so to speak, the legal net receipts year for the two purposes.
  6.0 p.m.
  Sir E. CARSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he concludes, whether the guarantees apply to anything but light railways? Are they merely light railways?
  Sir E. GEDDES: I am afraid I cannot answer my right hon. and learned Friend with great accuracy on that, but I think not; they are broad-gauge lines.
  Mr. LINDSAY: Are we to take it that the guarantees paid by the State will not relieve the local authorities and the guarantors from their responsibility—that they will not be able to shift any of the guarantee on to the State?
  Sir E. GEDDES: That is the intention. I cannot take any particular railway, but if you take the whole of Ireland, it is less than if they had not come under the Government control at all, because the receipts were falling. If the year 1913 had not been adopted, the guarantors would have had to pay more.
  Mr. ROYCE: The right hon. Gentleman referred just now to light railways in Ireland. Is it not a fact that some of the light railways in Ireland are of 3 ft. 6 ins. Gauge?
  Sir E. GEDDES: Yes.
  Mr. WATERSON: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that some of the railways have been held back by the State. I should like to ask him whether those backward parts of the railway system have been developed, and at whose expense, and will that be taken into consieration when they return to normal conditions?
  Sir E. GEDDES: I am afraid I do not understand the hon. Member's question. This is not a question of building new railways in backward parts. Those are railways which were built before. It is purely a question of adjusting the financial guarantees for the years during which, owing to the Government control and the depletion of staff during the War, it has been impossible to arrive at what their actual receipts have been. What the Bill does is to make the year 1913, which was the year adopted for the Government guarantee, the base year for the other guarantees as well. That is all that is done. It is not starting any new railways; it is not giving new guarantees; it is simply a matter of adopting a statutory year which shall be taken as the year giving the net receipts for the period during which the Government control lasts.
  Mr. WATERSON: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I want to ask whether, since they were taken over in 1916, there has been any development in the national interest, and, if that development has taken place, who is to bear the expense?
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Sir. E. Geddes.]

  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "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."
  Resolution agreed to.

  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Home): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Last week the House dealt with the question of the unemployment donation, and, in the course of the discussion which took

  1989
  place upon the Government's proposal, I informed the House that a certain number of people, at present or prospectively out of work, would be covered by the unemployment insurance schemes which are already in existence. I further stated that it was the intention of the Government to produce, as soon as might be, a universal unemployment insurance scheme. During the time that we have been investigating the possibilities of a universal unemployment insurance scheme, we have ascertained that the amount of money which is now at our disposal under the Unemployment Insurance Acts already in existence, is sufficient to allow of larger benefits being paid to the beneficiaries than they are at present receiving. I dare say the House is well aware that the amount of benefit which is distributed at the present time to people who are insured against unemployment is 7s. per week under the National Insurance Act of 1911. That Act covers people in the building trade, in the engineering trade, and in the shipbuilding trade, and its benefits were extended by the Act of 1914 to a series of other occupations. These two Acts between them now cover something like three and a half millions of workers, all of whom have the right to this benefit of 7s. per week during unemployment.
  The reason why there is more money available than is represented by this 7s. per week is explained in a White Paper which the Government actuary has supplied, and which has been circulated to Members of the House. In the first place, the amount of benefit which could be distributed was estimated on a very cautious basis, with the result that it has been found that, as the result of the contributions, there is more money than was anticipated. In the second place, during the War there has been practically no unemployment at all, and even in the two years immediately preceding the War unemployment had become very low. Funds, therefore, have been accumulating. The result has been that, from these two causes, it is now possible, as the Government actuary shows, quite safely to give 11s. instead of 7s. per week to the people who am unemployed and who are insured under these national schemes. I am sure I am expressing the mind of the House when I say that, looking to the increased cost of living at the present time, it would be the desire of all of us to give the full amount which can be afforded under these
  1990
  schemes. Seven shillings a week is not what it was before the War, and even before the War it was a very small amount to give to a man who was unemployed. I am sure that the House will welcome an opportunity of adding to this meagre amount, and, since it is certified by the Government actuary to be possible, will agree that we should increase the amount to 11s. per week.
  It is necessary to have legislation to bring about this object. The Act of 1911 provided that the amount to be distributed should be 7s. We require to have that altered by substituting 11s. for 7s. In the next place, the Act of 1911 provided that there should be a discretion in the Board of Trade to increase the amount of 7s. to 8s., or to reduce it to 6s. We have got to alter those two figures by substituting 12s. for 8s. and 10s. for 6s. Then there is a provision in Clause 2 which I ought to explain. Under the Act of 1911 it is provided that trade unions might have the option of paying the unemployment benefit to their members and being reimbursed by the Government; but that was only possible if the trade union itself paid one-third of the amount which the Government contributed. To give the House an illustration, since the Government's benefit was 7s. per week, the trade union could only obtain the advantage of distributing the unemployment benefit if it provided 2s. 4d. per week. It may be expressed thus, that the trade union must provide one-third of what the Government provided before it could enjoy that privilege. If the Government's payment is increased to 11s., it is obvious that one-third of 11s. is 3s. 8d., instead of 2s. 4d., and that gives rise to this difficulty: Many unions have struggled, in order to have the opportunity of dispensing this benefit, to pay the necessary one-third, and their arrangements at the present time are suitable for getting enough funds from their members, to contribute this one-third; but if we were suddenly to ask them to contribute more, it would so dislocate their arrangements that in many instances they would not be able to give the necessary contribution. Accordingly, we propose in Clause 2 that, at least until the 31st December, 1920, although the Government contribution has increased, the necessary contribution paid by the trade union should not be increased. After the 31st December, 1920, the trade unions will be put in the same position in which they previously were;

  1991
  that is to say, they will only have the privilege of dispensing the Government benefit if they pay one-third of the contribution which the Government gives.
  The Bill in its essence is very simple. Its objects, I venture to say, are good, and are such as the whole House would readily agree to at the present time. It is very necessary that we should have the powers as rapidly as possible, looking to the fact that we are now at the beginning of winter weather, and that many people may stand in need of this unemployment benefit. Accordingly I will venture to appeal to the House to give this Bill as rapid a passage as possible.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to have some interpretation of Clause 2.
  "Notwithstanding the increase in the rate of unemployment benefit effected by this Act the expression "unemployment benefit under the principal Act" in Sub-section (1) of Section thirteen of the National Insurance (Part II. Unemployment) Act, 1914 (which limits the power to make or continue arrangements with associations under Section one hundred and five of the National Insurance Act, 1911), shall, during the period ending on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty, be construed as meaning unemployment benefit at the rate payable before the commencement of this Act."
  I cannot understand what on earth that means.
  Sir R. HORNE: I have just explained it.
  Mr. HALLAS: In making a modest contribution to the debate on this Bill, I should like to address myself to what I regard as the intentions of the Bill and the results. The Bill intends to make better provision for the unemployed, and the proposal is to increase the unemployment pay from 50 to 66 per cent. I want to call the attention of the House at once to the fact that the increase in the cost of living is no less than 130 per cent., and it does seem to me that to increase the unemployment pay from 50 to 66 per cent, to meet that increased cost of living is, to say the least of it, to provide us with a very unsatisfactory Bill. We have been told over and over again during the War that we are never again to return to the deplorable conditions of poverty and unemployment that so often occurred previous to the War. The Prime Minister has told us "The old world must end, where unemployment, through the vicissitudes of industry, brought despair to multitudes of humble homes." I hold it an ethical and elementary right that a
  1992
  wealthy country like this should either find work for its adult population or provide adequate maintenance. There are surely sufficient means to find work, failing which there is wealth with which to provide adequate maintenance. I am aware that an actuarial valuation has given figures showing that the increased allowances suggested in the Bill will entirely swallow up the premiums obtained under the Act of 1911 and 1918. Surely it is recognised as only too true that unemployment means poverty and that poverty breeds vice and disease and crime. We know that disease and crime cost this country a considerable sum of money. Congested workhouses, crowded prisons, and overflowing asylums are so costly that if by giving a better unemployment benefit we can save the cost of these institutions we shall surely find that the increased allowances suggested will be economical from every point of view.
  I am not content to be told that some other proposals are to be placed before this House in a little while. The workers of the country want something now, and I would impress upon the Government the seriousness of the position as shown by what occurred yesterday in Sheffield, where a crowd of unemployed thrust themselves upon the council meeting and protested very strongly against the stopping of the Government unemployment donation. The spirit of the country to-day is such that nobody can reasonably expect the working classes to starve peaceably, and the allowances suggested in this Bill mean starvation. The increases will not cover the increases which we are led to expect will take place in rents alone. Nobody can be surprised at the alarm with which this Bill is being viewed by those who know what it is to tramp the streets in search of a job and to knock at office doors while the wife and family are waiting anxiously at home the result of their efforts. If we are to press forward to the new world about which our Prime Minister so grandiloquently speaks, it seems to me that we should begin right here by saying that all possible shall be done to provide work for the adult population, and, failing the finding of that work, that all possible shall be done to save the people from poverty. Never again do we want to see the unemployed standing at our street corners, wrapping their rags about them. If that is to happen there are not wanting those who will want to know and who will ask: What, after all, did they fight for in

  1993
  the Great War? We were proud of the fact during the War that we were a great family and a huge team working together for the common good. Has the time now come when we can put aside these beautiful sentiments which, put into concrete form, saved civilisation? Cannot we continue to be a team and a family and so regulate the economic conditions of this country that something more than a miserable pittance of this character shall fee adopted in this House in order to meet poverty? The Bill is good so far as it goes, but it does not by any means go far enough. The least that could be done, the irreducible minimum which would satisfy Labour, would be to double the amount suggested in the Bill.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hallas) appears to have lost sight of the fact that this is an Insurance Bill. It is not a question whether the benefit to be derived under this Bill is or is not sufficient to supply the wants of a certain portion of the population, but whether the actual funds in the Insurance Fund are sufficient to give the benefits named. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Government actuaries have arrived at the conclusion that the benefit can be extended from 7s. to 11s. Is that intended to be a permanent part of the Insurance Act?
  Sir R. HORNEindicated assent.
  Mr. McNEILL: Does that mean that the accumulations derived from the fortunate good employment during the four years of war will enable the benefits for all time to be extended from 7s. to 11s.? If that be so, does it not point to a very serious error in the estimate when the original Act of 1911 was passed, because my recollection is very clear that when we were debating that Bill the apprehension was very generally expressed that the Insurance Fund would be insufficient to meet the benefits? It is a very happy circumstance if the estimate has turned out so completely wrong as it appears to have done. I understood from my right hon. Friend that the extra benefits can be expected in the future regardless of whether there are accumulations or not, assuming, I suppose, the average of unemployment in the years to come. I understood him to say, further, that for thirteen months the special contribution from the trade unions in consideration of whch they have been allowed a share in the administration is to be suspended. In other words,
  1994
  that the contributions to the funds will be less by so much for thirteen months. That means that the total amount of contributions will be reduced by that amount. If that be so, would it not have been better that the privileges should also have been suspended during that period, because it is possible, if the administration had depended upon it, that the contribution in many instances would have been continued during those thirteen months, and that the insurance fund would have benefited by that amount and would have been in a stronger position when the thirteen months had elapsed than it is likely to be when depleted by that amount? It appears to me, therefore, that my right hon. Friend is being rather over generous than under generous. I only want to ask whether it is quite certain that the fund will be so strong that it can bear that strain placed upon it.
  Mr. R. YOUNG: While I agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Hallas) as to the necessity for doing what we can for the working classes thrown out of employment, I recognise that we are now dealing with the terms of the Acts of 1911 and 1918. I want, however, to say that I trust the Government, as a result of this measure, will not fail to fulfil their intention of dealing with the unemployment question as speedily as possible. I was glad to hear the re-assuring answer given this afternoon, but we cannot be too insistent in calling attention to the fact that all the great questions affecting our industries to-day will never be settled until we deal with this problem of unemployment. The dread of unemployment is stultifying in many directions that which to-day should be done in the interests of the country, and I therefore do urge my right hon. Friend to use all his influence to induce the Government to bring in as speedily as possible their Bill to deal with universal insurance. They will find that some industries will prefer to deal with the matter themselves, but I hope the Government will make no delay in the matter. I want to take the opportunity to refer to a remark made yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). I am afraid that he is under the misapprehension that the trade unions are being largely subsidised by these Insurance Acts so far as unemployment is concerned. That is not so. Although they get one-sixth from the Government, they have to do all the clerical work attached to paying

  1995
  out the benefits through the general offices and the branches of the societies, and the paltry sixpence that some get does not compensate them for the work. You must remember that when this was brought in some societies which had paid no unemployment benefit, and others which had paid but a very small sum, were encouraged either to pay a benefit or to increase their payment, so that the unemployed might have at least something like 9s. 4d., or even more. Certain societies immediately commenced to pay 10s. a week, the result being that the subsidy to them was 6d. out of the 10s., because they were doing work which the State had passed on to them. I trust, therefore, no one will run away with the idea that the trade union movement of this country is making a large amount of money out of the administration of the National Health Insurance Unemployment Fund. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity of using the surplus already accumulated for increasing the benefit to be paid, but I trust that by the end of 1920 it will be found there is no need to put into practice the proviso which is contained in the second Clause of this Bill. I hope by then some other solution will have been found and that the trade unions will not be called upon to increase their unemployment benefit to their members. Some of the societies already, in addition to the 7s. given by the State, pay 10s. per week to unemployed members. Therefore I do not think you have any right to call upon the trade unions to throw their rules into the melting pot and to call a special delegate meeting, which may involve an outlay of £2,000 or £3,000 on the part of the society for the purpose merely of altering their rules in this connection. I trust that that point will be reconsidered before the time arrives. It means a very large sum to the trade unions to call meetings for the purpose of altering rules, and that necessity should be obviated entirely. I am pleased the right hon. Gentleman is using the extra funds in the Unemployment Fund to increase the benefit to those who unfortunately at this time are out of work, but the 4s. increase per week which has been provided is scarcely more than a 55 per cent, increase, which compares very badly with the increase in the cost of living, and there is no hope, I should say, that by the end of 1920 even the cost of living will have been decreased to that extent.
  Sir E. CARSON: I think the statement of my right hon. Friend is from many aspects very satisfactory, and the House must be pleased to know that the basis on which the 7s. was originally fixed on the average of the then unemployment in this country has been shown to be wrong, because it means that employment even before the War had improved on the average in this country. Of course, we know that during the War unemployment was a very rare thing. That is satisfactory in itself, but I think it is also satisfactory in this, that I hope it will encourage my right hon. Friend and the Government to-at once grapple with the whole problem. It is quite clear now that, you can get a benefit of a satisfactory nature with regard to unemployment, and whether it may be necessary to call for an increased contribution, either from employers or employed or from the State, it is quite plain, from the calculations made in 1911, that you can fulfil a great work in this respect on such statistics as you are able to get. This should be an encouragement to the Government to bring in a larger scheme, such as they promised the other evening when we had the question of the out-of-works under discussion—a scheme which I understood the Labour party to promise they would gladly assist. So much for that. I think there is a good deal of misapprehension in the country upon one other matter to which I should like to refer. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hallas) suggested that this was not a worthy increase to make to the men who had come back after fighting at the Front. That would lead one to suppose that the out-of-work donation had been dropped as regards these men. But I understand that that is not so. It is still going on, and, moreover, these men do not get the insurance we are now dealing with. It has nothing to do with them, and consequently the eloquent peroration in which the hem. Member indulged loses its force, because the soldiers who have served are specially provided for. It should not go forth to the country that they are under the unemployment benefit in the Insurance Act, but it should be known that special provision is made for them, and this particular proposal has nothing to do with their case.
  Mr. HALLAS: I was referring to those soldiers who had returned to civil life and were no longer recipients of the donation.
  Sir R. HORNE: By leave of the House, I will answer the questions which have

  1997
  been put to me. I should like to say at once I am very pleased to give an assurance that the Government intend to proceed with all speed with the larger measure we desire to see brought into operation at the earliest possible moment, and I hope to be able to introduce the Bill at a very early date. The matter with which we are now dealing is only a very small section of the problem. When I consulted the Government actuary I found it was possible to increase the amount of the benefit to the unemployed, and that is the sole object of this particular measure. The Government actuary, in explaining the position, stated that owing to the lack of suitable data at the time the original calculation was made the risk of unemployment was over-valued, while the benefit was fixed at a suitably lower rate than would have been otherwise laid down. With regard to Clause 2, the position is really this: Under Section 105 of the 1911 Act it was provided that the trade unions might dispense this benefit and have paid to them the amount of the Government contribution, but it was arranged that if they received the 7s. they should pay out 9s. 4d. in all. Now the Government contribution is to be 11s., and if the House approves of the proposal now before it the trade unions will make the donation up to 13s. 4d. If the matter were left as it stands the trade unions would as a matter of fact, if the same proportions were retained, be called upon to distribute 14s. 8d., but in order not to dislocate their financial arrangements it has been decided to give them until December next year to rearrange their finances. Up to December next year they will, therefore, only be called upon to pay 2s. 4d. over the Government Grant, but after that they will be required to provide 3s. 8d. I hope I have made the point clear, and I ask the House to give us the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I do not think my right hon. Friend has made it quite clear whether the increase now proposed from 7s. to 11s. will be a permanent increase, or whether it is only to be a temporary increase consequent on the accumulations referred to by the right hon. Gentleman?
  Sir R. HORNE: I am sorry not to have answered that part of the question. It will be a permanent increase, because, as a result of the over-valuation of the risk, you can give more benefit than was proposed in the original estimate. Accord-
  1998
  ingly, the increase will be permanent, and it will not require any extra contribution to keep it in existence.
  Mr. SPENCER: If there be an accumulation of funds and it is contemplated bringing in a new scheme, would it not be possible to increase the benefit over and above the amount now proposed?
  Sir R. HORNE: I do not think it would be possible now to give more than 11s. under the present arrangement, but I hope when the permanent scheme of uniform insurance is brought in it will be possible to increase the benefit altogether.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): I beg to move, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Mr. SPEAKER: On what day?
  Sir R. HORNE: Now.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I hope it is not proposed to take the Committee stage today. No one has any objection to the Bill. We set a very bad precedent during war-time in endeavouring to take a number of stages of a Bill on one particular day, and I do not think we should now follow it. The Committee could be gone through in five minutes on any day the Government like to put the Bill down, and I hope they will not repeat the practice adopted in war-time, one which, in my opinion, is very bad in peace time.
  Sir R. HORNE: I readily accept my right hon. Friend's suggestion. We will take it on Monday.

  MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Although this is merely a financial measure, the effects of the Bill are more far-reaching than merely financial. The

  1999
  problem with which we have to deal is, in effect, the necessity, in the light of experience of making it possible to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission appointed in 1904 to report on the question of the feeble-minded. Hon. Members who have read the Fourth Annual Report of the Board of Control for the year 1917 will realise that these measures which we have been able to take up to the present moment are wholly inadequate to deal with this very important question. Not only have the few years which have elapsed since the passing of the Lunacy Act of 1913 been disturbed by the War, and therefore circumstances have made it impossible to devote as much attention as should have been given to this very important question, but the increase in the cost of everything has made it quite impossible for the local authorities to carry out their functions under that Act unless they received a larger sum from the State. There is also the further point, and it cannot be overlooked that many feeble-minded persons were able during the War to obtain regular employment. They, unfortunately, are perhaps the first to lose their employment under present conditions, and it is advisable, in the interests of these unfortunate people themselves no less than in the interest of the community, that no steps should be spared to deal with the matter in a humane and efficient manner. In order to do that, it is necessary to afford the local authorities financial support, without which it is impossible for them to deal with this important and complicated question. Furthermore, it is necessary to stimulate the activity of some of the local authorities who have not seen their way to throw as much energy into this branch of their duties as the importance and seriousness of the subject demand. It is hoped, therefore, that by increasing the contributions—that is to say, by removing the limit of the total sum which the Treasury can pay in the shape of the 50 per cent, grant to the local authorities towards the sums spent by them in dealing with the feeble-minded, to enable these local authorities to embark upon a much more thorough scheme of work than has been possible in the past. It will be readily understood that the difficulty of estimating the work required to carry out this 1913 Act has been very great when the authorities have not known what sum they could rely upon from the
  2000
  Treasury, and since the total amount that the Treasury may pay to the country as a whole was limited, it was impossible for any one authority to know what share would come to them.
  Briefly, the experience of the working of the Act of 1913 has been to show that that Act is not carrying out the work for which it was passed by Parliament, and that the moment has arrived which appears to have been contemplated when that Act was under discussion, for the very Clause (Clause 4) which we desire to amend contains the phrase "there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament," and so forth, and then the phrase ''unless Parliament should otherwise determine." Therefore it was obviously and wisely contemplated that there should be no finality in dealing with a matter so important as that which we now have under consideration. I, therefore, come to the House to ask that the financial limit, imposed by the Act of 1913 on the total amount of the Treasury Grant both as regards England and Scotland, should be removed. The White Paper, which has been in the hands of hon. Members for some days, shows that the total expenditure contemplated eventually will be £1,400,000. It is not anticipated that the total sum will be expended in any one year before, at least, five years from now, and, of course, the gradual increase of expenditure cannot be accurately estimated. In the remaining months of the financial year not a very large sum, unfortunately, can be spent but it is very important that the House should sanction the policy embodied in this Bill, which is not merely a policy of humanity towards a most unfortunate section of the community, but a really wise social reform which, I think, all sections of the House will approve and support.
  As regards the Clauses of the Bill, Clause I hardly requires any explanation. Under the Act of 1913, the Treasury is limited to a Grant of £150,000 to the English and Welsh local authorities in connection with, measures taken by them to deal with the feeble-minded Since the local authorities are not called upon to deal with these cases beyond the point where they can receive from the Exchequer half the total sum expended, the limitation imposed on their activities is very clear. That limitation is very unfortunate, and has had a most hampering effect on this very important work. The same thing applies to Scotland, with the difference that the limit

  2001
  there is smaller, being only £20,000. It is estimated that in England and Wales the number of people who ought to be dealt with is something like 21,700. In Scotland the number is 4,000. It is estimated that each case will require something like £60 per annum for treatment. The necessity, therefore, for removing the limit, which exercises so hampering an effect, I think hardly needs to be dwelt on at any length. Clause 2 of the Bill has reference to the Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1857, which imposed a limit to the interest which might be paid by Scottish local authorities on the sums borrowed by them. The interest was 5 per cent., which was, no doubt, an adequate and proper amount in 1857, but which can hardly be considered a proper sum now. Therefore, it is sought to obtain the removal of the limit on the amount of interest payable by local authorities on borrowed money. Clause 3, again, has reference to a purely Scottish matter—the power of district boards in Scotland to borrow for current expenditure. The rates imposed annually to provide for the ordinary current expenditure of district boards are not usually levied till about the middle of the local financial year (which runs from 15th May to 15th May) and the collection takes place about two months later. Thus about eight months of the year have gone before the rates, are received, and meantime the boards have to provide for current requirements, such as maintenance of patients, administrative expenses, etc. The power proposed to be conferred on district boards by the present Clause, to finance themselves temporarily in anticipation of the collection of the rates—by means of bank overdrafts, or otherwise, such overdrafts, etc., to be repaid as soon as the rates are received—is already pos-
  2002
  sessed by all other local authorities in Scotland, and the extension of the power to district boards has become necessary by reason of the increased activities of these boards in recent years under the Mental Deficiency Act, and the consequent increase in their annual financial requirements. All that we seek by this measure, for dealing with this unfortunately relatively large section of the community, is that the local authorities should be put on the same footing as they are with regard to the treatment of tuberculosis and venerial disease. In both these cases there is a contribution, in one case of 50 per cent, and in the other case of 75 per cent., towards the total sums spent by the local authority, but there is no limit to the total amount of the Exchequer grant. What we ask is that the House should agree to put the treatment of mental defectives, from the financial point of view, on the same footing as the treatment now accorded to the other cases I have mentioned.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Major Baird.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes before Seven o'clock.

  PREMIUM BONDS.
  PREMIUM BONDS.
  CABLEGRAMS (DELAY).
  CABLEGRAMS (DELAY).
  PEACE TREATY (RATIFICATION).
  PEACE TREATY (RATIFICATION).
  SECRET AGENTS.
  SECRET AGENTS.
  EX-KAISER TRIAL.
  EX-KAISER TRIAL.
ALIENS.
  Miss LILLIAN SCOTT TROY.
  Miss LILLIAN SCOTT TROY.
  AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT.
  AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT.
  ROUMANIA (RAILWAY MATERIAL).
  ROUMANIA (RAILWAY MATERIAL).
  INCOME TAX (ELECTION EXPENSES).
  INCOME TAX (ELECTION EXPENSES).
  AMERICAN EXCHANGE.
  AMERICAN EXCHANGE.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  BACON.
  BACON.
  SPIRITS.
  SPIRITS.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  MILK (MUNICIPAL CONTROL).
  MILK (MUNICIPAL CONTROL).
  AGRICULTURAL COUNCILS (COMPOSITION).
  AGRICULTURAL COUNCILS (COMPOSITION).
IRELAND.
  GOVERNMENT POLICY.
  GOVERNMENT POLICY.
  ILLICIT DISTILLING (PENALTY).
  ILLICIT DISTILLING (PENALTY).
  BREACHES OF PEACE (UPPERLANDS).
  BREACHES OF PEACE (UPPERLANDS).
  HEALTH COUNCIL.
  HEALTH COUNCIL.
  SINN FEIN RAID, WEST CLARE.
  SINN FEIN RAID, WEST CLARE.
  POLICE (PENSIONS).
  POLICE (PENSIONS).
  HOUSING.
  HOUSING.
  PRISON CLERKS (SALARIES).
  PRISON CLERKS (SALARIES).
  CASTLECOMER RAILWAY.
  CASTLECOMER RAILWAY.
DEMOBILISATION.
  APPLICATIONS FOE RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOE RELEASE.
  DERBY MEN.
  DERBY MEN.
BRITISH ARMY.
  PERMANENT COMMISSIONS.
  PERMANENT COMMISSIONS.
  WAR OFFICE STAFF (REDUCTION).
  WAR OFFICE STAFF (REDUCTION).
  ARMY OF OCCUPATION.
  ARMY OF OCCUPATION.
  CHAPLAINS (PAY).
  CHAPLAINS (PAY).
  MILITARY POLICE (QUARTERS).
  MILITARY POLICE (QUARTERS).
  QUEEN MARY'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS.
  QUEEN MARY'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS.
  HAY.
  HAY.
RUSSIA.
  COURTS-MARTIAL.
  COURTS-MARTIAL.
  TROOPS IN SIBERIA.
  TROOPS IN SIBERIA.
  NORTH RUSSIA OPERATIONS (DISPATCHES).
  NORTH RUSSIA OPERATIONS (DISPATCHES).
  BALTIC (NAVIGATION).
  BALTIC (NAVIGATION).
  BARRACK DEPARTMENT EMPLOYES.
  BARRACK DEPARTMENT EMPLOYES.
  ROYAL AEMY SERVICE CORPS (BLACK SEA).
  ROYAL AEMY SERVICE CORPS (BLACK SEA).
  MILITARY OCCUPATION OF LAND (COMPENSATION.)
  MILITARY OCCUPATION OF LAND (COMPENSATION.)
  WAR DEPARTMENT (STORES).
  WAR DEPARTMENT (STORES).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  VETERAN EX-SOLDIERS (PENSIONS).
  VETERAN EX-SOLDIERS (PENSIONS).
  RETIRED OFFICERS (WAR GRATUITY).
  RETIRED OFFICERS (WAR GRATUITY).
MUNITIONS.
  GRETNA.
  GRETNA.
  OFFICIALS DEMOBILISED.
  OFFICIALS DEMOBILISED.
  CONTRACTORS' EXPENSES (JIGS AND TOOLS).
  CONTRACTORS' EXPENSES (JIGS AND TOOLS).
  SURPLUS STORES.
  SURPLUS STORES.
  CIVILIAN SUITS AND OVERCOATS.
  CIVILIAN SUITS AND OVERCOATS.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).
  INDIA (WAZIRI OPERATIONS).
  INDIA (WAZIRI OPERATIONS).
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVE RESERVES COMMISSION).
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVE RESERVES COMMISSION).
  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) ACTS.
  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) ACTS.
  UNCERTIFICATED TEACHERS.
  UNCERTIFICATED TEACHERS.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS' SALARIES (REPORT).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS' SALARIES (REPORT).
HOUSING.
  LEEDS SCHEME.
  LEEDS SCHEME.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SCHEMES SUBMITTED).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SCHEMES SUBMITTED).
  CONVERSION OF LARGE HOUSES.
  CONVERSION OF LARGE HOUSES.
  PISE DE TERRE SYSTEM.
  PISE DE TERRE SYSTEM.
  REGULATIONS.
  REGULATIONS.
  EJECTMENT ORDERS.
  EJECTMENT ORDERS.
  LOCAL LOANS.
  LOCAL LOANS.
  PUBLIC UTILITY SOCIETIES.
  PUBLIC UTILITY SOCIETIES.
  ROPEWALK MEADOW, DOVER.
  ROPEWALK MEADOW, DOVER.
  MEDICAL RESEARCH COMMITTEE.
  MEDICAL RESEARCH COMMITTEE.
  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (TUBERCULOSIS).
  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (TUBERCULOSIS).
  TUBERCULOUS EX-OFFICERS (OUTDOOR EMPLOYMENT).
  TUBERCULOUS EX-OFFICERS (OUTDOOR EMPLOYMENT).
METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  DESBOROUGH COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
  DESBOROUGH COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
  MOUNTED POLICE.
  MOUNTED POLICE.
  THEATRE QUEUES (POLICE ATTENDANCE).
  THEATRE QUEUES (POLICE ATTENDANCE).
  STRIKE (DISMISSALS).
  STRIKE (DISMISSALS).
  FIRE BRIGADES (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  FIRE BRIGADES (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  CORONERS AND CORONERS' INQUESTS.
  CORONERS AND CORONERS' INQUESTS.
COAL PRODUCTION.
  PERSONS EMPLOYED.
  PERSONS EMPLOYED.
  GAS AND ELECTKIC ENERGY.
  GAS AND ELECTKIC ENERGY.
  COAL COMMISSION (APPENDICES TO REPORTS).
  COAL COMMISSION (APPENDICES TO REPORTS).
  INDUSTRIAL COAL.
  INDUSTRIAL COAL.
  BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORATION.
  BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORATION.
  PATENTS.
  PATENTS.
  GAS (QUALITY).
  GAS (QUALITY).
  PROFITEERING ACT.
  PROFITEERING ACT.
  PATENT OFFICE LIBRARY
  PATENT OFFICE LIBRARY
  EXPORTS (CREDITS).
  EXPORTS (CREDITS).
  OIL BORINGS.
  OIL BORINGS.
TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION.
  WORKMEN'S TICKETS.
  WORKMEN'S TICKETS.
  LOCOMOTIVES (PURCHASE).
  LOCOMOTIVES (PURCHASE).
  ROADS (TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT).
  ROADS (TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT).
  RAILWAY EMPLOYES.
  RAILWAY EMPLOYES.
  BRICKS (TRANSPORT FACILITIES).
  BRICKS (TRANSPORT FACILITIES).
  WAGONS.
  WAGONS.
  FOOD DISTRIBUTION.
  FOOD DISTRIBUTION.
  HAY TRAFFIC.
  HAY TRAFFIC.
POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONISTS' REMUNERATION.
  TELEPHONISTS' REMUNERATION.
  WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES (INFORMATION).
  WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES (INFORMATION).
  CASH-ON-DELIVEHY SYSTEM.
  CASH-ON-DELIVEHY SYSTEM.
  LETTER DELIVERIES, LONDON.
  LETTER DELIVERIES, LONDON.
  TELEPHONISTS (PROMOTION).
  TELEPHONISTS (PROMOTION).
  LONDON POSTAL SERVICE (PENSIONABLE OFFICERS).
  LONDON POSTAL SERVICE (PENSIONABLE OFFICERS).
  PRIVATE TELEGRAPH WIRES.
  PRIVATE TELEGRAPH WIRES.
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (REDUCTION OF STAFF).
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (REDUCTION OF STAFF).
  INCREASED PRODUCTION.
  INCREASED PRODUCTION.
  BRICKLAYING.
  BRICKLAYING.
  EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).
  ENGINEERING PLANT, CARLISLE.
  ENGINEERING PLANT, CARLISLE.
  GERMAN STEAMERS (AMERICAN WATERS).
  GERMAN STEAMERS (AMERICAN WATERS).
  HOPS IMPORTED.
  HOPS IMPORTED.
  EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT SCHOOL OF MEDICINE.
  EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT SCHOOL OF MEDICINE.
  DANTZIG AND WARSAW (RAILWAY TRAFFIC)
  DANTZIG AND WARSAW (RAILWAY TRAFFIC)
  OFFICE OF WORKS (FURNITURE WAREHOUSING).
  OFFICE OF WORKS (FURNITURE WAREHOUSING).
  WAR EMERGENCY LAWS (CONTINUANCE) BILL.
  WAR EMERGENCY LAWS (CONTINUANCE) BILL.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the Bill the Second Reading of which I have to-day to submit to your Lordships is designed to adapt the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, which was passed on the day after the declaration of war, and was therefore essentially a war-time measure, to the altered conditions brought about by the happy conclusion of hostilities. The Bill, as doubtless your Lordships are aware, has undergone considerable modifications since its first introduction in another place in April last. The spirit of the Bill, however, is practically as it was when brought in originally; there is no difference in principle, and the only difference is one of method. The Bill has two main objects. It aims at keeping out the undesirable alien, no matter where he comes from, while for a limited time it provides for the exclusion of the former enemy alien—that is to say, it provides for his exclusion until it has been possible to reconsider the question and see how far it is feasible to allow him to come into this country in future.
I will now briefly review the various provisions of the Bill. The first two clauses are devoted to providing for the continuance and extension of the emergency powers conferred under the Act of 1914. The question might perhaps be raised, indeed it has been mentioned to me, as to why it is necessary, now that the war is over, to provide for the continuance of the powers required in time of war. I will therefore point out to your Lordships that the extension of these powers is for a strictly limited period—namely, for one year only—and that, being in the state of transition that we are, it is a matter of necessity for His Majesty's Government to maintain temporarily the powers which proved essential during the war. In the present state of European unrest and of public anxiety is is clearly desirable that the
436
Government should remain in possession of full powers for dealing with aliens.
Let me take the powers conferred by the Act of 1914 in order as they are set out in a Memorandum on the front page of the Bill. I take first paragraph (a) "for prohibiting aliens from landing in the United Kingdom." Clearly we must have a power to prohibit from landing any and every alien who seeks to come here and may be inspired with hostile designs against this country. The powers under the Aliens Act of 1905 are not adequate for this purpose. We must not be exposed without defence to the danger either of foreign emissaries or of a large flood of pauper emigrants. The second paragraph, (b), deals with the prohibiting of aliens from embarking in the United Kingdom. It is similarly desirable that we should retain control over the embarkation of aliens from this country, at any rate to the extent of having full information as to their movements and destination. Then, with regard to paragraph (c), for the deportation of aliens, the power of deportation is essential to the Government in existing circumstances. It is a power which every other State possesses, and which the Government may be trusted to use with discretion, and only when serious public interests are involved.
Paragraph (d) is for requiring aliens to reside and remain within certain places or districts. The power of requiring an alien to reside in certain districts was found very useful during the war in special cases, and may possibly be valuable in peace time. For example, a case might arise of an undesirable alien—either an agitator or otherwise—who had not been deported to his own country by reason of lack of transport facilities and who therefore must be kept in this country, yet the case might not be one in which it would be proper or possible to detain the man in prison, and it might be better to remove him from the district in which he then resided to some other part of the country. As regards paragraph (e), "for prohibiting aliens from residing or remaining in any areas specified in the Order," the power of prohibiting aliens from residing in any particular district was very largely used during the war, the necessary Regulations being embodied in successive Aliens Restriction Orders and being directed especially to the removal of aliens from any strategic points. In peace time this power will be used much less widely, but there will still be points of vital importance to

437
the national defence from which it may be desirable to exclude aliens.
Then as to paragraph (f), "for requiring aliens residing in the United Kingdom to comply with such provisions as to registration, change of abode, travelling," etc., "as may be made by Order." Provisions for the registration of aliens have been in force during the war, and it is proposed to continue them in a modified form in peace time, but in a manner designed to inflict the minimum of inconvenience upon foreign travellers. I do not think I need labour the last four paragraphs in the Memorandum—(g), (h), (i), and (k)—as they are but subsidiary powers for appointing officers, imposing penalties, giving power of arrest, etc.; but speaking generally we feel that in the present condition of the world public opinion demands, not unreasonably, that the authorities should be in full possession of information as to all aliens in the United Kingdom, and should be armed with effective powers for dealing with any aliens whom it is not desirable to admit to this country or whom it is desirable to remove from it because they have shown that they are not worthy of its hospitality; but no respectable or peaceable foreigner travelling in this country is likely to suffer any real inconvenience of any kind.
If your Lordships will now turn to subsection (2) of Clause 1 you will see that it is there provided that if Orders in Council are made which are to operate at any time when there is no war or special emergency, these will be laid on the Table of both Houses, and there will be a right to petition for their annulment in whole or in part. I have already referred your Lordships to the Memorandum on the front page of the Bill and drawn attention to the powers therein conferred. As you will observe, there are ten powers, set out in paragraphs (a) to (k); and in Clause 2 it is proposed to add two more powers, (l) and (m). With regard to (l) it is frequently found difficult to ascertain with certainty the real nationality of an alien, and therefore power has been taken to set up machinery by which a decision can be given in such cases. With regard to the second part of (l)—disregarding any subsequent change of nationality—I would say that it was occasionally found in the case of undesirable alien women who had been deported that they reappeared in this country after having become British subjects by marriage. Another new subject on which an Order
438
in Council may be issued has regard to the prolongation of the internment of any persons after the termination of a war. I may say, however, that this will not be operative in regard to the recent war because all the interned aliens have been dealt with. Lastly as regards Orders in Council, subsection (2) of Clause 2 provides for the issue of Orders in Council for the regulation of property, liabilities, and interests of former enemy aliens. This provision is designed, of course, to safeguard those who have claims against former enemy subjects and follows the lines of the Peace Treaty.
I come now to the clauses in the Bill which provide for further restrictions on all aliens, and before going into any detail I would point out that these restrictions are not to be imposed by Orders in Council but are provided for by direct legislation. The first of these restrictions is contained in Clause 3, and it is designed to prevent aliens from fomenting sedition either in His Majesty's Forces or the Forces of our Allies or amongst the civilian population, and also for preventing such aliens from promoting industrial unrest in any industry. This last provision is limited in such a manner as not to prevent an alien who is bona fide employed in any industry from taking part in a labour dispute in that industry; it is designed only to prevent aliens who have no interest or concern in our industrial affairs fomenting industrial unrest and disturbance.
Clauses 4, 5, and 6 deal with the holding of pilotage certificates by aliens, employment of aliens in ships of the mercantile marine, and the appointment of aliens to the Civil Service. With regard to Clause 4, I may perhaps explain that under the existing law no alien may hold a pilot's licence, but in certain circumstances it is lawful for the foreign master of a ship to pilot his own vessel into a British port. By this clause this will not be permitted in the future, except—the exception is a very important one—that masters or mates of French nationality will not be prevented from being allowed to navigate their ships into the ports of Newhaven or Grimsby. Clause 5 regulates the employment of aliens in the mercantile marine. The main provisions of this clause are plain, I think; but I may perhaps be allowed to draw your Lordships' attention to the proviso that aliens who have performed good and faithful service during the war may be employed in capacities prohibited under the clause to

439
other aliens. I would also draw attention to the second paragraph of subsection (2) which has been inserted to provide for the case of native labour employed in British ships; it is designed to secure that the rates of pay for aliens who are natives and for natives who are British subjects shall be the same. Clause 6 gives expression to the principle already laid down in the Act of Settlement, and forbids the appointment of aliens to posts in His Majesty's Civil Service. I may, perhaps, be allowed to add that there are none such at present in the Service.
Clause 7 deals with the restriction of change of name by aliens. This clause is perfectly clear, I think. Briefly, it provides that no alien shall change his name or trade under any name different from that used by him on August 4, 1914, unless permission shall have been granted to him by the Secretary of State. Provision is also made in this clause whereby proper publicity is to be given to such change of name. Clause 8 provides that no alien shall sit upon a jury if challenged by any party to the proceedings. I may remark that a certain section of opinion was at one time desirous of excluding aliens altogether from jury service. I hope that your Lordships will not disagree with the principle that an alien settled in this country should not be excused from the duties of citizenship so far as they can be properly and safely carried out by him. Jury service is one of the duties of citizenship which an alien can properly perform, but it is only right that opportunity should be given to parties to object to submit their case for decision by an alien should they wish to do so. The next five clauses deal with special provisions as to former enemy aliens. In Clause 7, subsection (1), your Lordships will see that every former enemy alien shall be deported or submit his case to a Committee, with the exception of those who were exempted from internment or repatriation on the recommendation of any Advisory Committee appointed after January 1, 1918.
Perhaps, in order to make this quite clear if I can to your Lordships, I may be allowed briefly to trace the history of the various Committees which have dealt with the enemy alien question during the war. On the announcement by Mr. Asquith in May, 1915, of the general policy of the internment or repatriation of enemy aliens, a Committee was appointed to
440
advise as to the grant or refusal of applications made by alien enemies for exemption from internment or repatriation. This Committee was divided into two bodies, under the Chairmanship respectively of Mr. Justice Sankey and Mr. (now Lord) Justice Younger. All enemy aliens then at liberty were served with a notice that they may apply for exemption from internment or repatriation, as the case may be. The applications were considered by these Committees and action was taken in accordance with their recommendations.
On September 29, 1915, the Home Secretary wrote to Mr. Justice Younger to the following effect—
"I learn that the work of the Internment Committee, so far as ordinary cases of internment are concerned, is, in effect, finished, though every now and then a case or two which has escaped attention or which needs to be reconsidered, is bound to present itself. … I think the Home Office might take the responsibility now of deciding in further cases of ordinary internment without troubling the Committee."
The process of reviewing cases was accordingly carried on from time to time and repatriation cases were dealt with on the same line. The Committee continued in existence for the purpose of Defence of the Realm Regulation 14B, and internment orders were made thereunder against persons of hostile origin or association, and from time to time the Committee considered, at the request of the Home Office, cases of internment of alien enemies, and in particular advised in the course of the year 1917 on the application of the policy then adopted of repatriating compulsorily such of the interned persons as could properly be sent back to their own country.
In July, 1918, the Home Secretary, Sir George Cave, reappointed the Committee with the addition of certain names and requested them to examine the cases of enemy aliens who had hitherto been exempted from internment or repatriation and to report in each case whether they recommended that the exemption should be withdrawn with a view to re-internment or repatriation of the persons concerned, or whether they recommended that the exemption should be continued, and if so, on what ground. Now this second Committee was in the middle of its work when the Armistice was signed, and shortly afterwards it ceased to operate. Not long after this, as there was now no reason for retaining alien enemies in this country who were

441
willing to return to their own countries, the repatriation was undertaken as quickly as possible of all those interned who were willing to go, with the result that between the date of the Armistice and the month of May, 1919, the numbers of the interned had been reduced from about 25,000 to fewer than 5,000, and it was to be presumed that nearly all these 5,000 were unwilling to leave this country.
To deal with this situation a promise was given by the Government in your Lordships' House on April 3 last that those of the interned who were unwilling to be repatriated should not be sent away until their claim to be allowed to stay here had been heard by another Advisory Committee. The Home Secretary accordingly appointed a Committee to consider applications for exemption from repatriation in the case of interned enemy aliens, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice Younger. This Committee examined all claims from the interned men to be allowed to remain in this country and they recommended permission to remain here in some 3,800 cases. The remainder have been, or will be, repatriated. I hope from what I have said that your Lordships will see that all cases of interned enemy aliens have been dealt with by the Committee subsequent to the Armistice, and all persons exempted from internment or repatriation by the Committee appointed by Lord Cave in 1918 are exempted from the provisions of this clause. Thus the only aliens whose eases will be reviewed under the provisions of this clause are those who were dealt with by the Committees presided over by Mr. Justice Sankey and Mr. Justice Younger, which were appointed in 1915.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will the noble Earl explain why they should be reconsidered?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am coining to that. I am well aware that criticism has been levelled on this distinction between the Committee of 1915 and the Committee of 1918, but I would venture to point out to your Lordships that the Committee of 1918 was appointed for the very purpose of reviewing the cases of enemy aliens previously exempted from internment or repatriation, and its labours were not finished at the conclusion of the Armistice. Thus, the Committee set up under this measure will merely complete the labours
442
of the Committee of 1918 in reviewing the decisions of the Committee of 1915.
It may be argued that now that the war is over this minute review is unnecessary and the decisions of the 1915 Committee could be allowed to stand. But I would urge upon your Lordships that there is, rightly or wrongly, very grave public anxiety in regard to the activities of Germans settled in this country; and I may say that public anxiety as to the activities of Germans in our midst before the war was by no means ill-founded. Therefore, this demand for a complete review of the exemptions of the 1915 Committee can scarcely be said to be unreasonable. I now come to subsections (2) and (3) of this clause.
LORD EMMOTT: Can the noble Earl give us numbers?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am coming to that in one moment. I now come to subsections (2) and (3) of this clause. The Advisory Committee will be set up by the Secretary of State under subsection (10) and for the guidance of this Committee your Lordships will see that certain definite specifications are laid down as to the categories whom the Committee may exempt from deportation. I think the criticism that your Lordships may level at these categories is that there are many cases, which do not quite square with the definitions laid down, which nevertheless will be equally deserving of exemption. In answer to such an observation I would venture to point out that it is impossible by generalisation to cover every single case, or possible case, and if your Lordships will turn to subsection (4) of this Clause you will see that the Committee is granted powers of discretion to recommend practically any case for exemption if they are of opinion that it is a deserving one. The rest of the subsections of this clause are of a formal nature and I do not think require any further remarks.
I will, therefore, turn to Clause 10, which is a very simple one and provides that no former enemy alien will be allowed to land in this country for three years after the passing of the Bill, without special permission from the Secretary of State, which permission will have to be renewed quarterly. Clause 11, perhaps, requires a few words of explanation. It provides for a temporary prohibition of the ac-

443
quisition of certain kinds of property by former enemy aliens. The property is, briefly, land, interest in a key industry, or shares in a British ship. The reason for this clause is that the present is a time of transition and it has been thought desirable that no former enemies should be allowed, during this time of transition, to obtain interests in British land, British key industries, or British ships.
Clause 12 is quite plain and forbids the employment of a former enemy alien in a British ship. Clause 13 gives power to the Secretary of State to make the provisions of this Bill which apply to former enemy aliens, apply also to other aliens, if necessary, in particular cases. The last four clauses of the Bill are general. Clause 14 makes the necessary definition of offences and lays down the penalties which the Courts can inflict. Clause 15 safeguards foreign diplomatists accredited to this country. Clause 16 will, I hope, commend itself to your Lordships as a very convenient clause, since it gives legal definition to the words "former enemy alien" and thereby exempts those who were subjects in 1914 of any of the four States allied against us, who now have become subjects of the new and friendly States created under the Peace Treaty. Clause 17 gives the Short Title of the Act, and subsection (2) of the clause gives power to repeal the Act of 1905 by degrees as required.
Before I conclude it may, perhaps, interest your Lordships if I give a short summary of the number of aliens who are at present in this country and who may therefore be affected by this Bill if it becomes an Act of Parliament. The total number of aliens of all kinds in the United Kingdom is about 269,000. Of these 22,000—the figures are approximate—are former enemy aliens, and 247,000 are aliens of other races.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Can the noble Earl give us the number of Germans and Austrians in this 22,000?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am afraid I cannot, but I will endeavour to get the figures. Of the 22,000 former enemy aliens about 5,000 have been exempted from deportation, after examination before a Committee appointed subsequent to January 1, 1918, and there therefore remain about 17,000 who, if they wish to
444
stay in this country, will be required to appear before the Committee set up by this Bill. Of these some 8,400 are males and 8,600 females.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I believe this is the first occasion upon which my noble friend has appeared here in an official capacity, and may I be permitted to congratulate him on the lucidity of his statement. With regard to the principle of the Bill itself, I have no fault whatever to find with it. I have always felt that the theory of hospitality was carried much too far in this country, and that some amendment was obviously necessary. I remember vigorously denouncing in this House the administration of the Aliens Act by Mr. Herbert Gladstone, and I welcomed particularly the clause which inflicts special penalties upon aliens who come to this country and stir up sedition here.
Unfortunately the Bill is disfigured by what I can only term a perfectly needless and rather vindictive action contemplated against ex-enemy aliens, and when the noble Lord in the course of his speech assured us that the procedure proposed is only a continuation of the proceedings started by the Committee of 1918, I cannot help being reminded of the fact that when any abnormal proceedings took place during recent years it used to be asked, "Are you aware there is a War on?" I feel inclined to ask my noble friend, "Is he aware there is a Peace on?" The fact of setting up a Committee to examine all enemy aliens, suspicious or otherwise, in this country is perfectly justified and natural during the course of a war. At the time when this Committee was set up we were at an extreme period of the war; but we are not at war now, and it does not follow that what was necessary in July, 1918, is necessary now.
I am afraid I may shock some noble Lords present but I confess that, having had some inside experience of this question, I hold the opinion that if we erred at all with respect to the treatment of enemy aliens we erred on the side of severity rather than laxity. What we did was this. At the outbreak of the war, owing to the extreme efficiency of the police of this country, all the dangerous enemy aliens

445
were locked up, and their numbers amounted to something like 4,000. When the "Lusitania" outrage was committed there was a great clamour on the part of the public, which was very intelligible, that additional steps should be taken, and large numbers of additional enemy aliens were interned. Everybody knows that a large number of these people were interned not because they had committed any crime or were suspected of any crime, but to a great extent for the purpose of protection.
It is perfectly obvious that amongst this large number of men, between 30,000 and 40,000, there must have been many cases of hardship. I was much struck with the fact that a member of this House, who was a member of one of these Committees, expressed the opinion that they had come to the conclusion that not 5 per cent. of the innumerable cases they examined showed that there was any suspicion attaching to the individual of spying. The action of the Government, which they were obliged to take, I admit, in consequence of the pressure of public opinion, not only involved considerable hardship upon innocent people but considerable hardship upon our own British subjects.
Has it ever occurred to the advocates of the "Intern them all" policy that one of the results of that policy was that so many enemy aliens were interned in this country that the military and naval authorities objected to the exchange of civilians because of the large preponderance of numbers on this side. It amounts to this, that in Germany at all events a large number of British subjects passed four weary years at Ruhleben owing to the zeal of the advocates of the "Intern them all" policy in this country. Of the men who were interned no less than 84 per cent. have been deported and sent back to their respective countries. That in itself is a justification, so to speak, of the statement made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack last year, that nine-tenths of these men were hostile in feeling to this country. At least nine-tenths of the men who were interned, and to whom he referred, have actually gone back.
The fact of deporting 84 per cent. of these men, many of whom have not committed any crime at all, is a fairly severe measure, because many of these men have English wives and English families. At this moment you will find in Germany,
446
especially in Berlin, English women and boys and girls who cannot speak a word of German, and not only that but in many cases they have lost their German nationality and have therefore at the present moment no nationality at all. None of these men are allowed to come back, whatever their interests may be in this country, except for a very short period, and then only under extremely exceptional circumstances. I am not going to find any particular fault with that. I cannot help thinking that later on probably there will be some sort of revulsion of feeling, and in all probability these regulations will be relaxed. Then, the 84 per cent. having been disposed of, there remain the 16 per cent. who were examined by Lord Justice Younger's Committee, and, as everybody knows, it was so difficult to discover anything against these interned prisoners that there was no excuse for deporting them and they remained here.
But now I come to the really important section, and that is the section which relates to the uninterned enemy civilians. These uninterned enemy civilians were all examined, like everybody else, and they were left alone because no charge of any sort could be brought against them; and the curious part of this Bill, and the unsatisfactory part of it, is that under the clause in question (Clause 9) these people are actually going to be in a much worse position in time of peace than they were in time of war. An Advisory Committee is going to be set up—to my mind a totally unnecessary proceeding—and at the present moment, when we are all talking about the necessity for economy, I should like to point out that this Advisory Committee is going to be a very expensive luxury, because I gather from an answer made by the Home Secretary a short time ago that the Committee itself, even if composed of unpaid members and if it only sits for a comparatively short time, will cost £15,000, and no provision is made for lodging, and expenses of that kind, and for expenses in connection with the police and other departments. Therefore if this Committee is set up, and if it goes exhaustively through the 17,000 ex-enemy aliens who still remain here, it will cost a very considerable sum of money.
I do not wish to dwell too much upon the hardships which will be suffered by the

447
ex-enemy aliens in consequence of this provision, because I am quite sure there are a number of noble Lords who are much better able to point out the hardships which these people will suffer than I am. It really amounts to this, that if the alien, whether male or female, does not fall within certain very narrow categories he or she will be automatically deported, I understand that the great majority of the persons who will be affected in this way are women occupying extremely humble positions, perhaps domestic servants, teachers of music, governesses, and people of that kind, and I should think it extremely probable that many of these people who live in remote parts of the country will never hear of this new regulation at all, and if they do not put their case before the Committee within two months of the passing of this Bill they will be automatically deported. I appeal to the sense of noble Lords whether this may not constitute a case of severe hardship, and I want to know what is the object of harrying these people at all. Why on earth cannot they be left alone? It is not pretended that they are dangerous. I do not think anybody has taken upon himself to assert that these people, who had been left alone because they were harmless, constitute a danger to the country.
I acquit the Government of blame in regard to this matter. I do not believe in the least that they desire to harry these people, but they have been constrained to adopt the policy of those no doubt honest but somewhat mistaken zealots who will persist in looking upon all enemy aliens as vermin. I cannot help thinking there has been rather too much concession to ignorant clamour of this description, especially on the part of the Press. I believe there has been a good deal too much yielding to the threatenings of ignorant writers in the Press. I recollect a ludicrous incident which came within my experience. The House is no doubt familiar with the name of Baron von Bissing. Bissing was—I am not aware that he committed any crime—but he was the brother or half-brother of a very notorious General von Bissing, in Germany. After all, that is a misfortune which might happen to anybody; but Bissing, upon the strength of his being a half-brother of the obnoxious general, was imprisoned here. I happened to visit his prison out of curiosity. Bissing found out who I was, and asked if he might make a request of me. I asked him what he
448
wanted and he said, "I am very anxious to have a bath. I am very fond of swimming, and I should take it as a favour if I might be allowed to go once a month to a swimming bath, accompanied by a policeman, for whom I would pay, or if necessary by several policemen." I said, "I have no authority to grant you this permission, but I will convey your request to the competent authority." I communicated with the competent authority, and they said, "There is no objection in principle to Bissing or anybody else going to a swimming bath, but if a certain section of the Press got to know of it we should never hear the last of it, and therefore the proposal cannot be entertained."
It has been openly admitted that this spirited campaign now waged against decayed governesses and domestic servants, and waiters, and people of that sort is not prompted by any danger to this country but by the necessity of carrying out promises made during the Election and in order to maintain what I may term the policy of hate. With reference to the first of these reasons, I think that on the whole the less we talk about Election promises the better. Two of the most popular promises at the Election were that the Kaiser should be hanged and that Germany should pay the total cost of the war, and we do not seem to be very near the fulfilment of either at the present moment.
As regards the second point, the necessity of cultivating hate, I should like to point out the curious fact that this doctrine is not preached by the people whom you would expect to preach it. It is not preached by the soldier. It is not even preached by prisoners. As far as I can make out, it is almost entirely preached by lawyers and journalists who, to use the delicate language of the poet Kipling, have been "killing Germans with their mouths" during the whole period of the war. I realise that the cultivation of hate during the war was occasionally a very necessary thing to do. It was necessary, and I have in fact taken a small part in doing it myself in order to counteract the activities of the Independent Labour Party, of Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, and of people like my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor. But surely it is not necessary to do it now. What is the object of going on with it at the present moment? It is not even logical.

449
The policy of hate is preached solely as far as I know, with reference to Germans. If this particular clause was aimed solely at Germans, then I could understand it—it would be logical. But it is not. It is aimed at all ex-enemy aliens. I make this confession, that so far as the treatment of civilians was concerned during the war the treatment of civilians in Austria and more especially in Hungary was certainly more lenient than it was in this country. Therefore if you are to be logical, and if you insist upon putting into effect the gospel of hate, the least you can do is to confine your action to Germany. But again I ask, What is the sense of it?
At the present moment there are I suppose, at a rough computation, a hundred millions of enemy aliens, not even allowing for the subtractions which have been made from their respective numbers. Does any serious person suppose that we can treat a hundred million souls as vermin? Whether we like them or not, we have to put up with them and to live with them. There is no occasion to take them to our bosoms, but we have to recognise their existence, and we shall have to make up our minds to trade with them like everybody else, more especially if Germany is eventually to pay the whole of our war bill. I apologise for having kept the House so long, but in face of these facts I must say that to me it seems inexpressibly petty that we should revenge ourselves upon a lot of obscure and quite humble people, many of them women, for the crimes committed by German soldiers and sailors and officials in different parts of the world. If we can get hold of these criminals—and I sincerely hope that we shall do so—I trust that they will be dealt with as severely as possible. But what can be said in favour of, so to speak, "taking it out of" these people here in order to revenge ourselves for the atrocities committed by Germans during the course of the war? To my mind procedure of that kind is just as sensible and as logical as it would be to turn every Peer out of this House who has Irish blood in his veins on account of the atrocities committed by Sinn Feiners in Ireland.
My natural impulse would have been to move the rejection of this clause, but I have no desire to create a constitutional difficulty. When the Bill is in Committee, however, I certainly shall, if no one else
450
does, move Amendments modifying it. What I suggest would be the fair thing to do is that the alien, instead of being automatically deported because he or she is an ex-enemy alien, should be left alone unless sonic definite allegation is made against him or her by a credible person. It seems to me that that would meet the case and commend itself to almost everybody.
There is one thing I want to add. When this clause was discussed in another place it was not made a Government question. The Whips were taken off. That being so, I hope the same procedure will be followed here, and that we shall have a free vote on the subject. If it comes to a Division, and if the question has to be fought out here, then in view of the sentiments which were expressed during the former debate on this particular question I have little doubt that; the majority of this House will be in favour of doing justice to people even though they may be ex-enemy subjects.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I certainly do not propose to offer any opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill. I cannot say that I like its provisions, but I can understand that the main subject of the Bill is one which in the opinion of the Government requires severe and drastic treatment, and though I regret that it has been thought necessary to introduce many of the earlier provisions that this Bill contains I do not propose now to criticise or to object to them, because I feel that after all it is a question rather of wisdom than of justice as to whether those measures should be introduced or not. It is a matter of opinion. Some people may well think that it is necessary in the public interest; others may, with equal sincerity, hold an opposite view; but at any rate it does no one a wrong. No alien outside this country can say that he suffers injustice if he is told that he must never enter this country. If there be any harm suffered it is suffered by this country itself. Therefore I do not propose to discuss any part of this Bill that relates to the dealings with people who are not at present under our protection.
But the part of the Bill to which I do earnestly desire for a few moments to direct your Lordships' more particular attention is that part which deals with people who are now resident in this country, and who have throughout the whole period of the war lived among us without causing to any

451
person any offence, or giving any just cause of suspicion that was capable of being appreciated by any of the Committees which were sent up to inquire into their case. I beg your Lordships' attention to this part of the Bill for this reason. If this Bill is passed as it stands, and if I am right in the views that I entertain that it will inflict cruel and unnecessary hardship upon a number of perfectly offenceless and defenceless people, this part of the Bill is irrevocable, and if the wrong be once done it is done for ever. It can never be undone. The noble Lord who has just sat down, and who spoke with great knowledge and experience on this matter, has called your Lordships' attention to the fact that Clause 9 of this Bill deals only with the residue of the people who have escaped the combs of the different Committees which have been passed over the alien population of this kingdom during the period of the war. They are the people against whom even the jealousy of trade rivalry has found no complaint. They are the people against whom the most excited and zealous believer in the existence of spies has been unable to lodge a single definite charge. They are the people whom every single authority in this country that is responsible for our peace and good government has been bound to pass by as harmless even under the strain and exigencies of the war. During the whole period of hostilities those whose duty it was to examine with the utmost care whether these people could, safely to the public interests, be left at large or not, have said they may be left at large, and it is to these people that this clause applies.
What is it that the clause is going to do? I feel very strongly that when this clause is examined it will be found that it has been considered in another place with great carelessness, that the clause itself has been thoughtlessly prepared, and that it is quite unthinkable that any body of Englishmen who realised what this clause did would ever have consented to its passage in an English House of Parliament. That I feel so strongly that I beg of your Lordships to grant me some indulgence whilst I ask you to go step by step through the provisions of this clause as it stands now.
Half of these people at least, we are told, are women. I must say I should have thought that the proportion would have been larger, seeing that all the Committees that have sat from time to time have
452
necessarily taken the men. For example, we know quite well that one of the Committees interned Germans of military age here, not on the ground of suspicion or fear that they would be mischievous if they were left at large, but simply because it was undesirable in the public interests to allow people here, whose sons had to go and fight, to see Germans in this country of military age who were subject to no such liability. It was not because they were doing wrong—not at all; but because their presence might excite a reasonable, although of course a perfectly unjustifiable, feeling of ill will towards the German who was left. And so they took the men, and I am quite surprised to find that the percentage of women is as low as has been suggested. I have not the least doubt that the noble Lord has satisfied himself accurately about the figures, though I admit that from information I had obtained (and I have made anxious inquiry) I was told that the percentage was at least 60 per cent. But at any rate half of them are women.
In what position are those women? Where are they? I can tell you. These women are scattered all over this country, chiefly in perfectly humble situations. They are servants, who, during a time when it has been very difficult to get domestic help, have faithfully continued to discharge their duties to their master or their mistress without let or interference. They are governesses in schools in places where, even under this Bill, it is not wrong to teach the German language and to impart to our children the inestimable benefits of the ancient German literature. They are small governesses, sempstresses, people living in every form of perfectly humble useful life, and, I venture to say, discharging a service in this country which is perfectly impossible to be discharged by anybody else, They are not taking up somebody else's place, they are not filling a vacancy that some labouring person could step into. There is no fear whatever here, believe me, my Lords, that these people are interfering with British workmen. Why, I think every member of the Labour Party in the House of Commons voted against this clause. You are not, therefore, protecting the workmen here, nor are you doing what they desire.
I have described the class of people so far as the women are concerned. Then, you say, they have all to come and apply. But if they do not, if by any accident

453
whatever they omit to do so, after two months there is no power anywhere to prevent these people being taken and deported. What that means it is hard to say. What I understand it would mean would be this. They would be put on board a British ship and deposited at Hamburg. There is no provision for expense, not a single farthing is to be given even for their journey. They will be taken away, men and women who may in many cases have no friends to go to. And we are to undertake the responsibility of taking these people who have admittedly committed no offence, and subject them to the hardships and the perils that must be involved in such a proceeding as that.
Unless within two months they make their application, that is their inevitable fate. If they make the application, what is the relief they can get? The first thing is that they may be granted exemption on certain grounds. The first one is that the applicant is 70 years of age or upwards. I think your Lordships will find when you look into this clause that the whole of the clause has been framed on the belief that all these people are men. However, the first one is of general effect; it concerns applicants of 70 years or upwards. Take a woman who has been here in domestic service for 50 years, and who is 65 years of age. Of course, she could not get exemption under that. But it will be said, "Oh yes, but this Bill has considered the case of long residence in this country and has provided by another clause that if the applicant has lived 20 years here that will be a sufficient reason." It is not so. The applicant must have lived here 20 years and married a British wife. Now, of course, it is impossible for a German woman to marry a British wife, and therefore this person of 65 years of age who has been in this country 50 years and given simple, honest, valuable service in this country for that time cannot be exempted; there is no power in the world to exempt this person under either of those clauses.
No doubt the noble Lord would point out that they can be exempted under the general condition that it would involve serious hardship to the applicant or his wife or children. This will involve serious hardship to everybody—about that there is no doubt at all. But serious hardship there would be certain to be construed as meaning something far more than that you would do them an inconvenience and put
454
them in a place where they could not earn their living. You having not merely to make out a case of residence, and you have not merely to make out a case of good behaviour—because good behaviour, believe me, does not enter into these considerations at all; for this is all upon the hypothesis that there is good behaviour, and if there is bad behaviour none of these conditions apply, nor should they. Bad behaviour is a reason why they should be removed. This, as I said, is on the hypothesis of good behaviour. No good behaviour can save you, no amount of work, or industry, or association with the interests of this country, no genuine and sincere belief in the honesty of this country's cause, which some of these people did entertain, is of any value. Unless the person can come within these clauses she will certainly be deported. The clause dealing with applicants over seventy years of age is no protection for a person who has been here for fifty years unless that person happens to be a man, and unless the man happens to have married a British wife.
The next ground of exemption is that the applicant is suffering from serious and permanent illness or infirmity. Just think! I suppose a person who had one eye would be considered to be a person suffering from a permanent illness, therefore he would be exempted; but a person suffering from typhoid fever or pneumonia would not be suffering from a serious and permanent infirmity, for however grave the illness might be no one could say that it was permanent. Such a person would not be exempted and would be bound to make the application in two months, and because he might be in hospital all the time he would be deported. I do not want to be meticulous or particular about it; I am pointing it out for the purpose of saying what I believe to be the truth—namely, that this Bill has never been properly considered; and when the Committee comes I trust that your Lordships will, as you always do, consider this matter independently, and not assume that this is the settled, considered, careful policy of His Majesty's Government.
The next ground for exemption is this, that the applicant has one or more sons who voluntarily enlisted and served in His Majesty's Forces. Yes; but if he had had three sons and they were all killed he would not come in under that clause. He must have those sons now. He must enjoy two

455
or more sons who have voluntarily served. Let these men have given their lives and he cannot come in. If they have escaped, then of course he may be considered. The next ground is that the applicant has lived here for twenty years and married a British-born wife. That is a concession, I suppose, to the influence that the British wife might have upon the man. But if it is believed that the woman can influence the man in twenty years, who should not she do so in some shorter time? Is it out of consideration for the British wife? If the real foundation of the Bill is for the protection of this country, none of the considerations I have mentioned should apply at all and none of these clause should apply. The next ground of exemption is (e) that the applicant came to reside here when under the age of 12; or (f) served in His Majesty's Forces during the war, or resided here for not less than 20 years, and has rendered valuable services to this country during the war. So he has to do both these things. In the case I put of the servant, no one can say that she has rendered valuable services to this country; she has rendered them to her master, and you would never get escape for her under those conditions. Finally, that the applicant is a minister of religion. I would merely point out that there are German and Austrian women in convents—in religious places—here; they are not exempted, but the minister of religion is exempted—a very extraordinary exemption I should have thought; because if it is believed that these men may ultimately turn out to be dangerous to this country I should have thought that there was no man who had a better opportunity of disseminating evil opinions than a minister of religion. None the less, the minister of religion is to be stopped, but the woman in a corresponding position is not to be. Then come the conditions about the serious hardship.
Finally, in granting a licence the Secretary of State may include in the licence the wife of the applicant and any child or children of his under the age of eighteen. It seems to me that this is really a refinement of cruelty. Supposing a man over here with a daughter of twenty-five and other children under the age of eighteen. You have exempted the man, and now you say you will exempt his wife and family. Yes; but you cannot exempt the eldest daughter; she has got to go because she is not under the age of eighteen. She may be nineteen or twenty, but there
456
is no exemption for her. It may be said that I am putting forward exceptional and unusual cases. To me that argument does not appeal. I say that—if in these circumstances, without cause, without justification, you take away but one woman from her family and put her alone on the other side of the sea, leaving her people behind—the Bill that does this is a bad Bill and ought not to be passed. That is the effect of this clause. That it was not the Government's original intention is common knowledge; the Government never put that into the Bill when they drafted it. This was introduced in Committee. What did the Government do then? I am not saying this by way of reproach, but only for the purpose of pointing out that this is not the considered policy of His Majesty's Government. When this clause came down from Committee the Government knew what it meant, and they put down an Amendment that it should be cut out. Why was not the Amendment proceeded with? Your Lordships know. It was that the House of Commons, not being properly directed by the responsible Minister, passed a Resolution which would have involved a direct breach of faith between this country and France; and having got that position, the Government, in order that this mistake might be put right, consented to the introduction of this clause. That is the way in which the clause found its way into the Bill.
I agree entirely with one thing that the noble Earl said—I do not mean with one thing only but with one thing in particular. He said that if serious public interests are involved this clause should be passed. I agree with him. If there is any serious public interest involved in this matter I would not object to the clause. If there is any person who can make any charge that has any justification against any one of the people I would say, deport that person at once. All I ask is that you do not deport innocent people; that now, when we have entered peace, you do not attempt by Act of Parliament to revive what some of us feel were some of the most unfortunate incidents connected with the war. In all the long history of this country we have never had to show ourselves great in defeat, but we have often had occasion to show ourselves generous in victory. We have adopted and carried into effect the motto of one of the greatest nations of

457
ancient days when they declared that their policy was to spare the fallen and to crush the proud. Our soldiers and our sailors have shown that they have not forgotten those traditions; I beg your Lordships to show, when this Bill comes on in Committee, that the politicians have not been false to theirs.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I wish in the first place to say a word in answer to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and to tell him that it is a great satisfaction to me to find that we are on the same side at the present moment as regards what he called the policy of hate; and I welcome him as a convert, I hope, to the policy of international good will and co-operation. May I say one further preliminary word? I do not think that a policy of hate is ever justified; it is very far removed from the heroism and self-sacrifice which all of us regard as a sacred principle in the conduct of our wars.
I come now to the first point—namely, the treatment of foreign aliens. I do not know whether your Lordships have had your attention called to Clause 13 of the Bill. It is a very extraordinary clause in itself, and shows, I think, the spirit in which a large proportion of this Bill seems to me to have been drafted—that is, in a spirit of animosity not only towards enemy aliens but towards all aliens whether enemy or not. I do not find in this Bill a special animosity so much to the foreign alien as what I think is much more unfortunate—a tendency against all alien immigration, all alien hospitality all those conditions which by tradition we have extended to aliens in the past. I may add that no country in the world has been so indebted to the alien element as we have, and for no other country in the world is it so necessary to promote international good will and co-operation in the future. What I think is sometimes forgotten is that if we impose on aliens in this country what I consider to be unfair regulations, there is no guarantee that other countries may not impose, or attempt to impose, the same regulations with regard to British immigrants or British aliens.
Let me now call your Lordships' attention to the provisions of Clause 13. The Secretary of State may if he thinks it necessary in the interests of public safety—those last words are introduced, but they
458
mean nothing more than giving an absolute power to a bureaucratic official—what may he do? He may—
"direct that any of the provisions of this Act, as to former enemy aliens shall in particular cases be applicable to other aliens, and thereupon such provisions shall apply accordingly."
What does that mean? The number of aliens in this country was put, I think, at 269,000. Perhaps I ought to take out one number and say about 240,000.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The gross total is 269,000, and 247,000 are aliens of other races.
LORD PARMOOR: As regards every one of these 247,000 aliens—friendly aliens I may call them—the Secretary of State is enabled, at his own discretion and without any supervision, to apply all the harsh provisions which have been so lately analysed by my noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster, in Clause 9. Is it really the intention of this Bill to keep all aliens, friendly or not, as far away from this country as we possibly can? Just conceive what this means. Assume that a friendly alien has come to this country, is living here with his family, is interested in trade, is earning his livelihood here, and, so far as he may know, he has done nothing inimical to the interests of this country. The Secretary of State, by the stroke of the pen, can put him under all the disabilities which have been referred to in Clause 9, so that he may be deported without any remedy, or without really knowing the reason of his deportation.
What would English people think if they were living in a foreign country as foreign aliens with a sword of Damocles of that kind hanging over their heads? No, my Lords; this Bill has been framed purposely with the idea of keeping every alien you can out of this country. Every provision is as harsh as it can very well be made. If the desire is that we shall be an isolated country, without any international relationships or industrial relationships with foreign countries, I can understand it; but, if not, what possible reason is there for putting every friendly alien, at the mere ipse dixit of a bureaucratic official, under all the harsh conditions of Clause 9, which have been referred to by my noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster?
My own objection to this Bill would not be so strong if it had been left in the terms

459
in which the Home Secretary introduced it. I am willing to agree that the Home Secretary has special knowledge of the conditions necessary to insert in a Bill of this kind. I am aware that my opinion will probably be different from his, but that is not the point. He was the responsible officer. All these questions of spies and unfriendly aliens were dealt with in his Department; he had the experience gained during the five years of war, and he introduced the Bill, which I think no one can say failed on the side of leniency. What I want to ask—and I do not know what the attitude of the Government in this House may be—is, Are they going to support provisions which, in the opinion of the Home Secretary himself when he introduced the Bill, were not necessary? That, I think, is a very important matter for your Lordships' consideration.
Let me test this in one or two ways, although I do not want to repeat what has been said already in, such forcible terms by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster. Clause 9, if I recollect aright, was not in the original Bill in any form whatever. I am not talking of the particular form in which we find it now, but it was not there at all. Surely we may assume in view of that fact, that the adviser of His Majesty's Government who is specially cognisant with matters of this kind did not think such a provision was necessary at all. If such a provision is unnecessary in the public interest—which must have been the view of His Majesty's Government on the advice received from their own Home Secretary—what possible answer is there to the criticisms which have been put forward by my noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster? I do not want to go again in any detail through the criticism of the Clause itself. I think every word in that Clause is based not on the spirit of good will, not on the spirit of co-operation such as might make the League of Nations policy effective, but in the spirit (as I think Lord Newton said) of prolonging into the period of peace feelings which, at any rate in his opinion, were justified during the period of war.
I should like to draw attention to one of the subsections of Clause 9, because I think it was not mentioned by my noble friend. That is subsection (7). He has pointed out the extreme harshness of deporting these poor women particularly. I may point out from my own experience
460
that I know there are a number of poor women in this country at the present time to whom deportation would mean nothing but misery and starvation. They are women who have done no harm, and against whom no allegation has ever been made. It is a pity surely that a great country like ours should be concerned in passing this harsh measure against women of that character. What is the particular subsection to which I call attention?—
"Any licence so granted may be at any time revoked by the Secretary of State."
That means this as regards the uncertainty of the future. Some poor women has gone through all the difficulties involved in obtaining a license under the terms of this Bill. What is her position? Is it secure? Can she feel that she will not be molested in future? Not at all.
One has to recognise that there are people in this country who are inspired with a very strong animosity against all aliens. It is open to any one of them to approach the Home Secretary and ask for a revocation of her licence. I think it is an additional element in the harshness and crudeness of this Clause 9, not only that it may be put in force in the first instance but that even in cases which claim exemption under it there is absolutely full power as regards revocation of the licence in future. I am glad to see—because at one time it was not in Clause 9 as we all know—I am glad to see that Clause 9 does recognise the recommendations made by the Committee presided over by Lord Justice Younger, then Mr. Justice Younger. But really I am at a loss to understand why the provisions as regards the Committee appointed after the first day of January, 1918, should not also be applied to the preceding Committees.
We were told several times during the course of the War—and again I think I am in agreement with Lord Newton—that these Committees were appointed in order to ensure that all proper means were taken to prevent difficulties arising from our enemy aliens during the course of the war. Now we have come to a time of peace. Surely the tests applied during the period of the war ought to be more than sufficient in a period of peace, and yet you are stirring up all this animosity, difficulty and trouble. While I admired the speech of the noble Earl, not one word did he say to suggest that he was dealing with any

461
question of public difficulty or danger. I have taken perhaps a stronger view than a good many people on this matter. I feel that now the war is over the only way to proceed to cure the evils which beset large districts of the world is on the doctrine of good will and co-operation. Whatever efforts are made towards reconstruction, they will not be successful if you put on one side this simple Christian doctrine.
I want to say a few words upon the other clauses of the Bill. I do not wish to call in question, as a matter of principle, the Bill as originally introduced by the Home Secretary. At the same time I regret that it has been thought necessary, as regards friendly aliens, to extend the precautions against them slow that the war is over—precautions which might have been necessary during the period of the war. I will give an illustration of what I mean. I pass over the old provisions of the war period, but under Clause 2, paragraph (m), you have additional precautions which were not thought necessary in the war period. I think that is so.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: That is against enemy aliens.
LORD PARMOOR: No, not under Clause 2. I do not want to deal with the provision for determining nationality—it may be a proper provision. But paragraph (m) runs—
"for prolonging, for a period not exceeding six months after the determination of any war in which His Majesty is engaged, the internment of any persons who during the war have been interned as alien enemies."
The noble Earl told us that there were no such persons at the present time and that the provision would have no operation. What is the meaning of introducing what I may call a provocative provision of this kind which can have no possible operation under existing conditions? If unfortunately a new war broke out—which Heaven forbid!—I presume you would have to have the exceptional legislation we had on the break out of the present war, and yet you put into a Bill of this kind a suggestion that you are going to keep people interned six months after the termination of the war, although there is no single person in this country so interned and the conditions are such that this subsection can have no operation at all. Surely that is a mere provocative action which it is very difficult to justify.
462
As regards subsection (2), which refers to all alien enemies—that is to say, subjects of any State which has been at war with His Majesty during 1918—I want to ask the noble Earl this. I presume he considers that industrial intercommunication will have to be recommenced between ourselves and enemy countries. They have been recommenced. Details were given us of imports from Germany of a small amount, not more than £20,000, and of exports from this country of between £12,000,000 and £13,000,000. It is quite obvious that, for the purpose of reconstruction, industrial communication between this country and our enemies must recommence, if not, it would be to the common detriment of both. What does this provision say? It says—
"His Majesty may also by Order in Council under the principal Act make regulations requiring information to be given as to the property, liabilities, and interests of the subjects of any State which has been at war with His Majesty at any time during the year 1918, and for preventing (without notice or authority) the transfer of or dealings with the property of such subjects."
What does "other dealings" mean? Does it mean that an Order in Council may be made prohibiting trade at any time, although trade has sprung up, between this country and our former enemies? Does it mean that the Executive, after trade has been encouraged, may step in and stop it? The words "other dealings with the property of such subjects" must include trading with them. It is a mere matter of formality whether the sale is effected in that country or in this country; and I should like to know whether it is the intention that His Majesty's Government may, by Order in Council, by some Department, make regulations preventing all dealings as between ourselves and the subjects of countries which were formerly enemies. It is a very serious matter. I do not ask the noble Earl for an answer at the moment. It may be a matter which he has not considered.
I was reading the other day the complaints of the French people against the terms of this Bill as regards friendly aliens. I read them in a document which used to be issued by His Majesty's Government, but is now issued by the same syndicate of gentlemen who have been performing the duties on behalf of the Government, and who are now performing them in their own behalf. It is called the Political and

463
Economic Review, which I for one have always read and carefully considered, because in it you get information as regards the international outlook which you cannot get in any other way. Lord Newton referred to the attitude of the Press on questions of this sort. The illustration in that review was this. A French trader in this country wanted to advertise in a certain organ of the British Press. He was a trader in the ordinary form and trading under ordinary conditions. He sent a sum of about £5 to pay for the advertisement, and the answer he got was, "We do not intend to insert any foreign advertisements for friends or others. We send you back your money and we will not insert your advertisement." If a policy and spirit of that kind is encouraged as between us and foreign countries which have been friendly in the war what possibly can be worse, or more foolish; and what can be more directly detrimental both to their interests and to our own?
There are no other special provisions to which I desire to allude, although when it comes to the Committee stage there are very serious blemishes in the Bill which will require attention. I want to say this in conclusion. I do not wish merely to re-echo the words of Lord Buckmaster, because he can express himself much more eloquently than I can. But what really is the inner meaning of the stirring up of this adverse feeling as regards all aliens, although no doubt in a special manner as regards aliens the subjects of foreign countries? After all—and I recollect that the noble Lord criticised me strongly on one occasion for saying so—from Magna Carta, which was in 1215, down to the present time our law has been that foreign merchants in this country shall be left at liberty and at peace, although their Governments happen to be at war with our King. That was part of the industrial policy of this country and a part of it which has been of enormous advantage in the general outlook of our industrial life. I do not believe in countries living within the isolation of a wall, such as the Chinese in old days attempted to build around an isolated country. I think that that is nothing but a misfortune. You want international intercourse; you want international friendliness; you want international good-will and international cooperation, and unless you encourage that spirit the League of Nations so-called is in my view of no value at all. What is the
464
good on the one hand of speaking as though you believed in a League of Nations, and on the other hand promoting a Bill based on the principle that the policy of hatred should be continued and that the policy of suspicion and animosity should not be allowed to die away?
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, as one who unfortunately during the last five years of the war has been unable quite to see eye to eye with his old friends and colleagues on the alien question, I hope I may be allowed to say with what real pleasure I heard the wise speech which fell from my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster. It is difficult to say anything about a man in his presence, but perhaps I may be permitted to say that there are few men in this House who have made the position for themselves which my noble and learned friend has made, and that we look to him—the Party to which I have the honour to belong—as one of our rising and trusted leaders, and as a man whom we should be prepared to back up and follow. Therefore it was with great pleasure that I heard the speech which he made this afternoon; for after all it seems to me that there is not much between us now. Indeed, if I understood him aright, there is hardly any difference at all. He knows that I should be the last to try to make out anything more than he said, but if I understood him aright he said that he was not prepared in any way to raise any objection to the Bill. He said something—I did not quite catch it—about there being more wisdom than justice in it, but that anyhow he agreed that the Bill was a wise one and one that he was not prepared to object to or oppose.
The debate has also been more satisfactory, because the tone of it has been very different from the tone which prevailed in days gone by when some very strong language was used. I remember that in the old days those of us who were in favour of action against enemy aliens were called "unchristian" and "unchivalrous," and the Press on both sides, I think, was pretty outspoken, because in one paper I read that the action which we thought it our duty to the nation to take was simply "bestial, sordid, and miserable hate-mongering." Honestly, do your Lordships think that men who think as some of us do really deserve such language as that? We have tried all through these amazing terrible five years

465
to keep on an even keel in regard to this question. We opposed the milk-and-water Aliens Bill of the Government of July 18, 1918—it was universally condemned, without anybody having a word to say for it, by every speaker in this House—and at the same time we also did not quite approve of the somewhat startling change of front of the Prime Minister and of his clearthem-all-out policy six months later in the lightning Armistice Election of Christmas in the same year.
Everything we asked was that all aliens, rich and poor, should be treated alike, so that all suspicion should disappear and all mischievous rumours—and how mischievous those rumours were few people know—should be knocked on the head, and there should be no idea or notion that the Government was in any way influenced by what was called the "Hidden Hand." At the same time we knew that we lived in a free country, and if during these five terrible years of war men thought it consistent with their duty to the country to keep up their old German friendships and acquaintances, if they thought it right to extend favours and hospitality to their German friends—to naturalised friends of enemy birth—and to accept hospitality and favours from them in return, that was no concern of ours. We had nothing to do with it. If others, as has been said this afternoon, insisted on retaining the services of German governesses and ladies' maids, and employing German tailors, and on going to restaurants where German waiters were employed, we had nothing to do with that; and if their sympathisers in the House of Commons openly lamented their failure to obtain sea passages to enable them to confer with German socialists in foreign cafés, that also was no concern of ours. That was their concern and no concern of anybody else.
What we did resent, and rightly resent, was that these dubious gentry should be forced on our society as well—that we should find some of them left as members of our clubs—and we lost no opportunity of pointing out what we considered the scandal, if not the danger, of enemy aliens being allowed to remain in the British Consular and Civil Services, and also being allowed to act as pilots on our ships and in our harbours during time of war. Somewhat late in the day, but at last, these remonstrances have been taken some notice of, and as we know under Sections
466
5 and 6 of this Bill that scandal, as we thought it, has now been done away with for a time. We also thought that it was an outrageous thing that many enemy aliens should hold commissions in His Majesty's fighting forces, and also we were amazed at the Government insisting that these men should be the recipients of the highest honours and rewards that it was possible for this country to bestow—rewards higher than have been paid to our victorious Admirals and Generals—in recognition of mysterious services to the State. We were told by a member of the Government that those services were in important matters of extreme urgency, of which the public knows little, and were connected with their relations to individuals of which the public knows nothing. Not only had we those persons in opposition to our ideas, but we also had some lions in the path in the shape of good and honourable men who would have nothing to do whatever with German aliens, but who said to us, "This policy of yours we regret very much that we cannot support, because it would hamper if not destroy all our hopes of securing a lasting peace under the shadow of universal brotherhood." I ask this question, Is there any man in this House or out of it who will stand up and say that the repatriation of suspected Germans would knock out the League of Nations—that glorious conception which began rather as a fancy and has grown into an ideal? If it had been more dexterously and tactfully managed by the Powers it might possibly have become by now an actual fact. But these men shift their ground and say, "Oh yes, we quite agree as to all the horrors that have been committed by the Germans. We detest them. We are quite of your view in that respect. But do think of this. There would be terrible injustice in certain cases, and therefore we are in honour bound to oppose your policy."
Everybody in public life must know that all measures that have been conceived or carried out for the benefit or the safety or the protection of mankind have been opposed by good, honest, honourable and holy men. So these people in their kindness and simpleness of heart quote all the cases which we have heard repeated this afternoon. They tell us, "Oh, but what are you to do with the Englishmen who have married German wives?" Lots of Englishmen have married German wives. Some Englishmen have married some extra-

467
ordinary people. The Heralds' College told me once of a case in which a sprig of the nobility had married a Hottentot, and I myself have seen in the Western States of America the Sioux in their camp, after having been on the warpath, accompanied by Englishmen—or at any rate they appeared to be English—who were married to squaws of the tribe. You cannot possibly conceive a greater degradation than that. But in all those cases, from the highest to the lowest, according to the law of the land as it is now—I shall be corrected if I am wrong in this—there is a protection. The Aliens Consolidation Act of 1919 which is before your Lordships for Second Reading states in Part 3, Section 12—
"The wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject."
Some would say, "You could add to that the words of the Code Napoleon in France." Under that, if a woman marries a Frenchman, not only the husband but the whole of the family is responsible for her loyalty and good conduct. Others would say, "Oh, well, perhaps there may be something in that, but do think of the Englishwomen who have married German husbands." If an Englishwoman has married a German scoundrel her lot is a very unhappy one, but it is not more unhappy than if she had married any ruffian of any other nationality, and if an Englishwoman has married a decent German subject she has nothing to fear because Mr. Shortt, the Radical Home Secretary in the present Coalition Government, said recently, "There is nothing in this Bill whatever to prevent any alien coming to this country if, and only if, he is a decent and respectable person." I would ask, Is a suspected German to be allowed to remain in this country to plot, to intrigue, to injure, and to exploit it simply because he happens to have the good fortune to be married to an English wife?
Another argument is brought forward which is a very serious and a very sad one, and that is in relation to the case of those men of German origin who have been mentioned this afternoon as having fought and bled, and in some cases died, for this country. That is a horror that ought never to have been allowed. I believe that had it not been for the lightning declaration of war—if people had had time to think and look round—such a horrible thing would never have been sanctioned. There was a British rally all over the world. From all
468
parts of the Empire Englishmen sprang to the defence of their country. They all came to fight for liberty and honour. In these circumstances, when everybody came to the front, could there really have been any necessity for a small German or Hanoverian legion? Hundreds and thousands of men have paid the supreme sacrifice. The Angel of Death has been in every house in this country from the castle to the cottage, and the agony and anguish have been almost universal. Things have been hard to bear. But would not all this anguish and agony have been increased a thousand-fold and accentuated by the thought that these brave Germans—because there is no doubt some of them fought very bravely and very well—fell fighting against their own country and were killed by their own fellow-countrymen.
I have only one more word to say. It seems to me that the difference between us now, small as it is, has been entirely due to misunderstanding and to misapprehension—perhaps to unintentional misunderstanding. Some people seem to think—it has almost been said this afternoon—that the Bill applies to all foreigners all over the world, that it is going to be used in a most severe and drastic fashion, and that it is going to be administered by prize idiots. What is the truth of the whole thing? The truth is that the responsibility of working this Act rests upon the Civil Service. Anybody who has ever been a Minister, and has had a Department, knows what the work of these men is, for the English Civil Service is perhaps the best in the world. All of us who back up my noble and learned friend in his strictures upon Clause 9 say that if there is anything wrong in Clause 9 let us have it properly discussed, and, above all, let us take out of it any possible suspicion of any cruelty and injustice. We should be all agreed to that.
But this Bill, as I understand it, applies only to suspected Germans, men who have betrayed their trust, who have abused our hospitality, who have acted as spies, and, above all, have ill-treated our prisoners of war. Apart from all the atrocities of the war we know what Germany has done by what is called peaceful penetration before the war. They owned land, they owned shops and interests in our key industries. Well, there is a difficulty put in their way now by this Bill. In Australia, as everybody knows, they had the control of great industries. The

469
Australians stopped that themselves, and the vast majority of the people of this country are, I firmly believe, determined that such a state of things as that shall not occur again. And therefore it is in that hope and in that belief that, as a lifelong Liberal, I find it my duty in every way that I can to support the Bill which is now before your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to say, in the first place, that I think His Majesty's Government are not in any way to be blamed for having introduced legislation upon this subject. There was a strong and a very legitimate feeling in the country that the alien question ought to be further dealt with. It was a sort of testimony of public indignation to the attitude of Germany and to her conduct during the war. That was a perfectly legitimate feeling and it is not at all surprising that His Majesty's Government should have taken account of that feeling and should have proceeded to pass legislation.
Neither is this Bill the altogether objectionable measure that might have been supposed from some of the speeches which have been delivered this evening. I do not speak of the purely temporary provisions involved in Clause 1 of the Bill—I mean the prolongation of the principal Act for one year—they may be open to some exception, especially the additions which are involved in Clause 2. But, at any rate, for the most part, they are a purely temporary affair. I think Clause 2 is not temporary, but the prolongation for a year of the operation of the principal Act is a purely temporary affair, and therefore a matter of minor importance. Then there is another series of clauses in the Bill which deal with the permanent alteration of the law respecting aliens—I mean, all aliens, not merely enemy aliens. There is a great deal that I should desire to support in this Clause, for example, the provision that a resident alien here is not to be allowed to indulge in seditious agitation, that if he is only a temporary resident he is not to be allowed to further industrial unrest. Those appear to me to be very proper provisions of the law, and there are others.
I leave out the exceptional case to which the noble Earl called our attention, but, broadly speaking, I do not want to see alien pilots in this country. I think it reasonable that the Civil Service should not
470
have aliens amongst its number unless in very special cases, and, certainly, if any prisoner standing his trial objects to an alien sitting upon the Jury, it seems to me to be very proper that he should have an absolute right of challenge. All these seem to me to be good and wholesome provisions which deserve the support of your Lordships. There is one temporary provision which it really seems to me might have been transferred to the permanent part of the Bill, namely, the temporary provision which prevents an alien—I think any alien—from holding land in this country during the next three years.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Former enemy alien.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is only an enemy alien. At any rate, so far as that is concerned I have never been able quite to reconcile our practice with the sense of the fitness of things that aliens, especially enemy aliens, should be able to hold real property in this country. As we all of us here know well, the management of real property and the ownership of it require a great deal of tact, a great deal of knowledge of the spirit of British ideas and British institutions; otherwise you get into trouble at once. I have always thought that where you have aliens owning land in this country you often see occasions when that peculiar atmosphere under which we conduct our property is not quite understood and leads to a great deal of mischief. I think it is well worth the consideration of the Government and of your Lordships whether there should not be a permanent provision that at any rate enemy aliens should not hold land and houses in this country.
I pass from that to the last part of the Bill—namely, the part which deals with enemy aliens, which has been the main subject of debate this evening. Those provisions appear to me to be of an obviously penal character. I say "obviously penal" because I think that they only last, or most of them only last, for three years—I am speaking of the provisions of Clause 9, which provides for all the exclusions of enemy aliens. It is not that there are any words of a temporary character in Clause 9, but, reading it with Clause 10, that seems to me to be the effect—and, if I am wrong, no doubt the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will correct me—because Clause 10 says

471
that no enemy alien may land in this country or reside in it without permission during the next three years. When the three years come to an end I suppose he will be able to land and reside in this country, even without permission, and that appears to put an end to all the operations of Clause 9 at the termination of three years. That may be a wrong reading of the two clauses, but it appears to be how they read.
If that is so, then we are dealing in those clauses with temporary provisions for three years. Consequently, I say they must be of a penal character, and penal only, because the danger from an alien enemy will not be especially during the next three years. Therefore all arguments derived from the consideration that the residence of Germans in our midst is dangerous seems to be eliminated. What is the good of providing for things of that kind during the next three years? No Bulgarian or Turk or Austrian or German is likely to do very much harm in this country during the next three years. That appears to be quite insignificant; therefore we must look upon these clauses as merely penal—that is to say, a proposal by His Majesty's Government that Parliament should pronounce against enemy aliens generally a sort of sentence of exclusion, subject to certain limitations, for three years. As we might say to a prisoner at the bar, "You shall go to prison for three years penal servitude," so we say to enemy aliens, "You shall be excluded from this country (subject to certain limitations) for three years." If that be the interpretation of the proposal, then I must say that we require to study with great care the terms under which this punishment is to be awarded.
No doubt it makes it less important in one sense if it is for three years only; but if it is penal we must take care that we do not punish the wrong people. I am bound to say, after listening to this debate and especially after the extremely powerful speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, that I am afraid that as Clause 9 stands we shall in a very large number of cases punish the wrong people—that is to say, we shall inflict upon a number of perfectly innocent persons a punishment which they do not deserve, or which they deserve only because they happen to be Germans or Austrians or Turks or Bulgarians. That seems to me to be hard measure when you think of the
472
poor servant girl or the poor governess. Consequently we shall have to take the greatest possible care when in Committee to scrutinise the conditions of Clause 9.
May I refer in this connection to one clause which, if it has been mentioned at all, has not been mentioned very prominently? I allude to Clause 13. This clause seems to me to be one of the most astonishing clauses in the Bill if it is realised that these provisions against enemy aliens are of a punitive character.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What it says is that the Secretary of State may, if he likes, punish not only enemy aliens but all aliens, whether they are friends or enemies. That appears to me to be a most astonishing proposal. So that he may say, "These drastic provisions were passed in order to exhibit to the world our great indignation against the behaviour of Germany, Austria, and so forth; therefore I (the Secretary of State) decree that the same punishment should be awarded to the French and to the Americans." I am certain that I have only to mention this to convince your Lordships and His Majesty's Government that a clause in that form cannot possibly stand.
Those are the sort of criticisms I should make on the Bill. I think, if I may say so with great respect, that this Bill must be very carefully considered in Committee, and, in the light of the criticisms that have been made, it is impossible that the penal clauses of the Bill can emerge in their present form; but that with regard to the permanent clauses of the Bill there is a great deal to be said for them, and a great deal which deserves the consideration and support of your Lordships' House.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl who introduced this Bill on behalf of His Majesty's Government on the debate which has taken place after his speech, partly in consequence no doubt of the lucidity with which he explained its provisions. The debate has kept more closely than debates sometimes do to the subject-matter of the Bill, and the nature of the whole discussion has been one for which I personally feel intensely thankful.
We have heard no echo to-night of words which at all events were spoken pretty

473
strongly in the other House—which I do not think were without some murmur in this House, too—a few months ago when it appeared to a good many of us that the distinction was forgotten between what the noble Lord, Lord Newton, called attention to to-night—between war time and peace time as regards the basis and principle on which legislation ought to lie. There were speeches made on former occasions in this House, and much more strongly elsewhere, which could only have been made if the speakers were forgetting—as they certainly appeared to forget—the fundamental and vital distinction between the perils of war time which justify any precaution, any hardship if need be upon individuals for the sake of the public good, and the conditions which arise when war time is over as regards those dangers against which we were guarding before. I was a little surprised to hear the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, say that this Bill applied only to suspected Germans who had abused British hospitality. I should have thought that the Bill was intended to apply very little to those persons and that it was mainly intended to apply to those who were not capable of being so described; that we were to have the power of looking after the safety of this country even in the case of perils which might be only suspected; and certainly the Bill does not confine itself to those to whom the noble Marquess refers.
At the same time, it rejoiced me to hear the noble Marquess report what had been said by Lord Buckmaster as regards the need of Amendments in that strangely-drawn Clause 9. I am sure that many of your Lordships must have been imagining how that clause could possibly have got into the shape in which it now stands, and passed through a House of Parliament in a condition which makes it practically a ludicrously unworkable measure. I did not try to follow the growth of the clauses in the other place; I can only suppose that they took the shape they did because they were hurriedly tacked on one after the other without a realisation of what they meant. The noble and learned Lord was no doubt right in thinking that those who were supporting those clauses were thinking simply of men, but even if they had been so thinking Clause 9 is to my mind utterly impossible; and when it applies to women it becomes almost ludicrous. Some of the points to which
474
attention was drawn by the noble and learned Lord are so obvious that we must certainly see to them thoroughly when we go into Committee.
I hope that the Committee stage of this Bill will be a very careful one. We are dealing with a dangerous kind of measure; we are handling explosive material which may do infinite harm to, those who are handling it if they are not careful. We may find ourselves quite unnecessarily, under some unsuspected pressure which is being brought to bear upon us, drifting into a mode of action which we should some day deeply regret when we look back upon what has happened. I am an old man; there will not be many years during which I shall watch the outcome of a measure of this kind; but I am sure that there are younger members of this House who in twenty or thirty years time will look back with surprise on their own action if they give votes in favour of this Bill as it stands to-day because it has still about it a sort of aroma of war-time fears, grounds for which fears have now been practically taken away. We must take care, when we go through the clauses one by one in Committee, that we avoid anything which will make us even seem to be trying to apply in peace time rules, absolutely necessary, perfectly right, not only justifiable but obligatory upon us during a time of war, which are not only unnecessary but which will be intensely harmful in days of peace. After what has been said I do not think there can be any doubt that this clause will be thoroughly overhauled in Committee, and though I still feel we are dealing with most dangerous material, I believe we shall render it innocuous, and possibly beneficial, when we take the clause line by line for amendment purposes. I say once more that the debate as a whole has betokened the right spirit for handling a matter of this kind. I rejoice at the tone which has characterised it, and I congratulate the noble Earl who is responsible.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, your Lordships may be somewhat wearied by the debate which has lasted for a considerable period, but several specific questions have been asked and probably it will be expected that some answer should be attempted. Let me say in the first place that to the general tone of the debate the Government feel not the slightest objection. The Second

475
Reading of this Bill has not been seriously challenged. In fact, I think no speech did challenge it at all, except that of my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor, who was so convinced that his objections were unanswerable that he has not, I see, remained for such answer as might be attempted.
Lord Newton made one or two observations which dealt a little with the spirit and history of this Bill as a whole, which were not entirely confined to any particular clause. He said that the Press had borne an enormous responsibility in the genesis of the feeling of which this Bill was the outcome. Some measure of truth underlies this statement, but it is extremely easy to exaggerate it. If I know anything at all of that portion of the Press which feeds upon daily sensation, those who succeed most are those who have a keen intuition which enables them to discern what the public is thinking to-day or what the public is going to think to-morrow. I believe the real measure of their influence is to be found in their swift capacity for discerning that which the public is deeply thinking, and I have not the slightest doubt that not only during the period of the war, but even at the present day, there are many who sincerely entertain deep apprehensions calling for drastic legislation as regards the subject-matter of this Bill.
While I do not confine the few observations I make to any specific clause, I say quite plainly that I share none of the general apprehensions to which the most rev. Primate has just given expression. When we are told to remember that the dangers under which we struggled for the last five years are over, and when, in the noble and well-known phrase, Lord Buck-master invites us to remember Parcere subjectis et debellare superbos, some of us are inclined to look round the world to-day and say, Is it so certain that peace has come? We may take notice that to-day the people who alone are exhibiting coherence and enthusiasm in Berlin are not supporters of the present Government. They are those who applaud the reactionary Party. They are to-day with the soldiers and with all those on whom the guilty responsibility of the war depends.
We can recall, too, that, inexplicably, suddenly, indefensibly the German representatives at the Peace Conference have left Paris with every circumstance of equivocation. They have gone to Berlin. They are in default on at least six of the
476
most fundamental of their undertakings in relation to the Peace Conference, and all I say is this, Do not let us be told with this smooth certainty of conviction that the whole period of our crisis has absolutely disappeared. I sincerely hope it may prove to be true, but I think we should be mad if we did not take legislative precautions on the hypothesis that German human nature has not so completely altered as appears to the sanguine and vaguely benevolent mind of Lord Parmoor.
The noble and learned Lord reminded us that we owe much to aliens. It is true we owe much that is good, and we owe much that is bad; and no one who has analysed the causes of industrial unrest in this country in the last ten years, no one who is familiar with the records of Scotland Yard of aliens who in the last five years, not always being enemy aliens, have played a great part in this movement of revolutionary unrest, will be under any delusions as to whether only one scale must record that which this country owes to aliens. The noble and learned Lord said that this Bill was introduced in his judgment to keep every alien out of the country. There is much to be said in relation to one particular clause of the Bill, Clause 13. It is open to criticism. When that criticism is advanced by way of Amendment on the Committee stage, the Government will naturally consider any suggestions and any comments which are made in this House with the respect that is due to this House. I myself assent to the view which was expressed upon that clause by the Home Secretary, when he said that in his judgment it would not keep any friendly alien with a respectable character out of this country and would not result in the exclusion or the expulsion of any friendly alien from this country.
I disagree entirely with what Lord Parmoor said, that it put it in the power of any bureaucratic official to take steps which would place all aliens in the same position as enemy aliens. I assure my noble and learned friend (who has never, I think, presided over a great public Department) that decisions on matters so grave are not taken by subordinate officials. If such a decision be taken at all it will be taken by the Home Secretary himself, and your Lordships in deciding—and it is for you to decide—whether or not Clause 13 must be modified will, if I may venture to say so, be at least well advised to approach any

477
proposal to modify it with the certainty that any decision upon it will be taken by the Home Secretary and not by a subordinate official.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, also asked me a question with regard to Clause 2, subsection (2). As that was also commented upon by others, it will be perhaps convenient that I shall say a word about it. That is the subsection which puzzled my noble and learned friend by providing that—
"His Majesty may also by Order in Council under the principal Act make regulations requiring information to be given as to the property, liabilities, and interests of the subjects of any State which has been at war with His Majesty at any time during the year nineteen hundred and eighteen, and for preventing (without notice or authority) the transfer of or other dealings with the property of such subjects."
Whether the object with which that subsection has been drafted is very happily or lucidly carried out may be a subject of discussion when we approach it more closely in the Committee stage, but the object of the subsection I should have thought was patent. It is to provide for the regulation of the property and of the liabilities of former enemy aliens in order to safeguard the interests of those who have claims in this country against such aliens. A similar provision was inserted in the Peace Treaty which has been, in its turn, the parent of such. Regulations, whether by Order in Council or the equivalent, or by legislation, in the Allied countries. The language of this subsection may be explored more closely when we reach it.
I come to the very powerful speech which was made by my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster, and I am now in a position to give him the information which he desired. He asked that the 22,440 enemy aliens, belonging to the category so much discussed, might be distinguished according to sex. The information asked for is as follows—Austro-Hungarians, belonging to the class under discussion, males 4,721, females 3,557—total 8,278; Germans, males 8,446, females 5,320—total 13,766; Bulgarians, males 29, females 34—total 63; Turks, males 204, females 129—total 333. The noble and learned Lord was right in his anticipation that the number of males was considerably greater than that of females. The grand total is 22,440, made up as follows: males, 13,400; females, 9,040.
478
Now I approach —and I will deal with it shortly, because the Second Reading stage is not the occasion in which one can most conveniently discuss the merits or demerits of a particular clause—Clause 9, which has occupied a prominent place in the debate. I think that Lord Salisbury is not right in assuming that the three years provision in Clause 10 is to be read side by side with Clause 9, or throws any light upon it. As I read the Bill, Clause 10 deals with the case of an enemy alien who wishes to come to this country, not with the intention of a permanent stay but for temporary purposes, either business or pleasure. Whether it be a wise proposal or not, the object of Clause 9 is to deal only with the case of those enemy aliens who, at this moment, as survivors of the war, find themselves in this country.
I am in entire agreement with those who, in this debate, have said that the House of Lords is entitled to take cognisance of the fact that this Bill as presented is not the Bill which originally received the assent and imprimatur of the Government. It is a commonplace thing to say that any Second Chamber is entitled most carefully to consider the genesis of a Bill and its gradual development until it assumes its complete form. Having taken note of that circumstance, there may be other considerations as to the relative force of which different persons will form very different conclusions. I will not anticipate the discussion which may be necessary upon Clause 9; I announce no prematurely formed conclusion or decision of the Government. There is much to be said for the suggestion that when the vote takes place it might be left to the unrestricted decision of your Lordships without the intrusion of the Party Whips. But when we are told that the history, the Parliamentary history, of this measure is such that it ought almost of itself to induce this House to restore the Bill to the condition in which it left the hands of the Government draftsman, I say it may be a proper conclusion or not, but the changes that took place may suggest quite different reflections. What was their cause? This is certain, that the cause of these changes was the powerful and effective desire of the great majority of the House of Commons, so powerful that the Government surrendered their original intention and gave way to an expression of opinion so strong that in their judgment it was irresistible.

479
It may and probably will be said that the opinions of those who insisted upon a modification and strengthening of this part of the Bill were the result of ignorance and prejudice. It may be so. They are debatable matters. I am not saying that the whole of Clause 9 as it stands is not a debatable matter. My noble and learned friend pointed out some errors and oversights. He called attention to what, I think, is an undoubted fact—that the clause has been drafted in an exclusive and surprising reference to the case of males alone; and he pointed out that an appreciation of that fact would undoubtedly necessitate some modification. I am not attempting to make any convert in this House at this stage, but I am asking that the minds of noble Lords shall be kept open until the specified Amendments on that clause are put on the Paper.
The noble and learned Lord made an interesting suggestion on that point, in relation to which I, for one, should decline to reach a conclusion until I have heard the matter debated in Committee. He suggested that instead of making it necessary for every one of these hitherto unsuspected aliens to present themselves and obtain immunity, it would be possible, by means of a very simple Amendment, to provide that only those persons against whom some complaint was forthcoming should be made liable to the provisions of the clause. I prejudge nothing upon that, and I hope the noble and learned Lord will put an Amendment down so that it may be the subject of discussion and decision in this House. I hope myself to learn something by such a debate, as I think all those who listen to it would certainly do.
I have only this to add. This is a most difficult and thorny subject. It would be difficult to deal with it even in times of peace. More than one Government has found that no legislation presents greater complexity and difficulty than legislation dealing with the admission of aliens into this country. We had the task, in the first place, of formulating our policy while we were still almost in the throes of the greatest war in history. We have had to present our complete and final proposals in a period in which peace in the real sense is not even now restored to the world. We believe—and the reception given to the Motion for the Second Reading encourages us in the belief—that we have
480
dealt in the main with the formidable difficulties in a spirit of reasonable compromise, and yet in the spirit of men who are determined that this country and this Empire shall no longer be exposed to the unnecessary dangers which, as we think, we have endured in the past.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I think it is desirable, before we go into Committee, that something should be said to show that there is a feeling in some parts of your Lordships' House that it is not only Clause 9 and Clause 13—as to which I think no defence can be offered—which are objectionable. Clause 10 is also objectionable. To me Clauses 9 and 10 stand together as an attempt to perpetuate a system of hate, a condition of war, in time of peace. This country has been through many great wars in her history, many wars of great danger, and she has not always come out as successfully as on this occasion. She has even had to sit under defeat; but never has she made such proposals and carried such laws as those which are contained in these clauses. Never before has she ceased to treat former enemies as practically friends as soon as peace has been declared; and, my Lords; in these days of international commerce, international union and international marriage the hardship and cruelty as well as the injustice of these clauses becomes much more prominent than in former days.
I bear in mind cases which have been brought to my notice—cases of poor humble people—where English women have married German men and now find their German husbands isolated from them in Germany, unable to come back, hardiy venturing to ask their English wives and children to share the hardships and the odium—and one might almost say the just odium, if such a Bill is passed—to which English people will be subjected in Germany. Those are the people of whom I am thinking—people who perhaps have been deported; people who perhaps have on the whole found it better to leave this country than to be interned, and who under Clause 10 are not to be allowed to come back for three years to their wives and children—as well as those people who under Clause 9 may be deported and torn from their wives and children. I will not add, though I could, to the riddling to which Clause 9 has been subjected by my noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster. There arc even further shots to be

481
fired at that clause, but I will not trouble your Lordships with them.
I will confine myself to Clause 10, and turn away from the claims of humanity and justice to the claims of commerce and business. Are we not going to do trade with Germany? Are we not going to do trade with Austria? Are we going to let the Americans and the Russians have it all? Are we going to give Germany an opportunity of paying some of her debts? If we are we must do trade with Germany, and are we going to do that without the familiar common bagman? Are there to be no commercial travellers sent from one country to the other? Is there to be no interchange of literary tastes? Are there to be no conferences of astronomers and other scientific people, or conferences between the much-abused lawyers, to which Germans may come in this country? Are all those international conferences to be held in the future in Holland or in Switzerland, because we erect a kind of Chinese wall against people who at one time were our enemies but who ex hypothesi are no longer hostile to us?
This clause is so drawn that it would even apply to Ambassadors. I know there was a clause in Standing Committee of the House of Commons exempting diplomatic people, but for some reason it has ceased to appear here, though I will assume that under International Law Ambassadors would be admitted. But what about Consuls? Are there to be no German or Austrian Consuls here?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I would refer the noble and learned. Lord to Clause 15, Which says:—"Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed as imposing any restriction or disability on any duly accredited head of a foreign diplomatic mission or any member of his official staff or household."
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I bad seen that clause and forgotten it, but it does not touch the Consul, who is the one whom I am really thinking of. Are there to be no German, Austrian, or Turkish Consuls in this country unless that most undesirable thing happens—namely, that the Austrians or Germans employ Englishmen as their Consuls? How are we to expect the Germans to admit our Consuls and our travellers and merchants and people who
482
want to show off their goods into their country if we have such a clause as Clause 10? Lord Newton tells me that it may be provided for in the Treaty. If that is so, this clause is in contravention of the Treaty. But how are we ever to expect to do business with countries with which we have been at war with Clause 10 staring us in the face? We are practically giving a licence to our competitors—Holland and America and Russia, and I dare say Italy—to trade with Germany and Austria instead of ourselves. I hope that when the Bill comes into Committee Clauses 9 and 10 will disappear, and that if they do not they will be so changed that their authors will not know them. I owe, perhaps, some apology to the Government and to the Lord Chancellor, who probably intended to conclude the debate, for not having risen before. I had intended to do so but I refrained as I saw him leave the Woolsack, but I have been obliged to say a few words in order to indicate the line which I hope your Lordships will adopt when the Bill comes into Committee.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: When is it proposed to take the Committee stage of this Bill?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: On Thursday of next week.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that is too soon.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: We propose to put it down pro forma for Thursday, and we can then discuss on Tuesday as to the effective date.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

COUNTY COURTS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 11:
Costs of actions commenced in High Court which could have been commenced in county court.
11. The following section shall be substituted for section one hundred and sixteen of the principal Act:—
"(1) Where an action is brought in the High Court which could have been commenced in a

483
county court, then, if the plaintiff recovers a sum less, in the case of an action founded on a contract, than forty pounds, or in the case of an action founded on tort than ten pounds, he shall not be entitled to any costs of the action, and if he recovers, in the case of an action founded on contract a sum of forty pounds or upwards but less than one hundred pounds, or in the case of an action founded on tort a sum of ten pounds or upwards but less than fifty pounds, he shall not be entitled to any more costs of the action than those to which he would have been entitled if the action had been brought in a county court, and where a plaintiff is entitled to costs on a county court scale only the taxing master shall have the same power of directing on what county court scale and under what column in the scale costs are to be allowed and of allowing any items of costs as the judge would have had if the action had been brought in a county court:
"Provided that—

"(i) in any such action, whether founded on contract or tort, the court or a judge, or where the action is tried before a referee or officer of the Supreme Court, that referee or officer, if satisfied that there was sufficient reason for bringing the action in the High Court or that the defendant or one of the defendants objected to the transfer of the action to a county court, may make an order allowing the costs or any part of the costs thereof on the High Court scale or on such one of the county court scales and under such one of the columns in the scale as he may direct; and

"(ii) if in any action founded on contract the plaintiff within twenty-one days after the service of the writ, or within such further time as may be allowed by the court or a judge, obtains an order under Order XIV of the rules of the Supreme Court that he shall be at liberty to sign judgment for a sum of forty pounds or upwards either unconditionally or unless that sum is paid into court or to the plaintiff's solicitor, he shall, unless otherwise ordered by the court or a judge, be entitled to costs on the High Court scale.

"(2) This section applies only to the costs of the proceedings in the High Court."
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved, in proviso (ii), to leave out "forty pounds" and insert "twenty pounds." The noble Lord said: If any of your Lordships will look at the clause referred to you will see that the money limit put upon the jurisdiction is the same as that which characterises the main clause of the Bill—namely £40. It seemed to me, therefore, when I first read the clause, that this was all right, but it has been pointed out to me since that it would have a serious effect upon one of the most beneficial rules that we have in the Supreme Court—namely, the familiar Order XIV. It alters the money limit connected with the admini-
484
stration of that clause, and on the whole I would submit to the noble and learned Lord that it would be better that that part of our jurisdiction which has always given so much satisfaction should not be altered in this Bill. If the noble and learned Lord has not had an opportunity of considering the matter, I will bring it forward—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have considered the point very carefully, and I think that the technical reason which the noble and learned Lord has put forward is a good one. I am therefore prepared to assent to the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 11, page 7, line 28, leave out ("forty") and insert ("twenty").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

ARMY COUNCIL AND SIR JOHN HEWETT.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON, on behalf of the EARL of DURHAM, rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Army Council, at the instance of the Secretary of State for India, called upon Sir John Hewett for an explanation of his conduct in having delivered in January last at Baghdad a private lecture to an audience of military officers, on the ground that the lecture criticised the Indian reform proposals placed before His Majesty's Government by the Secretary of State and the Governor-General; whether Sir John Hewett did not, in his explanation, show conclusively that the action of the Secretary of State for India in asking the Army Council to take him to task was without justification; what action have the Army Council or the Secretary of State for India taken on receipt of Sir John Hewett's explanation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret to say that owing to the illness of Lord Durham I have been asked to make the Motion that stands in his name. May I very briefly amplify the Question that has been put down on the Notice Paper for the information of your Lordships who may not be apprised of the facts. Sir John Hewett, at the invitation of the Government, went out on an important mission to Mesopotamia, and on his return from that country in May last received a letter of thanks from the War Office for what he had achieved. In June he had a letter

485
from the Army Council which asked for an explanation of a lecture that he had given at Baghdad. Perhaps I may read one or two passages from that letter. It says—
"In the course of this lecture you not only passed severe strictures upon the merits of the proposals themselves [the Indian Reform proposals] but also presented in an unfavourable light the future prospects of Government employment in India, whether civil or military."
The letter goes on to argue that particular point, and at the end asks for an explanation.
Sir John Hewett wrote a very complete and reasoned reply, in which he pointed out that he had been invited to deliver this lecture by the military authorities at Baghdad, and that what he then said was a very abridged form of a Note that had been printed in this country previous to his going out to Mesopotamia, and that he had been asked by the Secretary of State for India to formulate his views on the Indian Reform proposals and did so in that Note. I would wish to emphasise particularly to your Lordships the fact that the lecture in Baghdad was a very abridged form of that Note. Having written that Note he had on July 1st a letter from the Secretary of State for India, which said—
"I am very grateful to you for having expressed yourself so fully and frankly. I need hardly say that I gave what you wrote my closest attention."
Yet in spite of this, Sir John received the letter, the salient points of which I have already read, asking for an explanation of his conduct in Mesopotamia.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL): What is the date of the letter you are reading from?
LORD LAMINGTON: The letter that I have just read was from Mr. Montagu, and was received before Sir John Hewett went to Mesopotamia, and it conveyed thanks for his Note. That Note was printed, and anybody could buy it in this country. Sir John sent his letter on July 2 containing a reasoned reply, and on August 19 he received a letter from the War Office acknowledging the receipt of the letter, and concluding by saying—
"The Army Council have since been informed by the India Office that the Secretary of State for India does not press for any further action in this matter."
486
I omitted to mention that in the original letter from the Army Council they disclaimed any knowledge of what the lecture complained of contained. They seemed to know nothing about it, and the reply I have just read was the only one that Sir John Hewett got from the War Office. He then wrote protesting against this cavalier treatment. That was on August 28, and on September 18 there was another letter from the War Office in which again they did not argue or controvert the facts set out in the letter of explanation, but merely concluded—
"As you have already been informed, the Secretary of State for India does not desire the War Office to pursue the question further, and consequently so far as the Army Council is concerned the matter is ended."
That surely is an extraordinary position to take up. It seems to me that the War Office were acting merely as the stalking horse for the India Office all through. Why should not the India Office have written direct to Sir John Hewett? He is not in the Army, and had no military rank in Mesopotamia. That country was under military government, and it might be said that to that extent he was under the orders of the War Office, but only to that very limited extent.
This seems to me, an extraordinary position to take up in regard to a gentleman like Sir John Hewett, who has such a great reputation as an eminent Indian administrator. The noble Earl the Leader of the House (Earl Curzon of Kedleston) has described him, in this House I think, as an administrator of first-class ability, great experience, and of very balanced judgment. He might have left the whole matter alone and have rested content with a complete vindication of his action, but the Army Council could not apparently give him a decent reply. The action that has been taken on this question seems to be on a par with the treatment meted out to anybody who has ventured severely to criticise the Indian Reform proposals. Lord Sydenham was the object of a fierce attack on one occasion in the House of Commons, and Dr. Nair, an Indian who came over here to voice the alarm of the millions of the sub-castes of India against Brahmin power, was prevented by the Government—or at least they attempted to prevent him—from speaking in this country. There has always been fierce objection whenever any one has attempted to speak out in opposition to the Reform proposals. And

487
that has been done in spite of the fact that in the Report upon the Reform proposals criticism was invited. In that Report it is stated—
"Our proposals can only benefit by reasoned criticism both in England and India, official and non-official alike."
Yet notwithstanding that statement in the Report the sort of treatment that I have just indicated is meted out to one of the most eminent administrators. I would like to ask the noble Lord who is going to answer me whether the War Office had ever seen the lecture that they complained of, and can he say whether the lecture was ever before the Secretary of State for India himself?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I cannot answer that.
LORD LAMINGTON: Well, will somebody on behalf of the Government give a reply? I beg to move.
VISCOUNT PEEL: In this case my noble friend who has introduced the subject seems to have measured out blame rather impartially both to the War Office and to the India Office, and I was not quite sure for the moment on which of those Offices his animadversion rested most severely.
LORD LAMINGTON: The India Office.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I only rose to deal with the part—rather a small part—played in this by the War Office. My noble friend has accused the War Office of acting in the capacity of a stalking horse for the India Office. I think that I had better state briefly what did happen, more especially as the Question on the Paper does not give a very accurate account of it. The War Office received an intimation from the India Office that a lecture of an undesirable kind had been given by Sir John Hewett in Mesopotamia, and that this lecture had had certain results. One was that a certain number of pensionable officers in India—a rather larger number than usual—had been applying for posts outside India, showing that the lecture had a rather wider result than might have been expected, it having been delivered only to a certain number of officers and warrant officers in Mesopotamia.
My noble friend asked why the War Office took any action. The answer is
488
perfectly simple—because Sir John Hewett had gone out at the request of the War Office and was on War Office business when he was there, and this lecture was delivered, though it was not connected with War Office business, at a time when he was acting for the War Office.
LORD LAMINGTON: Was it not the business of the War Office to find out exactly what the lecturer had said?
VISCOUNT PEEL: If my noble friend will restrain his impatience I will proceed to say why the War Office acted in the way they did. This request was accordingly brought to the War Office, and the War Office had this decision to come to—whether they should intervene at all and ask him for an explanation, or whether they should not. Sir John Hewett was acting for the War Office and, having considered the matter, they felt—and I think your Lordships will agree—that it would have been in the highest degree discourteous for the War Office to have sent an absolutely point-blank refusal to the India Office, and to say they would not even agree to ask this gentleman for an explanation of what he had said. My noble friend dwells very much on Sir John Hewett's being a distinguished official. That is quite so, but surely you must admit that even a distinguished official may be sometimes asked for an explanation.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: You might ask him civilly.
VISCOUNT PEEL: And the mere fact whether he is distinguished or undistinguished is not really relevant to the question of whether the War Office should have acted on this occasion. The War Office were requested to telegraph out to Sir John Hewett and ask him for an explanation of what he had said, but, after considering the matter carefully, they thought that it was not necessary to telegraph out, but that they would ask him for an explanation when he came home. Accordingly they did ask him for an explanation when he came home, and he wrote a full letter of explanation to the War Office. This letter was sent on by the War Office to the India Office, and a reply was received from the India Office to the general effect that the Secretary of State for India did not press for any further action. That reply was com-

489
municated to Sir John Hewett, and there, as far as the War Office is concerned, the whole matter is closed.
It will be seen, therefore, that there is only one question affecting the War Office —namely, as to whether or not the War Office should have asked Sir John Hewett for an explanation; and I submit to your Lordships that, after receiving such a communication as they did from the India Office, it was really only reasonable that they should act in this way. And there the matter would really have been felt, buried in the files of the War Office, if the noble Lord opposite had not desired to bring the matter up. As to the question of merits or anything of that kind, of course, with that I have nothing to do, because the War Office really only acted as agents or—if you like to call it so—the "post office" for the India Office, and felt that, in courtesy to the India Office, they had so to act.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD SINHA): My Lords, perhaps, as the gravamen of the charge made by the noble Lord is with respect to the India Office, I may be permitted to make a brief statement as to how and why the action came to be taken that was taken in this case. Some time after Sir John Hewett had gone out to Mesopotamia on Government business, in January this year, there was a complaint and a protest made by the Civil Commissioner at Baghdad to the Secretary of State for India, under whom he acts, with regard to the lecture delivered by Sir John Hewett, and with regard to the immediate result of that lecture in Mesopotamia, namely, that there was an increased number of applications for employment in Mesopotamia from permanent officials holding pensionable service in India.
LORD LAMINGTON: What was the date of that complaint?
LORD SINHA: That was January 16.
LORD LAMINGTON: Was the complaint telegraphed home here?
LORD SINHA: Yes, he cabled home. On that the Secretary of State asked the War Office to call upon Sir John Hewett for an explanation. The reason why they had to go to the War Office was simply this. Sir John Hewett was then acting
490
as an agent of the War Office in Mesopotamia, and the Secretary of State for India had no right whatever to call for an explanation from Sir John Hewett or to do it through any other channel than the War Office. I submit to your Lordships that, having regard to the complaint received from the Civil Commissioner in Mesopotamia, it was incumbent on the Secretary of State for India, to send on the complaint, or the substance of it, to the War Office, and to ask for an explanation from Sir John Hewett.
As I understand it, Sir John Hewett's explanation is that he said nothing more nor less than what he had published in his Note, and that, if the result that was mentioned had happened, it was due not to what he said in Mesopotamia but to what he had written before. I confess that I cannot myself believe that the spoken word had not a greater effect than the written word. The Note had been published some time ago. It had not resulted in officials in the Indian Service in Mesopotamia sending in applications for retirement from the Indian Service for employment outside, but the immediate result of the lecture in Baghdad was to bring in an increased number of applications from those officials at a time when the Government of India knew that there was great difficulty in recruiting for the Indian Civil Service by reason of the five years war that had taken place.
In those circumstances I submit that the Secretary of State was right in thinking that it would have been more correct, and certainly wiser, if Sir John Hewett had not delivered the lecture on the occasion, and in the circumstances, and to the audience that he did. On receipt of Sir John's explanation, after he had arrived here, the Secretary of State said, "Well, I do not want to press the matter any further." He did not complain of the tenour and substance of the lecture itself—he made that clear—but what he did complain of was the occasion and the circumstances under which the lecture had been delivered, and the results that had followed from it. I submit that in these circumstances it was incumbent on the Secretary of State for India to take the action that he did.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I must confess that I do not think this story reflects great credit either on the common sense or the courtesy of the India

491
Office or the War Office. Sir John Hewett is one of our most distinguished public servants, a man who ought to be treated on all occasions with the utmost possible courtesy and consideration. He is sent out to Mesopotamia at great personal inconvenience to do war service for His Majesty's Government. When he is in Baghdad he is asked by the military authorities to deliver a lecture on this subject, and he gives in a lecture the substance of a publication he had already made in this country. The Secretary of State, we now hear—I hear for the first time—received a complaint about that lecture from the representative of the India Office in Baghdad. I confess I think it would have been much more sensible of the India Office if it had taken no notice of that communication at all. But they wrote to the War Office and requested them to ask Sir John Hewett for an explanation. I do not think the War Office could refuse to do what the India Office asked them to do; but there are two ways of doing the thing. I have seen that letter, and I say quite deliberately that it is not such a letter as ought ever to have been written to a man like Sir John Hewett.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is a letter which has not been published.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No; not that I know.
VISCOUNT PEEL: You are describing a letter with which it is rather difficult to deal if no one has seen it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: You have seen it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I shall deal with it if necessary.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This is the whole point of the matter: the letter is such a letter as naturally a man like Sir John Hewett does not like to receive; and I would submit it to the judgment of any of my friends whether they think it was the kind of letter which ought to have been written in those circumstances to Sir John Hewett. Sir John Hewett answers this letter so completely that the Secretary of State for India says, "Let the matter drop. I will not press the matter any further." I do not know what he could have done: but that is the position. You
492
would have thought that the War Office, having written such a letter, would have sent a courteous reply to Sir John Hewett closing the matter as between gentlemen; instead of which they dropped the thing in the curtest and abruptest official manner, and I do not wonder that Sir John Hewett feels the way in which he has been treated.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I was not anxious to intervene in this discussion, for the reason that I have a personal feeling of regard and admiration for Sir John Hewett, which perhaps does not render me an absolutely impartial judge in a case of this sort. At the same time I think that my noble friend who has just addressed your Lordships has dealt out rather hard measure to both the Offices that are concerned, and more particularly to the War Office. I had rather expected that his chief shafts would have been directed at my noble friend the Under-Secretary for India with regard to the conduct (or the presumed conduct) of the Secretary of State for India; but, on the contrary, the principal object of his attack has been the War Office.
With all respect I cannot think that this attack has been justified; because, after all, what did the War Office do? I do not suppose that they had any idea of what had passed until they received the communication from the India Office. We now know upon what information the Secretary of State was acting. I myself have not read the telegram that he received from the Civil Commissioner at Baghdad, but we are told to-day—and I have heard before—that a telegram did come from the Civil Commissioner at Baghdad complaining to the Secretary of State for India of the fact that the lecture had been delivered, of the nature of the lecture itself, and of the effect it is alleged to have produced. It was in those circumstances that the Secretary of State for India asked the War Office, under whom Sir John Hewett was serving, to make an inquiry.
I may say, with regard to what my noble friend Lord Lamington said, that I cannot believe for a moment that in asking the War Office to make that inquiry the Secretary of State for India was actuated by the personal feelings of hostility or revengefulness which my noble friend attributed to him. That would be to believe the Secretary of State guilty of

493
conduct and of motives which no one who knows him would attribute to him; and I have no doubt that his inquiry addressed to the War Office was a perfectly bona fide and legitimate one. Then what was the War Office to do? Invited to seek an explanation from a very distinguished official in their employ, they took steps to inquire. As my noble friend said, they did not regard the matter as one of such extreme urgency as to require them to telegraph; they waited until Sir John Hewett came home, which was, I think, a matter of six months.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, six months.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Now, the letter to which my noble friend refers as having been derogatory—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Curt.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON:—discourteous in tone, I have now before me. I do not know whether it is open to me to read the paragraph to which the noble Earl refers, because I may be called upon to lay the whole correspondence. I should be rather reluctant to do that, because I hardly think it is worth while troubling Parliament with so small a matter. But if your Lordships wish me to read it, without exacting the penalty of my indiscretion, I will do so.
NOBLE LORDS: Agreed.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The paragraph is as follows—
"The Army Council have not had before them the text of the lecture that you gave at Baghdad, but they cannot disclaim responsibility for the conduct of a pensioned Government servant when engaged at the public expense upon War Office business, even though the action which forms the ground of official complaint lay altogether outside the scope of the duties which you were discharging under the War Office."
That is the passage to which my noble friend refers.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: One of them.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: But it is the only passage to which in this letter he conceivably can refer. Now, I am not an admirer of official phraseology; a good deal of my time is spent in correcting it.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: And I am not here to say that this is a model of the kind of language that we speak at the dinner table or in the drawing-room; but I do say that it did not cover any desire to be discourteous, much less to be offensive. I go further, and I say that I think it indicates a rather fevered imagination to read into it any affront to Sir John Hewett. It is a not unfamiliar form of official expression, and I am quite certain, as the Army Council said later, that they did not intend to convey the smallest imputation; that they were not interested in the matter to a great extent, and in so far as they were interested they would like a man whom they had appointed to vindicate himself. I really think that to charge my noble friend as the representative of the War Office—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I never charged my noble friend.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON:—or to charge the Army Council, for whom he is speaking to-day, with having treated Sir John Hewett in an unfair way, can hardly be sustained. Then we come to the action of the India Office. What happened there? I have already explained that the Secretary of State, acting upon this telegram from Baghdad, asked the War Office to make an inquiry. The inquiry was made. It was answered by Sir John Hewett when he returned to this country. I am familiar with Sir John Hewett's style in India, and I was delighted to see that even a sojourn in the sultry plains of Mesopotamia had not in the least degree diminished its old point and force. And a very effective reply it was.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Then the Secretary of State had to decide what to do. He decided to take no further action. I should have thought Sir John Hewett would have been satisfied with that. I am not certain that Sir John Hewett would have expected at that moment—while fully anticipating that the Secretary of State would have disappeared from the scene—any compliments from the Secretary of State. There was no reason, perhaps, why they should be offered; and the Secretary of State retired with dignity,

495
evidently thinking that the controversy was one not worth pursuing. In these circumstances I should have thought that Sir John Hewett ought to have offered a vote of thanks to the Secretary of State and to the War Office for having been the means of putting him in this position. To sum up, I think this a field of combat from which every one retires with credit, and I hope that nothing more will be said about it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am afraid my noble friend does not appreciate the position of Sir John Hewett in this matter. Sir John Hewett was not an officer; he went out at very great personal inconvenience to serve his country. When he got there the representative of His Majesty's Government, or at any rate the representative of the War Office part of His Majesty's Government, asked him to deliver a lecture on this subject. He does it, and then he is reproved and gets the kind of letter that a General might write to his subaltern. I am familiar with the style of the War Office—
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: You have been a General.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes; and I have also been a soldier. I say deliberately that this is not an appropriate way in which to address a great public servant; and when it turned out upon Sir John Hewett's return that he had only done what the Government themselves, by their representative, had asked him to do, and had only repeated what the Government knew were his opinions, then I do not share the humorous view which my noble friend takes of the situation, that every one might be silent and that the thing might be dropped without discredit to any one. If you have done an injury to a man, the proper thing is to express your regret to him; and what Sir John Hewett expected was that the Government would have written a civil letter saying that the letter which the War Office wrote to him was not conceived in the best possible style, that it had been written under a misapprehension, that they hoped Sir John Hewett would think no more about it, that they recognised the great services he had conferred by going to Mesopotamia, and hoped he would not feel any more on the subject. That is the kind of letter that should have been sent.
496
The idea that when the India Office found they had not a case, they should not say another word seems to me the most over-strained method of justifying a Government Department of which I have ever heard. The proper thing was to express regret, and I am certain that is the view of my noble friend who leads the House. He has told your Lordships what respect he has for Sir John Hewett and that he is his personal friend. I am sure no man more than my noble friend the noble Earl, regrets that Sir John Hewett's feelings should have been injured in this way by the mistakes of the two Departments which are the subject of the Question. I cannot help hoping even now that my noble friend will say a word of regret as to the inconvenience and distress of mind to which Sir John Hewett has been subjected.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, may I say a word in conclusion? I think Sir John Hewett ought to be well satisfied with the very graceful way in which the noble Earl concluded his remarks, practically vindicating his action. There is one point, however, which was glossed over by the noble Earl. When the Civil Commissioner on January 10 thought it worth while to telegraph with regard to the recruiting for the Indian Civil Service and to state that these pensioned officers were reluctant to take duty in India, why was no action taken whatsoever to telegraph to Mesopotamia informing Sir John Hewett of the unfortunate effect of his lecture? Why wait till Sir John Hewett came home to tell him of the dire consequences of his address to a private meeting of officers? The noble Earl glossed over that. It seems to me the crux of the matter. The matter was so urgent that Sir John Hewett ought to have been warned at the time, or the question should not have been raised at all. That point has not been answered.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think I may be allowed to say one word as to that. My noble friend makes it really a charge against the War Office that they did not immediately telegraph, as they were asked to do—
LORD LAMINGTON: The India Office.
VISCOUNT PEEL: We were acting for them. He complains that we did not immediately telegraph, as we were asked to do by the India Office. It was merely

497
out of courtesy to Sir John Hewett. It was thought that it would be sufficient when he arrived home, when he had more leisure than he had out there, to ask him for an explanation of the whole thing. What was intended as courtesy and kindness appears to be twisted by the noble Lord into discourtesy.
LORD LAMINGTON: Meanwhile, the Indian Civil Service had been considerably damaged by Sir John Hewett's speech. I beg to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE COAL CONTROL.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON had the following Questions on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government—
1. Whether their attention has been called to the unfair position in which Lanarkshire collieries are put by being debarred from exporting coal, except to a small amount.
2. Whether they will now remove the restrictions imposed during the war on the source of supply of coal to consumers caused by the division of the country into a number of coal areas, having regard to the fact that under the present system in some cases delay in supply and increase of cost are caused.
3. To ask whether the Coal Control should not now be removed.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as it is so late I will put these Questions briefly. Perhaps it will be more convenient to take the second one first. That refers to the part of the country in Scotland in which I live, and I will try to explain how the matter stands.
Owing to Scotland being divided into coal areas people are prohibited from obtaining coal, except in the areas to which they have been allotted. In my particular case there are coalfields within 18 and 22 miles of the locality, on the same trunk line of railway, but all those dwelling in this area are prohibited from getting coal from what has been our natural source of supply. Instead of that we are compelled to buy our coal in East Lothian, at a distance of at least 45 miles, as compared with 18 miles. The coal obtained is of inferior quality. I believe it costs more at
498
the pit mouth, though it is difficult to ascertain the relative prices, and there is a vast increase in haulage expense. That puts everybody under a great disability in this particular area and there is a general complaint about it.
I have privately protested against it, but I was told that when you have Government restrictions you must have anomalies. There the matter has rested. I have tried to find our whether there has been any great saving in haulage owing to these Regulations, and all those whom I have asked very much doubt whether there has been any considerable saving in this respect. In the particular case to which I refer not only do they not bring the coal by the shortest route to where we live, but I am told—this is unofficial—they make a big detour in order to increase the mileage and charge a higher tariff.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: On purpose to do that?
LORD LAMINGTON: In Lanarkshire. Instead of going over one system of railway the coal, owing to these restrictions, has to go over two trunk systems, the North British and the Caledonian. That may be a small matter as the locality is sparsely populated and there is no great consumption of coal, but it illustrates the hardships of those subject to these restrictions. I very much doubt whether over the whole country there has been any really considerable saving on haulage. Why should people wish to get coal from a greater distance than they need? It may be said that some manufacturers, some industries, are particular about the quality of coal and go to a great distance in order to get it. They only do so for the more economic working of their industry and that, therefore, cannot be said to be a wasteful way of conducting their business. I understand, since the Question was put on the Paper, that there is to be some relaxation of this system of allotting customers to certain. coal areas.
With regard to the first Question, I must say that the other day I received notice that they had threatened to close down a small colliery, which I have the partial good fortune to own, owing to the effect of the uncertainty now prevailing in the coal world in consequence of the Government Regulations, the slackness of the working of the miners, and, particularly, the fact

499
that Lanarkshire is not allowed to export coal to any large amount, so that they do not share in the benefit of the high prices to the great extent that other collieries do. We know that profits are pooled and a certain amount is redistributed to those collieries which supply coal for home consumption only. In this case the pit has a very poor, narrow seam of from 17 inches to 19 inches, and there is no way of making up for the great expense of working such a pit under the modern conditions which are brought about by the action of the Coal Controller. That is a fruitful source of trouble to colliery owners in Lanarkshire and it really leads to the demand for the withdrawal of coal control altogether. The argument which will be used probably in reply is that if you do not have the control now when the export is so enormous and the prices obtained so great, coal will be almost entirely exported and there will not be enough for home consumption and maintenance of home industries. There is one answer to that, namely, that you could not get sufficient shipping to take away coal to that extent. I was talking recently to a gentleman prominent in the coal industry and he said that the coal world, and the industrial world, would rather the Government restrictions were removed and that they should run the risk of enormously increased prices for the carrying on of their industries. than submit to the present uncertainty and the constant issue of regulations. It seems to me that Government control of coal, like Government control of other things, is the "fifth wheel of the coach." It does not add to the progress of the machine. They issue fresh regulations, make speeches, and print Blue Books; but it comes to nothing. It does not aid the advancement of our industries or add to the convenience and comfort of the people of this country, and I trust we shall see shortly if not total abolition at all events a considerable curtailment of the coal control.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I think everybody must admit that the position in the coal trade is not yet quite normal, and until the supply more nearly meets the demand some control must, I think, be necessary. But whilst the trade itself has come to no definite conclusion as to the exact way in which the Government should de-control, I think I am right in saying that it is quite possible for local committees to be given powers which
500
would enable them to do two things which are necessary in the interests of the home consumer. One, that they should be able to prevent prices soaring to the high level which can be obtained for export trade, and, two, secure that sufficient coal should be retained for inland consumption. If local committees could be given powers of that kind in my judgment the Coal Controller's work might very rapidly be brought to a conclusion. These committees ought to be representative. They should have a representative of the Government and, of course, there ought to be some link to protect the consumer. It would obviate the great number of these harassing restrictions which are so objectionable at the present time.
As coal owners we were willing to discuss with the Coal Controller, or with the President of the Board of Trade, some system of de-controlling, and we were impressed by the statements which the President of the Board of Trade made to us in regard to the present system of control, which he regards as bad. I quote his words on November 21 in the other House—
"In the light of these facts it is desirable, at an early date, to modify profoundly the present system of coal control which, in my opinion, is unnecessarily hampering."
We are all at one, apparently, in endeavouring to secure de-control but, to the great surprise of the coal trade, we were suddenly brought face to face with a proposition which is going to cement in its position the system of control more firmly than it has ever been before. The proposal to decrease the price of coal to the home consumer is a most extraordinary announcement on the part of the Government. Only on November 13 the President of the Board of Trade, in the House of Commons, said—
" I would be prepared to recommend the Government to take risks with reference to the price of coal, to lower the price not by 6s.—that is impossible with the present output—but by some much smaller amount."
Within eleven days he comes down to the House of Commons, knowing he has not a single figure more to help him in connection with his policy, and that there has not been any increased output of coal, and announces the intention to reduce the price of coal by 10 s. to the home consumer. He knows this is to be a mere dole out of somebody's pocket. There are only two pockets out of which it can come. It may be extracted

501
out of the pocket of the coal trade in a way which I do not think can be justified, or it will, as I believe, come out of the pocket of the already over-burdened taxpayer. I think I shall be able to show that it is necessary for a very large portion of this sum of money to be drawn out of the pocket of the over-burdened taxpayer in relief of the cost of living.
It is a most extraordinary policy, it is so illogical. Coal is produced now at an excessive cost, due to many mistakes made, I admit, under difficult circumstances, but when the cost is higher than the existing selling price, the Government choose the very coal which is the most expensive to produce (produced by the poorest firms in the country who are least able to bear the special strain put on their finances) and thus place this 10 s. additional cost upon those collieries which are already being carried on at a loss, or in many cases with only a small margin of profit. The Government have adopted a most extraordinary position and it is very unfortunate, when we thought we were in close communication with the President of the Board of Trade and discussing what should be the future policy, that a step has been taken which will make it very difficult to carry out in the country the object which, apparently, the Government. desire.
Every individual coal owner will naturally desire to send as much coal as he can to the best market, and it will require a great number of officials to direct the coal now to be distributed into the channels which are the least attractive to the coal producer, because he will get a less price for it. His financial position also will be more strained in consequence of having to obey a direction to send coal into the household market rather than into others in which he more desires to enter.
I understand that a section of the House of Commons intend to press for an inquiry into the figures over the whole question of control. For my part I hesitate to support an inquiry of that kind if it is going to delay de-control which is very necessary in the interests of the State. I should hope that facts and figures may be ascertained quickly and made public by the Government, and that we should have no unnecessary delay by inquiring into the past. Mistakes have been made, high minimum wages have been given, which have resulted in the fact that we get fewer tons of coal although there
502
are many thousands more men employed than before the war. I, for one, would like bygones to be bygones, but I wish to enter a caveat in regard to certain statements which have been made by Mr. Hodges in regard to colliery profits. He has urged that there should be a reduction in the price of industrial coal, not to any similar extent to that of household coal, and has argued from figures which he has published in the papers that there is a possibility of this reduction being secured out of the profits of the coal industry. I wish to say that Mr. Hodges' figures are, so far as I know, purely conjectural. Nearly every prophecy which has been made in connection with the coal trade in recent months has been falsified, and we have no facts or data to work on with regard to how much may be attributable to what is called the Sankey Award—what is the effect of the limitation of working hours. What we do know is that the labour cost is excessively high; that the estimate, so far as it has been able to be estimated, for labour alone was in the month of July 19 s. 6d. per ton, as compared with a prewar labour cost of 6s. 4d., and I am told that. the average working cost now is over 21 s. for labour alone.
Until we have definite information we cannot form any accurate conclusion, and I suggest it is quite premature for the Government to try and justify the limitation of profits in the coal mining industry in the way that has been suggested. To do so, I believe, will not only hamper the industry but will prevent a great deal of trade. We desire to see the collieries of this country developed in a progressive way, and any limitation of profits is bound to affect prejudicially the future output of the mines of this country, and to recoil upon every other industry which is dependent upon fuel. If you keep down the profits in the coal trade you are going to starve the industry, and I assert that it will be felt chiefly by the working classes. We resent a system of control, and we ask for increased freedom. We think we are entitled to reasonable profits in our coal trade just as much as reasonable profits may be acquired in every other industry in this country. We see no justification whatever for our being treated in an exceptional way, and in a way that is going to harass the future development of the industry, and we desire to arouse the national conscience to the fact that not

503
only is it unfair upon one industry to treat it in this way, but detrimental to the interests of the State and of the wage-earners themselves.
I would like to give official denial to a statement which is now being circulated in the Press in connection with the attitude of coal owners towards nationalisation. It is alleged that we are desiring to ride for a fall. I wish to give that lie an emphatic denial. The whole of those engaged in carrying on the trade in this country are opposed to the principle of the nationalisation of the industry root and branch, and they intend to fight it and to defeat it. It is promoted chiefly by socialists and those in favour of revolutionary ideas, and in the event of their succeeding in securing nationalisation, even if they paid for it by script, a very large proportion of those individuals would not hesitate to try to tax out of existence a very great deal of the script.
It is a most dangerous principle to introduce into the industries of this country, and I am glad that the Government have already discountenanced it, but I trust the Government will realise that the mistakes which they have hitherto made have given encouragement to those who are in favour of extreme steps being taken such as I have alluded to, and that they are partly to blame themselves. Through misguided control the confidence in the industry has been largely shattered. Capital hesitates to come forward when threatening legislation is suggested. Also there is a great danger that when you commit such an extraordinary act as you did the other day, of decreasing the price of coal below that at which it can be produced, serious economic troubles may follow. I wish to say on behalf of the coal trade that we are very anxious to help the Government get over their difficulties, and to prevent the coal trade being hampered in the way it is under the system of control, but if they are going to introduce exceptional legislation directed at the coal trade it will be strongly opposed, not only because it is unfair but because we believe it will arrest that development which, under a system of private enterprise and free trade and open competition will produce the best results in the interests of the State and of the working classes, as well as of those engaged in the industry.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had the following Questions on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government —
1. Why the Coal Controller will not allow any coal to be exported abroad from Somerset and Bristol.
2. Why the Coal Controller, while allowing South Wales and the Forest of Dean to increase their prices by 2s. 6d. a ton extra under the Coal Prices (Limitation) Act, has refused such an increase for Somerset and Bristol.
3. Whether any collieries in Somerset, and if so which, have received any payment, and how much have each received, under the Government guarantee to make up the profit to their previous war standard of profits and their losses under the War Wage and Sankey Wage; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friend has just said as to the difficulties and as to the objections to this 10 s. reduction, which means to my mind putting permanently, or for a great many years, the coal trade in this country under control. At the present moment—I am talking of before the 10 s. reduction takes place—the reduction is 3s. 4½d. below actual cost, and therefore when this reduction of 10 s. takes place the net result will be that the domestic consumer will have his coal at 13 s. 4½d. less than the cost of production. That seems to be a very startling state of things. Why on earth does the Government desire to subsidise this particular industry in this way? At the present moment we well know that there is another subsidy, namely the wheat subsidy, but we understood from what has been said in another place that the Government were anxious to get rid of subsidies in every direction. Now they are going in the direction of another subsidy, because there is no doubt that this continuance of the 10 s. reduction will go on for some time, and owing to the fact that that is dependent upon export of coal to foreign countries the result will be that the Government will have to control that for a long period of time in order to go on with the reduction of 10 s. per ton.
What is going to be the result in the case of the small collieries—on whose behalf I speak especially—in the West of England?

505
The result is going to be very serious indeed. Of course, I know that the noble Lord who will reply to me will say that it will not hurt them at all, because although it will be true that they will be losing 10 s. in addition to the 3s. or even more that at the present moment they are losing, it will all be made up in due course under the Government guarantee. That would be very well if the Government guarantee was paid in any reasonable time, but at present the Government guarantee to make up pre-war profits does not take effect for a year or two years. The consequence is that these unfortunate collieries which have not large finances at their backs will have to finance the dole that the Government is now giving to the domestic consumers until they receive the payment of this guarantee. What will be the position? It practically comes to this, that collieries such as I have been speaking of—small collieries worked with small capital—will be put under the greatest difficulty in order to finance the dole to the extent of £1 or more per ton for a year at least and perhaps for two years before they will get any repayment from the Government. I would ask the noble Lord, How is it possible for small collieries to continue under that state of things? At present the collieries in Somersetshire and Gloucestershire not only have to finance the war wage and the Sankey Award, but in addition they will have this 10 s., and altogether, as I have pointed out, it will come to more than 20 s. a ton. In a district such as Leicester the result of the working of the war wage was that they lost only 2s. 6d., while in the Bristol area it was 6s. 6d., which included 4s. actually out of pocket on the war wage.
Having pointed out to the noble Lord that there are these difficulties, I ask him on behalf of these areas how the Government are going to meet those difficulties? It is all very well to say to the big collieries, "You can go to the bankers and get an advance." To the small collieries that is practically impossible, and the result is that they will have to be shut up. It has been intimated to me only to-day that steps are already being taken in certain districts in the West of England to put that into effect, because they will find it impossible to go on working at a loss. The first Question that I have to put to the noble Lord is to ask him, in regard to the export of coal, why the Coal Controller will not allow any coal to be exported abroad from Somerset and Bristol? I cannot under-
506
stand what the reason can be. No doubt the noble Lord will tell us that in the past not a very large amount of coal has been exported from Somerset or Gloucestershire. Yet coal has been exported from there, and from the Forest of Dean a good deal was exported. Being near the great port of Bristol it seems only natural that they should have an opportunity of exporting their coal and be able to make some profit, and not have to go on working under the difficulties that I have indicated and at such a heavy loss.
I am informed that if in Somerset they were allowed to export coal to Italy they would be able to get from 70 s. to 80 s. f.o.b. instead of the 30 s. that they are now getting. That is the effect of coal control. Where you can export coal from a great port like Bristol to other countries the Government step in and prevent it being done. It might be argued by the noble Lord that the reason coal is not to be allowed to be exported from Gloucester and Somerset and Bristol is because of transport difficulties. But if the Somerset and Gloucestershire people are not to be allowed to export for that reason then some compensation ought to be paid to the shareholders in these collieries who are not to be allowed to make a profit.
The second Question I ask is why the Coal Controller, while allowing South Wales and the Forest of Dean to increase their prices by 2s. 6d. a ton extra under the Coal Prices (Limitation) Act, has refused such an increase for Somerset and Bristol. It seems unfair to allow collieries working under practically the same conditions to have a price of 2s. 6d. a ton extra, and to refuse it to other collieries. Probably the noble Lord will reply by saying, "But you did not make your application till the war was nearly over, and therefore, as the war is over, we cannot give you this increase, for conditions have not altered? As the difficulties are as great, it seems to me very unfair to treat one area in a district in a different way from another.
Lastly, I ask the noble Lord whether any collieries in Somerset, and if so which, have received any payment, and how much have each received, under the Government guarantee to make up the profit to their previous war standard of profits and their losses under the War Wage and Sankey Wage. I hope the noble Lord will give some indication that there will be different treatment in the future, especially of these small

507
collieries, when payment is made of the guarantee. He must realise that without this extra the small collieries will be in a very sad position indeed.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, may I first say a word as to what fell from my noble friend opposite (Lord Gainford) and the suggestion that he made with regard to local committees. That suggestion appears to me to be worthy of the fullest consideration. With reference to what he said about Government control, I would remind him that Government control did a great deal to win the war, and it cannot be given up hurriedly and without precautions being taken, though the intention of the Government in this direction will be made clear. With reference to what fell from Lord Strachie, may I say that any small colliery which is in financial straits receives, if it applies to the Controller, an advance on account of the Controller's statutory obligations of a sufficient amount to tide it over financial difficulties. I trust, therefore, that the last part of the noble Lord's Question is answered in a way that will be satisfactory to him.
LORD STRACHIE: Does that apply to the pre-war guarantee?
LORD SOMERLEYTON: It applies to the existing course of affairs. I would like, if I might, to remind your Lordships that as it is the intention of the Government to limit the profits of coal owners in the aggregate, the price obtained and also the profits earned by individual coal owners will not affect the aggregate profits to which the owners will be entitled. This will enable such questions as the allocation of export and the variation in prices to be dealt with on national lines without hardship resulting from the fact that in some districts no export trade is available and the inland price is less than the cost at which the coal is produced.
If I might take first of all the Questions asked by my noble friend, Lord Lamington, who is naturally specially interested in his own county and is also interested in the trade of the whole country, I would say with regard to the Lanarkshire collieries that the output of coal in the United Kingdom has not yet reached a figure that will remove cause for anxiety, and the pressure on the railways and other means of transport has rendered imperative the need
508
for reducing to a minimum the distance from pit to consumer over which coal has to be transported. This has been carried out as far as possible, though in carrying it out certain exceptions have been unavoidable, of which I regret to hear one has occurred in my noble friend's own neighbourhood. The domestic and industrial requirements of coal in Lanarkshire are very heavy. To meet those demands from the district itself practically the whole of the output has to be allocated, and in consequence it is not possible to release any large quantity of coal for export. If export of this coal were permitted either the requirements of the district would be left unsatisfied or further demands would have to be made on the transport systems, already experiencing extreme difficulty in carrying coal which has to go by rail. But, on the other hand, it is the intention of the Government so to deal with the profits on export coal that those profits shall be shared by collieries unable to export as well as those allowed so to do.
With regard to the second Question asked by Lord Lamington, the coal transport reorganisation scheme was put into operation on September 8, 1917. The object of this scheme was to effect a saving of railway transport. It was based on certain main principles—first, that the consumption of coal should take place as near the producing point as possible; secondly, that movement of coal traffic should follow the main trunk lines wherever practicable; thirdly, that the movement of coal should, as far as possible, be in well-defined directions, namely, north to south, north to south-east, north to south-west, and east to west; and, fourthly, that an area producing insufficient coal for its own needs should not send any portion of its output to another area. On the other hand, an area producing more coal than required for consumption within the area should distribute the excess to adjacent areas, or areas connected by convenient transport facilities.
This scheme, while necessary in view of the heavy demands on transport during the war, naturally disturbed the normal channels of trade, and for this reason it was decided that it should be suspended at the earliest possible date. Although the transport position was still difficult in September, 1919, a portion of the scheme was suspended from the 1st of that month, and a general permit under the scheme

509
was issued. By this means the interchange of supplies was not limited to certain specific areas, and the normal flow of trade was therefore to some extent restored. Your Lordships must, however, remember that the shortage of output has made it necessary to instruct the collieries that they must supply those consumers who were their customers in 1917 with the same quantity of coal at the present time. This has the result that the passage of coal from one area to another is still limited to some extent, but when a colliery has met the requirements of its 1917 customers it may dispose of its surplus output without any restriction whatever as to area.
Now in regard to removal of coal control. The need for modification of the present system of coal control is fully appreciated, but there are several factors which must be considered in this connection. First, the present output of coal is insufficient to meet both inland consumption and the demand abroad for English coal. Exports of coal must therefore continue to be limited in quantity if the home supply is to be conserved. Secondly, the pit prices of coal for inland consumption are limited, and the average price is below the present average cost of production. This is a very unsatisfactory and dangerous position for the coal industry. While the price of domestic and household coal is being reduced the price of industrial coal will need to be revised to place it on an economic basis. Thirdly, the first Sankey Report was accepted by the Government in letter and in spirit. It contained a recommendation that for the year the profits of colliery owners should be limited to 1s. 2d. per ton of coal raised. The Government, therefore, is pledged. to legislation to this end, as stated already on several occasions in another place. It is hoped that, with the output improving as it is, it will be possible gradually to transform the coal control machinery until it consists of these three parts only.
In answer to Lord Strachie's first Question, no coal is allowed to be exported abroad from Somerset and Bristol because this coal is required for inland consumption. The area is not self-supporting and it never has been an exporting district. Difficulties of transport make it impossible to carry by rail the quantity of coal required inland and considerable quantities are being carried coastwise. Though this is more expensive than transit by rail an endeavour
510
is being made to increase the quantity carried coastwise, as the home demand is still in excess of the supplies available in the non-producing areas. If coal were exported from Somerset and Bristol a further shortage in home supplies would result. The allocation of exports is determined entirely by the question of national interests, and it is not possible to apportion the exports among districts so that each district should derive a benefit from the high prices prevailing in foreign markets.
In reply to the second Question, an application for an increase in the price of coal was made by the collieries in the Somerset and Bristol district shortly after the Price of Coal (Limitation) Act, 1915, was passed. The Board of Trade were not satisfied that there had been such an increase in the cost of wages and material as would justify an increase beyond the 4s. provided in that Act. The application was. renewed just a year ago, and the evidence by which it was supported was under consideration when the Coal Industry Commission was appointed. In view of the. evidence which was placed before the Commission it was not thought to be in the national interest to allow any further increase in price at the time. When the increase of 2s. 6d. a ton was allowed to collieries in South Wales and the Forest of Dean there was no control of the coal mines. Since December 1, 1916, the collieries in South Wales and Monmouthshire, and, since March 1, 1917, the rest of the collieries in the United Kingdom have been subject to the Coal Mines Agreement (Confirmation) Act, which guarantees the profits. of coal owners up to such a point as to remove the hardship resulting from the price in any district not having increased commensurately with the cost in that district. It is, however, true that under the Coal. Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act, those owners who by obtaining high prices are able to earn excess profits are at an advantage as compared with those who are not able to earn excess profits. There are other districts in which the comparison of the cost with selling prices is much more adverse than in the. Bristol and Somerset district.
I may say, in answer to the third Question, that collieries in Somerset have received sums to make up their profits to their guaranteed standard and their losses under the Coal Mines (War Wage Payments)

511
Directions, but to disclose the amounts would involve a breach of Section (4) of the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act, and Clause 19 of the Agreement, Schedule to that Act, which provided that such information shall be confidential, and placed restrictions upon its disclosure. I hope my noble friend will recognise that I have given him all the information compatible with the carrying out of the Agreement named, and it is impossible for me to give further information on this subject, though any other information which it is in my power to give I shall be glad to supply.
In a supplementary Question, the noble Lord asks me as follows. Even under present conditions with the 10 s. now to be removed, he says some collieries cannot be worked at a profit, and he asks, How then can the Government face the loss which the 10 s. reduction will cause? With regard to that I would say that the loss occasioned by the 10 s. reduction will be made good out of the export profit. There are now collieries making losses, and advances have to be made to them from time to time. It is recognised that such advances will have to be made more frequently, and the necessary machinery is in existence. I trust that, whether or not the information I have given is sufficient or satisfactory, it will be recognised by noble Lords opposite that I have done my best to answer the Questions.
LORD LAMINGTON: In view of the last statement made by the noble Lord, that the 10 s. diminution of price in the cost of coal will be taken out of excess profits, may I ask this question? A report appeared in The Times about a week ago of a statement made in Rome by Lord Crawford that already this country was losing £400,000 a week owing to the cost of the working and distribution of coal. That is something like £25,000,000 a year. If there is a further loss of 10 s., that will make it up to £40,000,000 or £45,000,000 a year loss to the country.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: A very condensed report of what I said did appear in the newspapers. I stated that in sixteen months up to the end of July last the cost to the taxpayer had been £26,000,000. I should like to correct the false impression that Lord Lamington has received.

CATTLE EXPORTATION FROM IRELAND.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government why, and for what reasons, the exportation of cattle and sheep from Ireland to England was restricted, i.e., only a certain amount of cattle and sheep are allowed to be landed at the usual ports in England.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, a little time ago an Order suddenly came out in the Irish daily papers restricting the export of cattle to ports that usually received those cattle in England. The reduction was very great indeed. Shortly afterwards that reduction was done away with to a certain extent, and the number of cattle was increased. What I complain about is that no reasons were given to the farmers in Ireland for the restriction. It came about at an awkward time of the year when they wanted to get rid of their grass-fed cattle so that the English buyers could use them as stores in this country.
I had great difficulty in finding out what Department had to deal with this. I wrote to the Board of Agriculture here and the matter was passed on to the Board of Agriculture for Ireland; finally the Ministry of Food in London wrote me a civil letter saying that it was intended to remove all restrictions on "Sunday next"—meaning Sunday last; but I have heard from Ireland that the restrictions have not been removed. I might mention that the restrictions have not been removed from the port of Birkenhead which is one of the largest ports receiving cattle from Ireland. It is too late now to say anything more, and I will ask the noble Earl the Questoin standing in my name on the Paper.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend should think that inadequate notice and explanation was given of this Order, but I am glad to confirm what he has stated—namely, that the restrictions to which he refers were removed as from Sunday, November 23, except in the case of Birkenhead, to which I will refer in a moment.
THE EARL OF MAYO: No reasons were given, and that is what has annoyed people.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am sorry; but I think that the reasons I shall now give will ex post facto comfort those who have suffered inconvenience. The restrictions were brought into existence on November 2 in consequence of the rush of cattle into the markets at the close of the grass season. It does not appear to be clearly understood by farmers that, though the Ministry of Food guarantees to pay certain prices for fat stock, it does so on the condition that the stock is required for consumption—that is to say, that the right is reserved to refuse to purchase cattle in quantities above the requirements of the consuming population. In spite of the fact that practically no meat imported from abroad was put into consumption, it was found necessary to exercise this right in Great Britain during November, and to restrict the numbers of fat stock accepted in markets throughout the country.
THE EARL OF MAYO: "Great Britain" does not mean Ireland at all.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think the noble Earl will see that at the outset the grievance was on the part of the British farmer rather than on the part of the Irish farmer. Urgent representations were made to the Food Controller that it was unjust to impose restrictions on the English farmer which were not applied to Ireland, and it was therefore decided to limit during a certain period the numbers of Irish fat stock to be accepted at British ports, and
514
thus to place the Irish and the British farmer on a level. A partial removal of the restrictions took place on November 12, when the quantities to be accepted were considerably raised; and, as I have already stated, all restrictions were removed as from November 23, except in the case of Birkenhead, at which port the numbers accepted will still be limited to 6,000 beasts and 6,800 sheep per week. This restriction was put into force at the beginning of August, 1919, owing to the abnormal rise in the numbers of Irish stock received at this particular port, and is calculated to avoid the accumulation of unduly large quantities of meat at one provincial centre.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I thank the noble Earl for his reply.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.

SEX DISQUALIFICATION (REMOVAL) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments made by the Lords to the Amendment made by the Commons agreed to without amendment, and the Amendment made by the Commons to which the Lords disagreed not insisted upon.
House adjourned at half-past eight o'clock.