Sitting of 10 August 1920

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords]. (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Ministry, of Health Provisional Order (Widnes Extension) Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a Second time To-morrow.
Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords].
As amended, considered; Amendments made.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Workington Harbour and Dock Bill [Lords].
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman, of Ways and Means.].
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
London Electric Railway Companies (Fares, etc.) Bill (by Order),
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Port of London Authority (Consolidation) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
Alloa Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
Inverness Water and Gas Provisional Order Bill,
Read a Second time, and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  RUSSIA.

    CRIMEA (REFUGEES).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Government has offered an amnesty to all refugees in the Crimea; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government will advise these refugees to accept these terms in view of the great need of conserving the resources of our own Treasury and of assisting our own distressed ex-soldiers and widows instead of undertaking indefinite responsibilities for the inhabitants of the Crimea?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harms worth): The answer to the first part of the question is that the Soviet Government has offered to secure the personal safety of the refugees, on condition that General Wrangel surrenders. His Majesty's Government are not in position to give advice to Russian refugees in the Crimea, with whom they are not in communication, and in respect of whom they have no financial responsibilities.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the First Lord of the Admiralty declares that our ships are in Crimean ports for the purpose of succouring these refugees, and intend to do so, and how is it that there is this lack of co-ordination between the Admiralty and the Foreign Office?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not aware of any lack of co-ordination.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the fact that an amnesty has been afforded, why are we going to risk a general war for the sake of these unfortunate people?

    NORTH RUSSIA (BRITISH EVACUATION).
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Lord Privy Seal what were the terms of the telegrams referred to in the message from the War Office, dated 29th July, 1919, to the general officer commanding at Kern, but not printed in the Blue Book on military operations in North Russia?
    Major ENTWISTLEasked the Lord Privy Seal when the communications and dispatches which passed between the War Office, the General Officer Commanding at Archangel, and the General Officer Commanding at Kern in June, 1919, and which are not published in the Blue Book on military operations in North Russia, will be published?
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Lord Privy Seal why certain communications and dispatches which passed between the War Office, the General Officer Commanding at Archangel, and the General Officer Commanding at Kern in June, 1919, have been omitted from the Blue Book on military operations in North Russia?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I have been asked to reply to these questions. As I stated in the introductory memorandum, the Blue Book was prepared to afford a complete statement of the reasons underlying the various phases of the military operations connected with the British evacuation of North Russia, This I think it does. It is not proposed to publish the mass of subsidiary and routine telegrams, the inclusion of which would only obscure the main issues.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that General Rawlinson, within a week of his arrival, sent a telegram to advance on Petrograd, and, if so, why is that telegram not included?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know of such telegram. On the contrary, I do know that General Rawlinson, from the moment he landed, set himself solely to evacuate the force at the shortest possible date, and that he rigorously
    196
    repressed inclinations amongst his own officers and men who were unwilling to quit contact with an enemy whom they cordially despised.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Lord Privy Seal whether any one of the documents relating to military operations in North Russia, which have been omitted from the Blue Book, in any way imply that the advance to Kottas and the attempted linking up with Koltchak were, in the intention of the Government or of any person or persons taking part in these operations, anything other than a necessary part of the policy of evacuation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been asked to reply. The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government concurs in the opinion of Sir Henry Wilson, as stated in the recently published Blue Book on the military operations in North Russia, that the critical situation which existed in 1919 was due to the want of a clear-cut policy on the part of the Allied Governments?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. If the hon. Member will refer to my speech during the Debate on the Army Vote on Account, on 5th November last, he will see that Sir Henry Wilson's opinion is in general agreement with the views which I expressed on that occasion with regard to the Russian situation. Perhaps I might be permitted to read the. following passages from my speech:

    ARMY ESTIMATES. VOTE ON ACCOUNT. 5th November, 1919.
    "Everybody feels the need of a clear-cut policy in regard to Russia, and many people ask for a clear-cut policy. But it is a great deal easier to ask for a clear-cut policy, a clear, bold, wise, moderate, far-seeing, and decisive policy, in regard to Russia than it is to supply it. Anybody can ask for it, but nobody yet has been able to supply it. All the great nations of the world with whom we fought in the Great War are in the same situation as ourselves.
    "The United States, France, and Italy, like ourselves when confronted with the direct question, 'Are you at war or not with the Bolshevists?' would be unable to give a perfectly monosyllabic answer, but would have to say, 'We have not declared war upon them; we have not waged war upon them with all our might, but, in fact,

    197
    our troops are engaging in hostilities with the Bolshevists whenever they come in contact with them.' That is the position not only of this country, but of all the other great countries in the world with whom we have been allies in this great struggle.
    "If we are unable to present an absolutely clear-cut policy it is no good blaming the War Office or the British Government. One must recognise that all the other great Powers in the world have found this problem equally bewildering."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1919, col. 1628, Vol. 120.]
    There is really no discrepancy between what the Chief of the Imperial General Staff said and what I have stated months ago to the House of Commons.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that the Allies have no clear-cut policy?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I can only repeat what I have already said. If the hon. Member had been in his place on the 5th of November, he would have heard the answer.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When the right hon. Gentleman made that statement—[Interruption]— what are hon. Members afraid of?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Time!"]
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Let the hon. and gallant Member go on. He will do no harm.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When the right hon. Gentleman made that statement, was it not then his policy to invite an alliance with Germany against Bolshevik Russia?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have never made such a suggestion, but I think there is a great deal to be said on the subject.
    Mr. MILLS: Do you believe in the Jekyll and Hyde theory?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have repeatedly said that any statement I have made can be challenged in Debate, and there are many opportunities. Although there is a great deal said on this subject out of doors, there is a singular lack of desire to challenge my statements here.
    Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Lord Privy Seal why the latest document reproduced in the Blue Book on military
    198
    operations in North Russia is dated 6th August, 1919, whereas the evacuation was not completed till 12th October?
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Lord Privy Seal when the documents relating to military operations in North Russia between the dates 6th August, 1919, and 12th October, 1919, will be published?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has also asked me to answer. Documents of a later date than 6th August, 1919, were not included in the Blue Book, as by that date Lord Rawlinson had sailed for North Russia to conduct the final phase of the evacuation, the programme for which had already been drawn up. Subsequently the plans made for the Allied withdrawal were not modified in any important particular, and the operations are described in Lord Rawlinson's despatch, as indicated at the bottom of page 18 of the Blue Book.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the document, or documents, will be published without which the message from the War Office to General Ironside, under date 18th June, 1919, reproduced in the Blue Book on military operations in North Russia, is unintelligible?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. If the hon. Member will refer to Paper L on page 36 of the Blue Book, I think he will find that the meaning of the telegram in question is quite clear.

  MIDDLE EAST (RAILWAY PROGRESS).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what progress has been made with the railway from Bushire to Kerman and Nushki; and whether he can place in the Library any map showing railway progress in Asia Minor, Persia, and Mesopotamia?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: We have no map showing the latest position of railway progress—which was greatly affected by the War—in the countries referred to, but I will have one prepared and placed in the Library, though I doubt if I shall be able to do so before the Adjournment.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    PERMANENT HEALTH ORGANISATION.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state how, and by whom, it is proposed that the cost of establishing a permanent health organisation by the League of Nations shall be met; and whether it is proposed that the British taxpayer shall bear any cost of the application of measures for protecting the health of workers of other countries?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I presume that the expenses of an organisation set up by the League of Nations will be met from its consolidated funds, to which His Majesty's Government contribute among others.
    Sir J. D. REES: How much actual cash is going to be contributed to this nebulous body?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: it has been stated in this House how much has been contributed to the League of Nations, but I do not bear the exact figures in my mind, if the hon. Baronet will put down a question I will endeavour to satisfy him.

    LABOUR CONDITIONS, RUSSIA.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Prime Minister whether the international labour office of the League of Nations will avail themselves of the information concerning labour conditions in Soviet Russia which has been brought home by the British labour delegation to supplement the information already published by the Labour Office in the volume entitled, "Labour Conditions in Soviet Russia"?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I understand that the International Labour Office now have this matter under consideration.

  SYRIA.

    FRENCH ACTION.
    Major ENTWISTLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Rustem Haibar Bey, representative of the King of the Hedjaz at the Peace Conference in Paris, has been recalled by the king in consequence of the latest developments in Syria;
    200
    whether before leaving he lodged a protest with the League of Nations against the French action in Syria; and, if so, when the protest will be considered by the League of Nations?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no information as to the recall of Rustem Haidar Bey. The Hedjaz delegation lodged a protest with the League of Nations, but I do not know when it will be considered.
    Mr. RAPERasked the Prime Minister (1) whether the Arab government has been consulted regarding the negotiations in progress between Great Britain and France for establishing permanent northern and eastern frontiers for Palestine; and what attitude the Arab government has adopted:
    (2) what is considered to be the southern boundary of the area under the French mandate in those parts of Syria which lie to the east of the River Jordan?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is proposed that the boundary, which has not yet been settled, between the British and French spheres of influence shall be delimited on the ground by a Commission on which the respective local authorities will be represented, but the determination of the frontier itself is a matter for the principal Allied Powers, in whose favour Turkey is to renounce all rights in these regions.
    Mr. RAPER: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to the local authorities does he mean the Arab Government existing to-day?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir, we really mean the people who have recently been appointed in the district.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are the Zionist community in Palestine to have any representative on this Boundary Commission?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I should like notice of that question.

  ROUMANIA.

    GOVERNMENT BONDS (BRITISH HOLDERS).
    Mr. MURCHISONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's representative at Bucharest has asked the Roumanian Government for explanations as to the failure of that Government to meet its

    201
    financial obligations to British holders of Roumanian Government Bonds; whether that Government has given assurances, and when; and whether effect has yet been given to the assurances, if any. by the Roumanian Government?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Repeated representations have been made by His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Bucharest, to whom the Roumanian Ministry for Foreign Affairs on the 16th July, 1919, signified their assent to the payment in London of the Coupons of the 1908 loan. The Roumanian Prime Minister stated on 2nd January that the financial situation of Roumania at that time rendered any such payment impossible and that he hoped to conclude a loan which would stabilise the situation, in which case the Coupons would immediately be paid. On 2nd February the Roumanian Government stated that the only loan paid in London was the 1913 loan. On 16th April the Roumanian Prime Minister and Minister for Finance both assured His Majesty's representative that they hoped to be able to pay these coupons shortly. No action has yet been taken by the Roumanian Government, in whose new budget the amount necessary for the payment of these Coupons does not appear to be included. His Majesty's representative at Bucharest has been instructed to represent to them the importance of fixing a definite date for payment.

    BRITISH RAILWAY MISSION.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether further consideration has now been given to the question of the abolition of the British Railway Mission in Roumania, and the consequent reduction of expenditure involved to the State in connection therewith; and whether such duties as the Mission is now called upon to perform could be efficiently discharged by His Majesty's Legation at Bucharest?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am in communication with His Majesty's Minister at Bucharest and the Minister of Transport upon the matter. It is probable that the Mission will be abolished earlier than was contemplated. It would be quite impossible for the staff of His Majesty's Minister, which consists of one Third Secretary and one Archivist, to undertake the work, even if they had the technical knowledge.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that British residents in Roumania wonder what on earth this Mission has to do, and think it a waste of time and public money being there?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have said already that the matter is under consideration.

  FAR EAST (POLICY).
  Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the American Secretary of State, the British Ambassador to the United States, and the British Minister to China have been in conference on the general question of Far East policy; whether he has received a Report of their deliberations; and whether he will make a statement as to its contents?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Minister at Peking has just returned home on leave viâ the American Continent, and the opportunity was taken of a visit to Washington, when matters of mutual interest in the Far East were informally discussed with the gentlemen mentioned in the question. A memorandum has been drawn up by Sir Beilby Alston, but it has not yet been placed in the hands of the Secretary of State.

  RUSSIA AND POLAND.

    ARMISTICE NEGOTIATIONS.
    Mr. SWANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Polish Government, in failing to empower its delegates to negotiate peace when applying to the Soviet authorities for an armistice, was acting under the advice of or with the consent of the Allied Governments; and whether he has any official information showing that this action of the Poles was with the object of gaining time for the reorganisation of the Polish army under the direction of the Anglo-French Mission?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would venture to refer the hon. Member to the statement on Poland that the Prime Minister is to make this afternoon.
    Mr. SWAN: Are we to understand that the function of this Government, which was to make the peace of the world, now is to frustrate every effort at peace, and is this country to be thrown into suicide?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am sure the hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to anticipate the Prime Minister's statement.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    WAR GRAVES.
    Major HENNESSYasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that at the present time (or, at any rate, until within the last few weeks) the War Graves Commission were having the bodies of our men in France exhumed and buried in other cemeteries without in any way communicating with the relatives, in spite of the fact that every day numbers of relatives are going over to France furnished with particulars of where the original graves of their dead relatives are?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Imperial War Graves Commission is not charged with the exhumation and reburial of bodies referred to by the hon. Member. The work of concentration of graves is carried out directly under the control of the War Office through the Director of Graves Registration in France. Throughout this work the rule has been laid down that no bodies should be removed except in cases where such a step is absolutely essential owing either to the graves being isolated or to valid objections on the part of the French authorities to their being left where they are. The number of isolated and other graves which it has been necessary thus to concentrate is about 231,000, and it will be obvious to the hon. Member that, in view of the magnitude of the task, it has not been possible to communicate with the relatives individually before concentration took place.
    The information regarding exhumation and concentration is forwarded to the War Office with as little delay as possible, though necessarily in many cases a few weeks must elapse before this information has been collated and is received in London. It is communicated to inquirers who apply for the latest news before proceeding to France. The necessity for so
    204
    doing has been repeatedly emphasised by me in the House, and notifications to that effect have been published from time to time in the Press.
    Major HENNESSYasked the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the terms of the Treaty, it is possible for relatives to purchase a grave in France; and, if so, whether they may be given the opportunity of purchasing the necessary amount of land, and thus be saved the added pain caused by the official communication that the body has been exhumed and placed in some other cemetery?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No question arises as to the purchase of the site except in connection with isolated graves, as in all other cases the land is acquired in perpetuity by the French Government at the cost of the French nation. Where relatives desire to purchase the site of an isolated grave the Imperial War Graves Commission has no power to intervene, though whenever consulted they have strongly advised against such procedure, as it is difficult to see how satisfactory arrangements can be made for maintenance in perpetuity of such graves, for which, of course, the Imperial War Graves Commission is unable to take any responsibility. The number of such purchases in France has been small, and no objection has been raised so far by the French Government, though it is known that their desire is that graves should be concentrated as far as possible The Belgian Government, on the other hand, has consistently insisted on all graves being concentrated, and has refused to permit such individual purchases.

    ARMY OF OCCUPATION.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total number of the British Army of Occupation in Germany at the present time and the units of which that Army is composed; what are the principal places where the Army is located; and can he give the approximate cost of this Army per month?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The total number of the British Army of Occupation in Germany, exclusive of plébiscite troops, is approximately 13,360. This figure comprises, in addition to the Headquarter

    205
    Staff, Cavalry, Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, Infantry, Machine Gun Corps, Tanks, and the usual ancillary services. These troops are located principally in the vicinity of Cologne. The approximate cost per month is £300,000.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to reduce this Army of Occupation in view of the announced policy of alliance with Germany?
    Major W. MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether accommodation for the families of soldiers upon the married list has now been provided in Germany in connection with the Army on the Rhine; and whether it is intended to use the existing married quarters, which were formerly erected for the accommodation of German soldiers, for this purpose?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Yes, Sir; it is hoped that those families for whom accommodation is ready will leave by the end of this month. The remainder, up to the number authorised and for whom accommodation is available, will be sent as soon as arrangements for their reception are completed. As regards the latter part of the question, the families will be accommodated, as far as possible, in existing married quarters formerly erected for German soldiers; others will be accommodated in lodgings under arrangements made by the General Officer Commanding.
    Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Is it not a fact that the accommodation both for officers' and soldiers' wives is totally inadequate?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am not able to answer that question without notice, but I will inquire.

    STRENGTH (LONDON AREA).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the total strength of the Army that is kept in the London area at present; can he give the names of the regiments now quartered in the London District; the names of the localities where these men are housed; and if they are all in permanent barracks?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The total strength of the troops in the London District is 737 officers, 9,804 other ranks.
    206
    These troops comprise the following regiments in addition to the ancillary services, and they are quartered as shown:
    Battalion and Location.
    2nd Life Guards, Hyde Park Barracks.
    Royal Horse Guards, Regent's Park Barracks.
    1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, Tower Barracks.
    2nd Battalion Grenadier Guards, Wimbledon Huts.
    3rd Battalion Grenadier Guards, Wimbledon Huts.
    1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, Chelsea Barracks.
    3rd Battalion Coldstream Guards, Wellington Barracks.
    2nd Battalion Scots Guards, Wimbledon Huts.
    1st Battalion Irish Guards, Chelsea Barracks.
    "N" Battery, Royal Horse Artillery, St. John's Wood Barracks.
    The following regiments are under the General Officer Commanding, London District, for training and discipline, but are located in other commands:
    1st Life Guards, Windsor Barracks.
    2nd Battalion Coldstream Guards, Pirbright Huts.
    1st Battalion Scots Guards, Windsor Barracks.
    1st Battalion Welsh Guards, Warley Barracks.
    The battalions located at Wimbledon are, the only troops in temporary hutments.

    DECORATION'S (ANNUITIES).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the special annuity of £50 per year granted to a recipient of the Victoria Cross who is totally unable to earn a livelihood in consequence of age or infirmity is no longer adequate, and having regard to the rise in the cost of living that has taken place since that amount was first fixed, he is prepared to consider an increase of the amount to the total disablement rate for a private in the Great War, as fixed by the Royal Warrant of September, 1919, namely, 40s. per week?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): I am at present

    207
    considering, in conjunction with other Departments, the question of making some increase in this annuity
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position to announce the amount which it is proposed to add to the sum annually allotted for meritorious service medal annuities; whether, in view of the large waiting list of applicants for the medal, some of whom have been registered over 20 years, he can give an assurance that fell claims will be considered according to seniority; and whether he will permit men whose claims to the decoration have been approved to wear the ribbon pending the issue of the medal itself?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: It is not proposed to increase the annual allotment. All claims are considered in order of seniority, but it is not possible to award the medal to all those who have been approved for registration, and I regret that a candidate registered for the award cannot be permitted to wear the ribbon in anticipation.
    Colonel ASHLEY: If more money cannot be given—which I can understand—why cannot the man who has his claim proved wear the ribbon?
    Sir. A. WILLIAMSON: Because approval for registration does not necessarily mean that he gets the medal.
    Colonel ASHLEY: If he can be given the medal, why cannot he be allowed to wear the ribbon?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: As soon as he is approved for the medal, he gets the medal and the ribbon.

    HAY.
    Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how much surplus hay of last year's crop not required for Army purposes is still in the possession of the Army authorities; and whether, in view of the shortage of old hay in this country and the desirability of realising surplus stores, and especially perishable stores, as far as possible, he will give directions that this hay shall be at once put up for sale by auction, and that, so far as possible, it be put up in lots convenient for the requirements of private purchasers?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: There is no hay of last year's crop in the possession of the Army authorities. Such hay as is still held by the Army authorities belongs to the crop of 1918, but none of this is surplus to Army requirements.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Does that mean that the War Office is going to keep the whole of this 1938 crop, a great deal of which must now have perished?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: No, it does not mean that we are going to keep it, but that we are going to use it as necessary.

    MEDICAL SERVICE.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Council have yet, as it was promised they should do after the War, and as again promised by the Minister on the 22nd March last, considered the creation of an Imperial Medical Service, or other steps, with a view to efficiency and economy of effort; and with what result?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; the proposal put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend has been carefully considered, but the Council are not satisfied that it would b practicable or in the best interests of the Army, and they are not therefore prepared to carry the matter further. I would, however, point out that the Army is only partially concerned with the question of the formation of an Imperial Medical Service, and that there are other Departments, namely, the Ministry of Health, which are more vitally interested.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the advisability of guarding against the breakdown of medical arrangements and of securing greater physical efficiency in military operations by placing the Director-General of the Army Medical Service on the Army Council with responsibility and power to secure the full consideration of health matters and the execution of all medical arrangements?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Whenever matters affecting medical organisation or administration are under consideration, the Director-General, Army Medical Service, is called upon to give the Army Council the benefit of his advice. I do not think,

    209
    therefore, that there is any advantage to be gained by making him a member of the Council.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is it not realised that the Director-General has to deal with a very large number of medical problems that arise in ordinary strategic questions, and as to which he alone can give any information?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, that has been very carefully considered. Of course, we have the benefit of the advice of the Director-General of Medical Service at any time, and of a great many other very highly skilled technical officers, but that is not a reason for adding these officers to the Army Council.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: How-does the right hon. Gentleman propose to get over the difficulty that hospital arrangements in a campaign come under the head of three different Departments, and three different members of the Army Council? There must be divided councils, and you will get difficulties arising, as they always arise.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think there is any great difficulty in practice arising from that. As a matter of fact, most of the Admiralty Departments serve two or three Lords of the Admiralty, and the idea of a common service department rendering service to different departments of the administration is not in the least inconsistent with good administration.

    MOTOR TRACTION.
    Mr. ROSEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the motor traction. being used in the military operations in the various parts of the world is all the property of the Government; if not, if any proportion of the vehicles in use is now the property of the Slough Trading Company; and. if so, what are the terms upon which the Government is permitted to use the vehicles which were recently sold to the Company under the Slough contract?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative, and the second and third parts do not, therefore, arise.

    ORDNANCE MACHINERY (INSPECTORS).
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Secretary of State for War if he can
    210
    indicate when a decision will be given concerning the conditions of service, etc., of inspectors of ordnance machinery which were said to be under consideration in December, 1919?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I hope very shortly.

    DECORATIONS (HEUGH BATTERY, HARTLEPOOL).
    Mr. HOWARD GRITTENasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will see fit to recommend that medals should be awarded to the members of the Heugh Battery, at Hartlepool, in consideration of their gallantry on 10th December, 1914, in engaging at a point-blank range of 4,150 yards, with only three 6-inch B.L. Mark VII guns, three German battle-cruisers, who at first flew the English White Ensign before running up the German colours, firing 70 11·2-inch, 8·2-inch, and 5·9-inch guns, thereby causing the death of 130 persons, the injury of 454 others, and great damage to buildings and property, during which action the Heugh Battery, manned by Territorials, registered many hits on the said cruisers, dismounting two guns, killing 10 men and wounding 19 on the flagship "Blucher," and inflicting such damage on her that she lay in Kiel for a considerable time, repairing and refitting, and also seriously damaging the "Seydlitz" and "Von der Tann," besides killing on them 80 men and wounding 200 others?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The question of the award of a medal to the troops referred to is being considered with other exceptional cases.
    Mr. GRITTEN: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, which at last recognises the maxim Summa lex, summa injuriai But may I further ask him whether he will see that equity is restored also at the other end of the scale, and that those Falstaffs may be deprived of their spurious military honours, who never heard a shot fired in the War, and many of whom never so much as mastered that complicated manœuvre known as the goose step?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I hardly know how to answer that question.

    ROYAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (BURY ST. EDMUNDS).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that an award granting an increase of wages to the building trade operatives in Bury St. Edmunds and district is not being observed in the Royal Engineering Department at Bury St. Edmunds; and whether he will give instructions that the award must be observed?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: There would appear to be some doubt as to the rates that are being generally recognised by the local employers. My Department is in consultation with the Ministry of Labour on the subject, and it is hoped to reach a decision this week. I will inform the hon. Member of the result.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    MENTION IN DESPATCHES.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for War whether men mentioned in despatches prior to the issue of Army Order 45 of 1917, which amended paragraph 1,157 of the Royal Pay Warrant of 1914, are eligible for the additional pension of 6d. a day mentioned in that paragraph, or whether, in order to qualify for such additional pension, they must also have been in possession of the Victoria Cross or the Distinguished Conduct Medal?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Under Article 1,157 of the Royal Warrant for 1914, the grant of an addition to pension, as a reward for an act of gallantry, was conditional either on the possession of the Victoria Cross or Distinguished Conduct Medal or on the act being the subject of a specific recommendation at the time when it was performed. An ordinary mention in despatches would not, in itself, carry the addition.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: But the fact that the man had not had the particular medal would not disentitle him, I understand? Am I right in that?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am afraid I cannot answer any further question without notice.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that men in receipt of pre-War pensions as warrant or noncommissioned who won the Victoria Cross or the Military Cross in the War after being promoted to temporary commissions are not permitted to draw the annuity of £10 or the extra pension of 6d. per day respectively, which is granted to warrant officer recipients of those distinctions on the ground that they were earned after promotion to the commission; and whether, in view of the fact that these men are not entitled to retired pay as officers, but may only have their pensions re-assessed according to their pre-War rank as warrant or non-commissioned officers under Army Order 325 of 1919, he will consider the grant to them of the annuity of £10 or the extra 6d. per day, respectively, seeing that paragraph 9, Table 5, of the Army Order in question clearly states that soldiers granted pensions under this warrant will remain eligible for the additional pension awarded in respect of gallant conduct?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am conferring with other Departments of the Service on the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member.

    SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the substantial increase in rents sanctioned by Parliament, ranging from 2s. a week upwards, it is proposed to increase the separation allowances for waves and dependants of soldiers?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: No, Sir; it is not proposed to increase the allowance as suggested. The joint income of the soldier and his wife is adequate, and the man has every facility for making remittances to supplement the allowance if desired.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Was this allowance in excess of what was adequate before the increase of rent took place?
    Mr. LAWSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that, may I ask was not this matter submitted to the Treasury some time ago, long before the rents were increased, and when are we going to get an answer to that question?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I do not know to what matter the hon. Gentleman refers, but if he will write to me I will be pleased to send him an answer.

    HOSPITAL CASES, TRAVELLING FACILITIES.
    Mr. WIGNALLasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that a large number of soldiers still in hospital at a distance from their homes are without the necessary means to enable them on occasion to visit their families, and that members of their families, for the same reason, are unable to visit the hospitals; and whether he will make representations in the proper quarter with a view to these men or their families being granted travelling facilities at cheap rates?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. In certain circumstances, soldiers so placed are enabled to travel at single fare for the return journey. As I have previously explained, the special facilities for relatives to visit hospitals, granted during the War, have been discontinued and a return made to the ordinary peace practice.
    Mr. WIGNALL: Who has the authority or the right to refuse cheap facilities for these people to visit their husbands or relatives in hospital?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The railway companies will not carry them for nothing, and it is therefore a question between the railway companies' and the War Office.
    Mr. RAPER: Exactly what steps must a relative take to get reduced fares?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: There are, as I have said, no reduced fares now for relatives. Special facilities were granted, but they have been discontinued.
    Mr. WIGNALL: If the facilities have been discontinued, has any further authorisation been given for these people to apply to any Department for facilities under present conditions?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am not aware, but if the hon. Member will put down a question I will inquire.
    Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is not the word "relative" rather wide and far reaching?
    214
    Should it not be confined to the parents or a direct relation of the wounded person?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot without notice say how far it goes.

  PERSIA.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War what is the military and political situation in Northern Persia; and why British soldiers are in that country?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: As regards the military situation, the 36th Brigade, with headquarters, is at Kasvin, with a detachment on the Tabriz road at Zinjan. The detachment formerly at Menzil has withdrawn towards Kasvin. The latest information, however, is to the effect that Menzil is to be re-occupied by our forces. The remained of the question should be addressed to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    AIR DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for Air whether disabled officers are being resigned from his Department while men with no real war service, with considerable private incomes, have been appointed to sectional directorships?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that only one disabled officer is under notice of discharge, and every endeavour is being made to find him further employment, suited to his experience. I may add that no ex-service man, whether disabled or not, is discharged from the Air Ministry until his case has been considered by the Air Ministry Ex-Service Men's Employment Committee, on which a representative of the ex-service men sits. The suggstion that the claims of disabled officers are not given every possible consideration is quite unwarranted.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it not a fact that the recent appointments to the sectional directorships are held by men as stated in this question? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a great many more than one disabled officer who have served throughout the War now being resigned from his Department?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have made enquiries, and do not think that the facts at all bear out that view.
    Mr. HOGGE: I will raise this on the Adjournment on Thursday.

    TREATMENT AND TRAINING, NEWCASTLE.
    Major BARNESasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that in New-castle-on-Tyne there are 50 pensioners awaiting concurrent treatment and training; and if he will say what local facilities for these purposes exist in that city?
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that there are still 50 pensioners awaiting concurrent treatment and training in Newcastle.-on-Tyne; and if he will state what local facilities exist for men in that city who are awaiting Government treatment and training?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): There are at present a number of men in Newcastle-on-Tyne awaiting admission to a convalescent centre for concurrent treatment and training, whom it is proposed to send to the nearest available centre, the "King's Lancashire," Blackpool. This centre, with accommodation for 600 men, is at present full, but a considerable extension of its capacity is now under consideration, with a view to meeting the requirements of the situation. In the meantime these men are being provided with any medical treatment recommended for their disabilities.
    Major BARNES: Can the Minister give any approximate idea of the time for which this accommodation is needed?
    Major TRYON: I can only say that developments are going forward as is shown by the recent large addition at Epsom. We are working on the same lines elsewhere.
    Mr. DOYLE: How many pensioners have already received training?
    Major TRYON: About 2,000 up to the present, but these do not include those trained by the Ministry of Labour.
    Mr. DAVISON: Are these men in receipt of full-time allowances pending training?
    Major TRYON: Yes, if they undertake to go through the training.

    UNEMPLOYMENT (LANCASTER).
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Minister of Labour what is the number of men registered as unemployed at the Labour Exchange, Lancaster, at the present time; what number of the men so registered are ex-service men and disabled ex-service men; whether he recently received a deputation from the Lancaster branch of the Discharged Sailors' and Soldiers' Association to discuss, amongst other things, the proposal of usefully employing ex-service men, and particularly disabled ex-service men, at the National Projectile Factory, Lancaster; whether he has informed the secretary of this association that seven disabled ex-service men who have recently been given notice to cease work at this factory have only been suspended temporarily; whether he is aware that they were given notices of dismissal; whether he will take steps to secure that these notices are modified in accordance with his statement: and whether he proposes to take any action to further the proposal made by this association for the provision of work for unemployed ex-service men?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): The number of men registered at the Lancaster Employment Exchange as at 23rd July was 460, including 281 ex-service men, of whom 99 were disabled. On 1st June the Minister of Labour received the deputation to which my right hon. Friend refers, and later the information which had been received from the Department responsible was conveyed to the secretary of the association. This was to the effect that seven disabled ex-service men who had been given notice to cease work had only been suspended temporarily, and that they would be re-started at the first opportunity. I have since been informed (although I have not yet been able to verify the information) that the document handed to each of the men was a notice simply to the effect that his services would not be required after a certain date. I am, however, in further communication with the Department responsible. As regards the last part of the question, the whole problem of unemployment is at present receiving the most careful attention of the Government. In the meantime my Department, with the assistance of its local employment committee,

    217
    is continuing to do everything possible to minimise unemployment amongst ex-service men.

    REABSORPTION IN INDUSTRY.
    Sir WALTER DE FRECEasked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service men have been reabsorbed in industry; and how many of these have found employment through the medium of the employment exchanges?
    Sir M. BARLOW: Of the total number of men demobilised or discharged up to the end of July, approximately 5,000,000, it is estimated that the number not yet reabsorbed into industry is about 200,000, and it may be assumed that the balance of about 4,800,000 have been reabsorbed into industry or provided for otherwise. The number of such men for whom employment has been found through the medium of the employment exchanges is 564,403.
    Mr. RAPER: Does that refer to men only, or does it include officers?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I believe it includes officers, but without notice I am not quite certain.

  MOTOR CAR ACT (POLICE PATROLS).
  Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police controls were in operation in the Metropolitan police area for detecting infringements of the Motor Car Act between a.m. 7th August and p.m 9th August; how-many police officers were employed, and with what success; what were the maximum figures for any one day; were any cases of dangerous driving reported; and in which area most cases were reported?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): There were 99 controls in operation during the three days. 75 officers were employed. 151 cases were reported for prosecution by the officers on control duty, one of which related to dangerous driving. 64 cases were the maximum reported for any one day, namely, on the 7th August (Saturday). Four cases of dangerous driving were reported by the police on ordinary duty. Most cases were reported in the South-western area.

  MOTOR OMNIBUSES (LICENCES).
  Viscount CURZONasked the Home Secretary whether motor omnibuses operating in the Metropolitan police area have to comply with certain requirements in the interests of the safety of their pass ngers in order to obtain a licence; whether he is aware that these same vehicles now operate over a much wider area, and over roads for which they are constructionally most unsuitable owing to the height of the centre of gravity of the vehicle; whether anything can be done, when their licences are renewed, to ensure that only vehicles of suitable construction are licensed to carry passengers to and from the Metropolitan police area; and whether any steps have been taken or are to be taken to co-ordinate the various conditions laid down by police authorities throughout the country and insisted on by them prior to the grant of a licence to public-service vehicles or vehicles adapted to carry passengers?
  Mr. SHORTT: Before omnibuses are licensed in the Metropolitan area they have to conform to the police requirements, which are devised to secure the safety of the passengers and other road users. The suitability of the vehicle for the journey to be taken is always considered before it is licensed, and before omnibuses extend their route to places outside the Metropolitan area the routes are carefully gone over and any necessary safeguards imposed. I have no jurisdiction in the matter outside the Metropolitan area, but the question of coordinating the requirements of the different licensing authorities is under consideration.

  WEST SUSSEX CONSTABULARY.
  Mr. JOHN DAVISONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that members of the West Sussex Constabulary are subject to a regulation prohibiting them from visiting licensed premises even when they are off duty; that a member of this force was recently fined £2 for entering a public-house on his rest day and whilst in private clothes and was ordered to remove to another part of the county at his own expense; whether this regulation is applicable to other police forces; whether it has been submitted to

  219
  and approved by the Police Federation; and whether he will consider the advisability of having it annulled?
  Mr. SHORTT: I am informed that there is a regulation prohibiting members of the West Sussex Constabulary from entering licensed premises within the area of the division in which they are serving, except in the execution of police duty, and that a member of the force has recently been punished as stated for a breach of this regulation, after he had been previously reported for a similar offence, and for being under the influence of drink. I understand that a similar rule exists in some other counties, and is one of the conditions on which a constable accepts appointment in the force. Representation has been made to me by the Central Committee of the Police Federation that the rule is unnecessarily strict, but the matter is one for the discretion of the local authority, and I am not prepared at present to advise its relaxation.

  PRISONERS ON REMAND.
  Mr. C. WHITEasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the desirability of the establishment of separate places for the confinement of remand prisoners?
  Mr. SHORTT: I could not make myself responsible for the very large expenditure that would be necessary in order to establish and maintain special buildings for the detention of prisoners on remand and to provide them with the necessary staff; but I would point out that magistrates are empowered to commit prisoners on remand to other places of security than prison.

  WOMEN'S PRISONS.
  Mr. C. WHITEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the evidence contained in the recently-published report of the Penal Reform League showing that the influence of women's prisons on the character of young girls is of the worst possible kind; and whether the Government proposes to introduce any ameliorative legislation?
  Mr. SHORTT: Statements are frequently made to this effect, but I believe them to be quite unfounded.
  Mr. WHITE: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the evidence put forward by the Penal Reform League on this matter. It certainly does make some serious allegations?
  Mr. SHORTT: Yes, Sir, I have read that evidence and a great deal more besides.

  PRISON RULES.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the desirability of the publication of prison rules?
  Mr. SHORTT: The rules made under the Prisons Act are public property and can be obtained through the Stationery Office. A consolidated edition is now being prepared.
  Mr. HOGGE: Does that include all the rules?
  Mr. SHORTT: I understand so, but if my hon. Friend knows of any not there I shall be glad to know.

  PRISONERS (CLASSIFICATIONS).
  Mr. KENYONasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the desirability of the establishment of a board to advise the Prison Commissioners as to classification of prisoners, with a view to securing for them such conditions as will be most likely to fit them to lead useful, law-abiding lives afterwards?
  Mr. SHORTT: I do not think I could constitute any sort of Advisory Board which would be of any real assistance to the Prison Commissioners in this matter.

  CHILDREN, OFFENCES.
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Home Secretary whether, when the House resumes its sittings after the summer Recess, he will present a return showing, for the two previous months, in what proportion of the eases of offences by children the father was dead, disabled, or had deserted the home, and the mother went out to work?
  Mr. SHORTT: This information is not at present available, and could only be obtained by calling for returns from every children's court or police authority in England and Wales. As it is recognised that the absence of parental control may be one of the causes of juvenile delinquency, I do not think it necessary to incur the expense and labour involved in preparing the return.

  TWO-SHIFT SYSTEM (WOMEN).
  Mr. G. DOYLEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that considerable numbers of women are at present employed on the two-shift (day) system under authorisations given under Section 150 of The Factory and Workshops Act, 1901, as extended by No. 6a of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, continued under the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Act of 1920, and that such provisions expire on 31st August or upon the termination of the War, whichever is the later date; and what measures he proposes to take to make possible the continued employment of these women in the event of an interval occurring between the expiration of the said provisions and the publication of the Report of the departmental inquiry set up to examine the desirability of permitting such employment under the Women, Young Persons, and Children (Employment) Bill?
  Mr. SHORTT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I do not consider it necessary at present to take any steps in anticipation of a contingency which is not very likely to arise. It is intended that the Departmental Committee should complete its inquiry and report before the provisions in question expire, and there is no reason to doubt but that they will be able to do so.
  Mr. LAWSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is not aware that the House almost unanimously protested against Clause 2 of the Women, Young Persons, and Children (Employment) Bill, and that it was defeated in Committee by something like 26 to 4; that it has been protested against by the trade unions concerned; and why in view of this is the right hon. Gentleman seeking to flout the obvious will of the House by setting up a Committee that nobody wants?
  Mr. SHORTT: I know there was a vote against it by this House, and in Committee. I also know that a very large body of Members in this House approached me upon the subject—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—that there is a very considerable difference of opinion upon it, and that the matter ought to be considered from all points of view.
  Mr. LAWSON: Are there any representatives of the Members concerned in this question upon that Departmental Committee?
  Mr. SHORTT: There are no advocates on the Departmental Committee which, so far as possible, is composed of men with an open mind who are well able to go into the whole question.
  Mr. LAWSON: Is it not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
  Mr. G. BARNES: Will the Home Secretary consider the desirability of disentangling this Bill for the other dealing with the two-shift question without prejudice to either?
  Mr. SHORTT: That is under consideration.

  ALIENS (IMMIGRATION).
  Mr. RAPERasked the Home Secretary how many persons of Swedish and Norwegian origin who were at any period of the War on any of the British or inter-Allied black lists have been allowed into England since the Armistice?
  Mr. SHORTT: I cannot give the figures asked for as they are not available.
  Mr. RAPER: Is it not quite easy to obtain these?
  Mr. SHORTT: No Sir, it is not at all easy.

  MARLBOROUGH STREET POLICE COURT.
  Mr. CAIRNSasked the Home Secretary whether he will make inquiries into the treatment meted out to certain women by certain of the police force at Marlborough Street Police Court; if he is aware that on 23rd July a woman who had been arrested in Oxford Street on a charge of obstruction was forcibly deprived

  223
  of her purse containing money not her own and her hand crushed in this assault before being brought into Court, and that she was fined 7s. 6d. for distributing a religious leaflet; whether he has received a communication from a public body interested in women's welfare bringing to his notice that in the same Court on 12th March, 1920, an invalid ex-nurse, Mrs. E. W., aged 61, who applied for a summons against a policeman for perjury and assault committed on 13th September, 1919, was refused entrance into the Court and thrown by the police with violence into the road, receiving a shock and bodily injury from which she has not yet recovered; and what steps does he propose to take in consequence?
  Mr. SHORTT: It is true that on 23rd July it became necessary to arrest a woman for obstructing traffic in Oxford Street; that she was fined 7s. 6d for this offence, and that in the course of the proceedings some force had to be applied. I know nothing of the other incident referred to but I am confident that the police at Marlborough Street do not use any unnecessary force on the women they have to deal with.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (PAY).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary whether he has received any application from the representative committee of the Metropolitan Police Force for a further increase of pay: whether his Department has come to any decision on the subject; and can he make any statement as to the procedure, by which such applications are dealt with now?
  Mr. SHORTT: An application was recently made by representatives of the Metropolitan constables that the grant of a bonus to meet the increased cost of living might be considered; and the Police Council, at its first meeting held on 6th July, had before it a proposal made by the Joint Central Committee of the Police Federation that a Committee, consisting of representatives of the Police authorities and of the various ranks of the police service, should be appointed to consider the question of the grant of a non-pensionable addition to the current scales of pay. On the unanimous recommendation of the
  224
  Council I appointed a Committee for this purpose. After holding three meetings the Committee adjourned until 21st September to enable the representatives of the Police authorities to obtain further information and to ascertain the views of individual police authorities on the subject. No decision as to the grant of any increase has been reached, and I propose to await the Committee's Report. In view of the misleading statements on the subject that have recently appeared in the Press, I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me an opportunity of explaining the present position in this matter.

  BOLSHEVIST PROPAGANDA.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether, since the Law as it now stands give no power to deal with persons receiving money for Bolshevist propaganda in this country, a Bill will forthwith be introduced providing for punishment of recipients of such money, and for the protection of the threatened public?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are not prepared at present to adopt the suggestion contained in the question.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will the Government consider it in the future?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We shall consider it when there is danger.
  Dr. MURRAY: Is not the best Bolshevist propaganda in the world the writing of special articles by Ministers in the "Evening News"?

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SITTINGS).
  Mr. LUNNasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have taken into consideration the additional and unnecessary cost of the many late sittings of this House, and the physical effect such long hours may have on the officials and staff; and will he consider favourably, during the Recess, the advisability of this House commencing its sittings at 10.30 a.m., and rising not later than 7 p.m., during the Autumn Session?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member's suggestion has often been made, but the

  225
  objections to it are, I think, insuperable.
  Mr. LUNN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Members of this House, especially those who sit on Committees in the morning, desire this particular change?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have said that it has often been suggested, but the objections to the change are insuperable. In the first place we could not have Committee work if the House was sitting at the time. In the second place nobody could be a member who was doing anything else. As an additional reason, it would certainly be impossible for the work of Ministers to be carried out.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Would not the result of this change be that we should begin at 10.30 a.m., and in most cases go on till 11 o'clock at night?
  Mr. SPENCER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of bringing in a Bill making it a Parliamentary offence for any Member to vote for the suspension of the rule, and then leave it to other Members to carry on?

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (ESTIMATES COMMITTEE).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is the intention of the Government to comply with the renewed recommendation of the National Expenditure Select Committee to the effect that an Estimates Committee of the House should be appointed to consider Estimates when presented to the House, and report upon them before discussion in Committee on Supply?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. Member to the numerous previous answers on this question, and in particular to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Oxford on the 26th February last.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will he answer my question as to whether he is going to set up an Estimates Committee?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman must be good enough to refer to the reasoned answer to which I have alluded, and to which I have nothing to dd.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say "yes" or "no"?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will certainly say "no" if that be any satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman.

  SURPLUS WAR STORES (SALE).
  Mr. ROSEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion, if any, of the £504,000,000 obtained by the Disposal Board by the sale of surplus war stores has so far reached the Treasury; and if, in view of the statements contained in the White Paper [Cmd. 850] recently issued by the Minister of Munitions, he will inform the House if the total stated to have been obtained coincides approximately with the ascertained receipts by the Treasury from the' Disposal Board of the Ministry of Munitions?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement containing the information asked for.
  The following is the information promised:
  The sum of £504,000,000 is made up, as stated in Command Paper 850, of (1) £251,000,000 in respect of disposals, and (2) £253,000,000 in respect of sales of raw materials on trading accounts.
  (1) Disposals: (£251,000,000).
  Of the total sales of £251,000,000, £171,000,000 is cash received in this country, and has been disposed of as follows:
  Appropriated, under Parliamentary authority, in aid of Votes (i.e., in reduction of the sums which would otherwise have been required to be included in the net votes for the Department concerned):

  £

  Ministry of Munitions Votes, 1918–19 and 1919–20

  120,500,000

  War Office, Admiralty, Air Ministry, and Office of Works, and other Votes

  30,500,000

  Paid direct to the Exchequer, 1920–21 (to 30th June)

  20,000,000

  171,000,000

  Note.—Under the arrangements made for 1920–21, disposals receipts will be paid direct to the Exchequer and not appropriated in aid of Munitions Votes.
  The balance of £80,000,000 is made up approximately as follows:—

  £

  Sums due, or to become due, under Contracts already made, from Foreign Governments, British Government Departments, and private purchasers

  72,000,000

  Cash held Overseas

  3,000,000

  Value of stores handed over to Contractors in lieu of cash on liquidation of Contracts

  3,500,000

  Stores supplied to Ministry Departments for consumption

  1,000,000

  Cost of Auction Sales

  500,000

  (2) Raw Materialson Trading Accounts (£253,000,000):

  £

  Paid to the Exchequer (to date)

  50,000,000

  Further credits to Trading Accounts

  203,000,000

  (Any ultimate surplus which may remain on these Accounts after meeting payments due will be paid to the Exchequer from which the original Capital (£60,000,000) used in the business was derived.)

  £253,000,000

  LONDON UNIVERSITY (BLOOMSBURY SITE).
  Mr. LORDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as the Senate of London University have not accepted the offer of the Government of a site in Bloomsbury, he will say if, in the event of the Senate of London University approving Kenwood, Highgate, as a suitable site for the university, the Government will provide similar financial aid equal to the cost of the Bloomsbury site?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The offer of the Bloomsbury site afforded the Senate an opportunity of establishing the university close to the British Museum, with its unrivalled facilities for students and of collecting in one group the central buildings of the university and its principal constituent colleges. The
  228
  purpose of the offer was to enable the university to rise to the high level of its opportunities and duties as the Metropolitan University of the Empire. This purpose would not be secured by the selection of another site not affording the same facilities, and His Majesty's Government would not feel justified in calling upon the general taxpayer for such an extraordinary contribution upon any other grounds.

  IRELAND.

    INCOME TAX (COLLECTION).
    Mr. LYNNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been directed to the orders issued by the Sinn Fein leaders that no more Income Tax is to be paid in the South and West of Ireland; whether he can state if the Sinn Fein orders are being enforced; and what steps the British Government is taking to collect the tax?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of any general refusal to pay Income Tax, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that all possible steps will be taken to make the collection effective.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS (THEFTS BY SINN FEINERS).
    Mr. LYNNasked the Postmaster General whether he can state the amount of old age pension money that has been stolen by the Sinn Feiners from the Post Office; and whether the loss has been made good by the British Treasury or by the ratepayers in the districts where the robberies took place?
    The ASSISTANT - POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I will endeavour to obtain the figures asked for by the hon. Member and will communicate with him.
    Colonel ASHLEY: What is the answer to the last part of the question?
    Mr. PEASE: The Department which I represent is in communication with the Treasury on that point.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Has not the Post Office certain rules governing such cases?
    Mr. PEASE: The matter is under adjudication with the Treasury at the moment. When I have the information I shall be pleased to supply it.

  LAND VALUATION.
  Mr. RAFFANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the valuers who were entrusted with the valuation of the land provided for in Section 26 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, recorded in respect of each separately valued parcel of land particulars showing the area, the rateable value, the gross value, the full site value, the total value, the assessable site value, and various deductions from gross value, full site value, and total value; whether these particulars are set forth in columns 8 to 39 of the valuers' field books; and whether, in view of his undertaking to look into the matter and in course of time to supply the information, he will now cause a Return to be presented to the House of Commons showing the aggregate amount of all the figures recorded separately in columns 8 to 39 of the valuers' field books either as settled valuations or as provisional valuations where the valuation has not been settled, the Return to show the aggregate of these figures for England, for Wales, for Scotland, where they have been ascertained in Ireland, for the area administered by the London County Council, for each borough or town in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, having a population of not less than 100,000, and for any counties or other such separate areas as the Inland Revenue Commissioners may consider representative?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The particulars of the valuations made are kept in the various valuation offices, some 117 in number; but owing to pressure of work of a more urgent nature, no attempt has been made to tabulate and analyse the valuations made. In their evidence before the Select Committee the Department estimated that to carry out at the present time the work of analysis and tabulation it would be necessary to employ some 200 additional clerks for a year at a cost approximating to some £40,000. The valuation is a valuation as at 30th April, 1909, and inasmuch as it is now over ten years old, is uncompleted, and is partially made on a basis held to be illegal by the Court, and inasmuch as conditions and levels of value have undergone substantial alterations in consequence of the War, I agree with the Select Committee on National Expenditure that the results to a obtained are not worth the labour and
  230
  expense involved and that the work of tabulating and analysing the valuations should be abandoned.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Debate on the 14th of July when I asked for this information he said that if I would put down a question he would look into the matter and in course of time would supply me with the information?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have also looked up the quotation to which the hon. Member alludes, and I am quite sure that some words of mine escaped the notice of the reporter. I think I said that I would supply the information if it were available. If the hon. Member reads the report further he will see that some such words as those are indicated by what I went on to say. The result of the inquiries I have made is that the information is available, and in my opinion, which is fortified by the report if the Select Committee on National Expenditure, it would not be, worth the trouble and expense involved in tabulating it.
  Major BARNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that these books will be preserved, so that if another Government comes into power it may, if it chooses, supply the information?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I think they will be preserved as a very interesting record.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no difficulty in supplying this information?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no doubt there is no real difficulty, but it requires a staff of 200 clerks and an expenditure of £40,000, and it is not worth the labour of the clerks or the money involved.
  Mr. C. WHITE: Will a portrait of the Prime Minister be stored with these archives?

  SCOTLAND.

    STEAM TRAWLERS, ABERDEEN AND GRANTON.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether any, and, if so, how many Scottish steam trawlers have been

    231
    laid up in Aberdeen and Granton; what reason the owners of these vessels advance for their action in laying them up; and whether the Fisheries Board for Scotland accepts the owners' explanation as correct?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): Thirty-five Scottish steam trawlers have been laid up at Aberdeen and twenty-two at Granton. The reason advanced by the owners for this action is that owing to the heavy working costs and the low prices realised for their catches, the vessels were barely earning expenses, and the opportunity was accordingly taken to carry out the annual overhaul. The Fishery Board for Scotland have no reason to doubt the accuracy of this explanation.

    LANDHOLDERS, DUMFRIESSHIRE.
    Major WILLIAM MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the number of new holders settled in Dumfriesshire by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland during the years 1917 and 1918 was nil, and that during the year ending 31st December, 1919, one new holder was settled in that county; and whether he will state what number of new holders have been settled in Dumfriesshire since the beginning of the year 1920, and at what places?
    Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The number of additional holders in Dumfries-shire since the beginning of the year is six. They have been settled at Nether Locharwoods.

    UNEMPLOYMENT, LEWIS.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that on going to work at the Garyvard-Balallan Road, in Lewis, on Monday last about 200 workers, including many ex-service men, were told that there was no further work for them, as the Board of Agriculture had decided not to proceed further with the construction of the road; whether he is aware that this sudden stoppage of work will cause a great deal of distress among the population on the south side of Loch Erisort; and whether he will reconsider this decision, so that the already difficult economic conditions in the Island of Lewis will not be made worse than they are?
    Mr. MUNRO: I am informed that the work in question has been terminated with a week's notice to the men employed. I am calling for a further report from the Board of Agriculture on the subject. I may add, however, that the original estimate for the cost of the road, namely, £10,000, has proved inadequate. A further grant of £4,000, making £14,000 in all, has been sanctioned and expended, and this has only sufficed to complete a portion of the road. When I receive the report from the Board I shall decide whether I am justified under present conditions in proceeding further with the undertaking.

    BANK EMPLOYÉS.
    Mr. W. GRAHAMasked the Minister of Labour whether any results have been achieved by the negotiations of his Department with the Scottish Banks with a view to the recognition of the Scottish Bankers' Association as the organisation of the employés; whether, when a strike was threatened recently, the employés postponed it, at the request of the Ministry of Labour, pending a conference with the Scottish banks; whether the banks now state that the proposed conference was conditional on all the banks agreeing to take part, although that was not stated by the banks to the employés at the time; and whether the Ministry of Labour is prepared to take further steps to establish a Whitley Council for this profession, and to recommend that course to the Scottish banks at the present time?
    Sir M. BARLOW: At the time of the recent dispute between the Scottish banks and their employés the Ministry of Labour intervened with the suggestion that the banks should meet the Scottish Bankers' Association at a conference to discuss the future adjustment of wages and conditions. It appears that the banks understood that conference to be conditional upon all the Scottish banks agreeing to take part therein, and, as certain of the banks found themselves unable to agree to meet the Scottish Bankers' Association for that purpose, it has not been found possible to arrange the conference. In regard to the last part of my hon. Friend's question, the situation is that before a Whitley Council can be formed there must be agreement on the matter between the partier co cerned. In the absence of such agreement

    233
    it is difficult for us to take further steps.
    Mr. GRAHAM: Will the hon. Gentleman agree, in the circumstances, to institute an inquiry into the condition of bank employés in Scotland, with a view to arriving at an agreement on the question?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The whole matter is still being inquired into.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    TINNED SALMON, NOTTINGHAM STOCKS.
    Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Minister of Food whether 9,000,000 tins of salmon have been stacked in an old drill hall in Nottinghamshire since March, 1919?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): No, Sir. No such quantity of salmon has ever Been stored in the building referred to. As I stated on the 2nd instant, in reply to a question on this subject by the hon. Baronet the Member for Nottingham East, some 22,000 cases were originally stored in the building in question. Practically the whole of these cases have now been sold; the remaining stocks are in good condition.

    GOVERNMENT STORES.
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Minister of Food how many Government food stores exist throughout the country; what is the precise contents of each store; and for how long the food has been stored in each case?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The practice of the Ministry of Food has not been to requisition or acquire food stores, but to utilise such commercial accommodation as may be available. The food stores under the control of the Ministry of Food under tenancy arrangements or otherwise are very few in number, and the amount of food owned by the Ministry and stored therein does not exceed 900 tons.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: May I have the particulars of these stores?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I will a inquire as to that.

  COLONIAL SERVICE (MEDICAL OFFICERS).
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is at present a shortage of medical officers in the Colonial service; whether this is an obstacle to the health and development of the Colonies and is largely due to the comparative un-attractiveness of the service; whether he has now received and will publish the Report of the Committee which has recently investigated the subject; and will he state in what way and how soon he proposes to introduce the required and obvious remedies?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): I am aware that the shortage to which my hon. Friend refers does exist, and that it is by no means confined to the Colonial Service. Improvements in the pay of medical officers have already been carried out in the majority of Colonies and Protectorates. The Secretary of State has recently received the Report of the Committee referred to. It requires careful consideration, and I am not yet in a position to say what action will be taken upon it or whether it will be published.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make any announcement during the Recess or immediately after?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I hope to announce the decision of the Secretary of State immediately after the Recess.

  HOUSING.

    NEW MALDON SCHEME.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Health whether his Department has possession of a Report in which an urgent request has been made for an investigation into the local housing scheme at New Maldon; whether this Report was submitted in the early part of June; and whether he will give the matter his early consideration?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): The Report in question was received, and a special inspection of the houses was carried out on behalf of my Department. This inspection showed that the criticisms of the houses were not warranted. I have directed that a reply shall be sent to the Report.

  WEST INDIES (STEAMSHIP COMMUNICATION).
  Viscount CURZONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether he can make any statement as to why the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company have discontinued their service between England and the West Indies, and thereby isolated these islands except by American or Dutch steamers; and whether any steps are being taken by the Government in the matter?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The reason given by the company is the recent increase in the cost of coal, which renders it impossible to continue a service already run at a loss. The matter is receiving the serious consideration of His Majesty's Government.

  TRANSPORT.

    RAILWAY CLERKS (WAGES).
    Mr. SITCHasked the Minister of Transport whether he will explain the delay in setting up national joint and appeal boards to deal with wages of railway clerks?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): It is not proposed in present circumstances to set up Central and National Boards to deal with the salaries of railway clerks, and there has therefore been no delay.

    CANAL RATES (INCREASE).
    Major ENTWISTLEasked the Minister of Transport if he will press the Rates Advisory Committee to consider the increase of rates and tolls on the canals and report on the same before 31st August, when control will cease and canals will be working on pre-War revenue to meet post-War expenses?
    Mr. NEAL: The Rates Advisory Committee have already given consideration to this matter. It will be necessary to deal individually with each canal undertaking of which possession has been or will be taken by the Minister. I have no reason to doubt that, in the case of those whose applications were received in time, direction can be given to enable them to increase their tolls and charges by the
    236
    date already given, namely, the 14th September next.

    RAILWAY WORKERS' DISPUTE, SOUTH WALES.
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the strike that is taking place among the mechanics and engineers on the railways in some parts of South Wales; and whether he will take steps to bring the parties in disspute together in order to prevent the trouble extending to other districts?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I am aware of this strike, which is due, I believe, to dissatisfaction on the part of the men concerned at their failure to secure a rate of £6 a week. I understand that the general question of the wages and conditions of employment of craftsmen employed on the railways is under discussion between the companies and the unions concerned at the present time, and that further conferences on this subject are to be held next week. The case of the men concerned in this strike, which is unofficial, was recently decided by the Industrial Court, which held that, in the circumstances described in the award, their claim was not established, and, as the strike appears to me to be in effect a strike against a decision of the Court, it is impossible for me to attempt to conciliate between the parties. I have, however, brought the matter to the notice of the Executive Committee of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, of which union these men mainly are members.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the iron and steel trade and the tinplate trade in South Wales the engineers and fitters are paid £6 per week, while these men are only paid £4 19s., and that these men live in the same streets and that their wives have to provide the same necessities of life—clothes for the children—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—I am asking the hon. Gentleman if he is aware—that the wives of the engineers in the trades already mentioned, who are earning £6 per week, and the wives of the engineers on the railways—[Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: Would the hon. Member please hand in his question at the Table?

  AUSTRALIAN WOOL (PRICES).
  Mr. SITCHasked the President of the Board of Trade the price paid for Australian wool and the prices being realised in London; and how the profits are disposed of?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): The price paid for Australian wool averages 15½d. per greasy pound weight. The clip is graded, however, into 848 grades, which are separately appraised at their proper relative values, so as to give on the average 15½d. The prices realised in London vary to the same extent, and it is therefore not possible to quote them. The net profits on wool used for other than British and Allied military purposes during the War, and for other than British Government purposes subsequently are divided equally between the Imperial and Dominion Governments concerned. I should add that the Raw Materials Trading Accounts laid on the Table on the 29th June last give very full information on this subject.
  Mr. CLYNES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Australian wool sellers are greatly aggrieved at the great difference between the price at which they sell and the price realised in London?
  Mr. HOPE: I do not know that they realise that a good part of that will go back to Australia.

BILL PRESENTED.
  WOMEN AND YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT IN LEAD PROCESSES) BILL,
  "to make provision for the better protection of women and young persons against lead poisoning," presented by-Sir JOHN BAIRD; supported by Mr. Shortt to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 208.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:
Indemnity Bill.
Bristol Corporation Bill.
Southend-on-Sea Gas Bill.
Londonderry Corporation Bill.
Erith Improvement Bill, with Amendments.
Ministry of Food (Continuance) Bill, with an Amendment.

INDEMNITY BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 209.]
MINISTRY OF FOOD (CONTINUANCE) BILL.
Lords Amendment to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1919 (DRAFT RULES).
Report from Joint Committee, with Minutes of Proceedings, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 189.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 189.]

BLIND PERSONS BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 211.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

RUSSIA AND POLAND.
  PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS.

    STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time.
    I should like to make a statement to the House upon the grave condition of affairs in Central Europe. I promised on behalf of the Government that before we committed ourselves to any definite action we should take the House into our confidence and state clearly what we proposed to do. I am still hopeful of peace, but the House rises at the end of this week and conditions may arise, although I am still hopeful that they will not, which will render it necessary for the Government to take certain stops. In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, therefore, I propose to state the steps which we should take in certain contingencies and to seek the approval of the House of those proposals in the Vote which will be taken upon the Consolidated Fund Bill. The last time I spoke upon the Polish Question I gave a summary of the events up to that date. I think it was immediately after the Spa Conference and after the Government had sent their despatch to the Soviet Government. Since then communications between the Soviet Government and the British Government have been either placed on the Table of the House or communicated to the public in some other way, so that both the House of Commons and the public have very full knowledge of the communications which have passed between one side and another. But I should like to restate what I conceive to be the position. With regard to the Polish attack upon Russia, I have expressed my opinion frankly in this House, as I had already expressed it, on behalf of the Government, to the Polish Government itself.
    254
    In our judgment the Polish attack was not justified, and I sincerely regret that it was made, in spite of the warnings of France and of England. The Soviet Government are entitled, in our judgment, in any conditions of peace, to take those two facts into account. I want to state the facts quite frankly and quite fairly, whether they tell in favour of the Polish Government or against them, because it is essential in a grave situation like this that the country should be taken into our full and frank confidence.
    The Soviet Government, in any condition of peace, are entitled to take into account the fact of the attack made by the Polish Army upon Russia. They are also entitled to take into account that those attacks were delivered in spite of the warnings of the Allies. What I mean is that they are entitled, in any conditions of peace, to demand such guarantees as would be exacted by any Power against the repetition of an attack of that kind. I have never challenged that on behalf of the Government, and I am not aware that any of our Allies have done so. What we have challenged is this: Whatever the mistakes may be which are committed by a Government in an act of aggression upon another nation, nothing justifies a retaliation or a reprisal or a punishment which goes to the extent of wiping out national existence. That is why I want to state the case quite frankly and fairly to the House. In 1870 there was an appearance of an act of aggression upon Prussia. We know now that that was not the case, but no one, not even those who claimed that France was the offender at that time, would for a moment have justified Germany in imposing terms of peace which would have destroyed the national existence and independence of France. If they had done so they would have had the whole of civilisation against them. The same thing applies to 1914. There, no doubt, Germany was the aggressor, but if, after the complete defeat and overthrow of Germany, the Allies had insisted upon the extinction of German nationality—the wiping out of German national existence, as a term of peace, the whole civilised world would have been outraged, and justly so. I therefore draw a distinction between guarantees exacted from a defeated nation against a repetition of an act of aggression and any terms which involve

    255
    the destruction of the national independence of a people.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Who suggested it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not say anyone suggested it. I want to make quite clear what the position of the Allies is, and I must ask for the patience of the House, because it is a grave situation, and I have to consider very carefully every phrase which I utter under these inflammable conditions. But apart altogether from the question of the moral right of any power to demand the extinction of another nation as a punishment for the acts of its Government, Europe has to be considered, and Europe has something to say in regard to the independence of Poland. The independence of Poland and its existence as an independent nation is an esential part of the structure of European peace, and its extinction could not be regarded with indifference by any of the nations who are interested in preserving the peace of Europe. The re-partition of Poland would not merely be a crime, it would be a peril, and we have to consider both those contingencies as the basis of our policy. That is why we intervened at Spa. When the Polish representatives came to see us at Spa, we made it quite clear that we could not support Poland in any act of aggression upon Russia, or upon any other border States. We made it quite clear that it was an essential condition of any Allied support, whether moral or material, that the Polish armies should retire to the ethnographical frontier of Poland. At that time they were, I think, 50 or 100 miles beyond that frontier, so that it was a condition that it was essential to impose at that moment. We made it a condition that they should apply for an armistice, with a view to negotiations for peace. Poland accepted those proposals, and the first step we took was to telegraph to the Soviet Government proposing a conference, with a view to establishing peace, not merely in Central Europe, but throughout the whole of Europe. We also made it clear that we were interested in the independence of Poland, and that if it were challenged and seriously menaced, we should have to give such support as it was in our power to give to the Polish struggle for independence.
    256
    4.0 P.M.
    I will just give a summary of the events-which took place because they have a bearing on our present position. We sent that telegram to Soviet Russia immediately after the Spa Conference. It took them, I think, six or seven days to reply. They replied upon the very last day on which they could have replied. It was not a difficult telegram to answer, but they took every available day before the answer was sent. When it was sent they rejected the idea of a London conference and said they preferred dealing direct. We wired back to say that the London conference was merely suggested on our part with a view to clearing up not merely the Polish situation but all disputes and differences and to try to establish peaceful relations throughout Europe, and that we did not insist upon it. We advised the Poles to apply for an armistice, and they did so without delay. They applied for an armistice on the 22nd July, and the answer came from the Soviet Army Headquarters on the 24th, fixing July 30th for the reception of the Polish delegates on the Bolshevik front—quite an unnecessary lapse of time. If there had been a real desire to stop fighting and a real desire for peace, I cannot imagine why that interval should have elapsed. When the Polish delegates went there our information is—this we have from our representative at Warsaw—that they were kept there for three days at the Soviet headquarters, that they were treated with great insolence—I am using the words given by Lord D'Abernon—and that during those three days the conditions of the armistice and the conditions of peace were not communicated to them. They challenged, not so much the credentials of the Polish envoys, but the fact that, as they said, they had not full authority and sent them back at the end of three days without having communicated to them any conditions under which the armistice would be granted.
    In these circumstances we again communicated with Moscow and urged them to take immediate action with a view to putting an end to hostilities. The Soviet Government armies by that time had crossed the ethnographical frontiers and were inside Poland. Last Friday my right hon. Friend, the Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Bonar Law) and I met Messrs. Kemenoff and Krassin and suggested to them that as there was such considerable delay in negotiating an armistice, and that if

    257
    was insisted that peace terms should be added on to the armistice such time would elapse that there would be considerable fighting, a good deal of bloodshed, and maybe a good deal of loss of life, and that it might be better to have a truce lasting for a few days which would give time for the negotiation of an armistice and if necessary of peace. They pressed for guarantees, which I thought quite reasonable, that the interval should not be utilised by either the Poles or the Allies to re-equip, to reconstruct, and to strengthen the Polish forces and the Polish position. That was quite reasonable. All these guarantees we were prepared to advise our Allies and the Poles to accept. It is not for me to state what their opinion was, but they promised to communicate at once with Moscow and to inform us by Sunday morning. The answer has been published. It is a refusal of a truce on the ground that the Poles had accepted an arrangement for the discussion of an armistice at Minsk to-morrow, the 11th, and that under these conditions they thought that that would be the speediest way to achieve the purpose which we had in view, namely, the making of peace. That was the position up to the meeting of the Allies at Lympne. I do not know that there is any other fact which I wish to state with regard to the dates in reference to Poland.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What about Wrangel?
    The PRIME MINISTER: So far as I know there is no condition which has boon put forward in reference to Wrangel which would in the least interfere with the negotiations. I am not aware of any.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Were they discussed at all?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There was no condition at all put forward in regard to General Wrangel, so far as I know. If there had been, I should be glad to give it because I should certainly have taken anything of that kind into consideration. I have no doubt that some reference was made, but certainly there is no impression left upon my mind that any difficulty arose over Wrangel, and if the House will look at the reply which was given they will see that it has no reference at all to Wrangel. It is purely a telegram which bears upon the position of the
    258
    Polish negotiations. That is the position up to yesterday and that is what the Conference at Lympne had to consider. There have been great delays even m coming to a discussion of an armistice. I think myself, quite frankly, that they are very suspicious delays. I cannot imagine that if there was a real desire to have an armistice, to stop fighting and to negotiate peace that the Soviet Government and the Soviet armies would not have fixed a date at least a week or ten days ago.
    After that record of events I come to the view which was taken by the Allies at the Conference yesterday, which I must submit to the House. The first proposition to which we agreed was this—it seems an elementary one, but if hon. Members will look at some of the criticisms which are passed on both sides they will find that it is not so irrelevant as it appears—"that the sole purpose of Allied policy in this matter is to secure peace on the basis of the independence of ethnographical Poland." We are not seeking any other purpose, any ulterior purpose. This is our main purpose, this is our sole purpose in these Polish negotiations. The second point upon which we agreed was this: We suggested to the Soviet Government that they should declare a truce at midnight on Monday. It is perfectly true that the armies would not receive that communication perhaps for three or four days—that was our advice—that we proposed, at any rate, that an order should go forth from Moscow and from Warsaw at midnight on Monday, "Fighting to cease." The answer of the Soviet Government was: "The Poles are coming to see us on Wednesday to discuss that very matter, and we would rather discuss it with them."
    Well, we are not going to have a quarrel; we do not propose to involve this country in a dispute, whether it means much or whether it means little, upon the difference between Monday and Wednesday. There the Allies are agreed. I see that someone has said, "You are going to have a war not for the independence of Poland but on a question of forty-eight hours." We are not. That is the second point of agreement. The third point is this: that the Allies should advise Poland to endeavour to negotiate an armistice and to make peace as long as the independence of ethnographical Poland is recognised. It was agreed that that recommendation should go from

    259
    the Allies, and it has gone. I felt confident that we need not wait for the sanction of the House to that. I felt certain that the House would be absolutely unanimous on that subject, and as it was an urgent matter we sent the recommendation yesterday. The fourth point was this: If Poland accepts the terms the Allies will certainly not intervene either to prevent or to upset that arrangement.
    Mr. ASQUITH: Accepts the Russian terms?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If they negotiate an agreement at Minsk we do not propose to intervene to upset any arrangement which is acceptable to the Poles. It is their affair. I sincerely trust that it will be peace. But it may not. We have to face that contingency. I hope no one will take any personal or party point into account when there is a grave situation of this kind affecting the peace of the world.
    I will now take the two suppositions. Supposing the Minsk Conference fails, there are two alternative suppositions which we have to take into account as to the possible reasons for its failure. Supposing it fails, because the Poles refuse conditions which in the circumstances, having regard to the commencement of the conflict and to the military position, the Soviet are in the judgment of every fair-minded man entitled to exact from them, then the Allies could not support Poland. Take the other supposition. Supposing the Bolsheviks insist upon terms absolutely inconsistent with the independence and existence of Poland as a free nation, and the Poles reject and are prepared to fight for their independence, then undoubtedly a very serious situation will arise. As I have already stated, the Allies cannot be indifferent to the existence of Poland. There is the moral right of the nation. We are responsible for the resurrection of Poland. It is the price of much blood and treasure spent by the Allies. We have entered into a covenant with the nations who signed the Peace Treaty to have recourse to methods other than the brutal method of war for the purpose of settling international disputes, but the whole root idea of that covenant, its whole sanction, depends upon the nations who signed binding themselves together to defend those of their members who cannot defend
    260
    themselves That is the root idea. Unless that is recognised that covenant is a scrap of paper, and a miserable scrap of paper. It is, if I may use industrial language, the trade union of nations, where the whole of the community engages to defend and protect a weak member. Unless that is recognised in principle, that covenant goes No amount of meetings and pamphlets and speeches and resolutions and prayers for it can keep it alive. Therefore, we cannot, unless we abandon the whole basis of the League of Nations, disinterest ourselves in an attack upon the existence—I am not talking about guarantees against invasion—of a nation which is a member of that League and whose life is in jeopardy. That covenant, as I understand it, does not contemplate, necessarily, military action in support of the imperilled nation. It contemplates economic pressure; it contemplates support for the struggling people, and, when it is said that if you give any support at all to Poland it involves a great war, with conscription and all the mechanism of war with which we have been so painfully acquainted within the last few years, that is inconsistent with the whole theory of the covenant to which we have entered. We contemplate other methods of bringing pressure to bear upon the recalcitrant nations who are guilty of acts of aggression against other nations and endangering their independence.
    I have already referred to the second point, but I think it is necessary, when we come to consider action, that I should repeat it. It is not merely that we are morally bound to interest ourselves in the life of a nation which is an ally, and to which we have undertaken to give support in the event of its national existence being challenged; there is, in addition, the danger which is involved to the peace of Europe if you have a great aggressive Soviet Empire co-terminus with Germany. I have pointed out before what that means. There are those who believe that the Soviet Republic is essentially a peaceful one. Let them believe it, but if, in spite of every effort to make peace, the Soviet Government reject conferences for the purpose, postpone them, introduce conditions which involve a practical annexation of another country, then, whatever the Soviet Republic were yesterday, to-day and to-morrow they will become an Imperialist, militarist Power

    261
    That is the point that I want to put. It has happened once or twice. It is one of those perils which we had in mind. That is the real peril, and if the Soviet Republic insists upon over-running Poland, when she can, not merely get but exact all the guarantees to which she is entitled, and which any other country under the same conditions would exact; if she prefers to over-run Poland and practically to annex it—whether she nominally annexes it or not makes no difference—then from that moment, whatever it was a week ago, or a month ago, the Soviet Republic becomes an aggressive Imperialist State which is a menance to the freedom and independence of the whole world.
    I cannot assume that; and I am not going to assume it until I see the result of the Minsk Conference, but I have taken two contingencies, and I am bound since the House is separating in a few days—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why separate?"]—I am bound to take into account both contingencies. Well, even if we did not separate, I should put the whole policy to-day. There is no time to lose, and not merely the House of Commons, but the country is entitled to know to what we are committing them. Therefore I am examining both contingencies. I am hoping that the second contingency will not arise, but I should be blind, I should be, indeed, reckless, if I assumed that it would not arise, and, acting on that assumption, took no precautions. A few days will tell us whether that assumption is a correct one or not. I am not sure that the Soviet Government itself knows which of those two assumptions is correct. I wish I were certain of it. I am going to give an indication of what the Allies have in their mind. As far as I can do so, without giving information which would be injurious to the efficacy of the action which we might take. The first is that no action will be taken except to support the struggle for Polish existence and independence. The second point is that we can only give that support to a nation that struggles itself. The Poles are a brave people—there is no braver people in Europe: they have always made fine soldiers, and some of the greatest military achievements in the history of Europe stand to their credit—but they have got their difficulties. They are a nation that has been
    262
    split up into three very unequal parts for over a century and a half. They are not a people who have had any control over their own destiny during that period. They have been suddenly called upon, without any preliminary preparation or training, to undertake the functions of nationhood in the most perilous position in which you could place them. There are enemies behind them, enemies in front of them, difficulties to the south and difficulties to the north; great hatred towards them, some of them traditional, some of them racial, some of them religious—furious, savage hatreds surging around them, and they are a nation with no frontier which is a denfensible one.
    There is no nation in the world placed in such a position of jeopardy by Providence as Poland. She struggled for centuries; she fell; she was torn to pieces; but there was a resurrection of Poland and she was starting a new life. But it was a new life without training, without discipline, without a tradition, with none of her leaders trained either in government or in war. Of course she made blunders. They were the blunders of irresponsibility. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It is not a thing to laugh at. They are people who have been trampled upon for a long time. Theirs were the mistakes of inexperience; the mistakes of a people who had had no chance to learn how to govern. Let us remember that. That is their weakness in their struggle for independence. What is lacking is not gallantry, is not bravery, is not heroism, is not patriotism, for there is no more heroic, there is no more patriotic, there is no more gifted race in the world than the Poles but they are people who have not had the necessary training, and the catastrophe has come upon them before they had found themselves or found their natural leaders and found their strength, and before they have been able to organise themselves. I appeal to a party which is organised and claims to be organised to protect the weak, and knows what organisation means in the protection of the weak, not to be too hard on the unorganised and very largely unskilled labour of statesmanship in Poland.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Or in Moscow?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a very different story. There they had the machinery at their disposal, as everyone

    263
    knows. It is very old machinery and in many senses very perfect machinery, and everyone knows it is because they had that machinery that they have been able to survive so many attacks. But that is another matter. I must speak very frankly here. The Poles, not having this experience, must trust more to those who possess it. I do not want to disparage the Soviet armies, but with the forces at the disposal of the Poles, if they be well directed and well organised, there ought to be no difficulty in resisting. They are, no doubt, very ably led, but as we know armies in western Europe they are not a formidable force. Their equipment is not formidable; their transport is not formidable; their artillery is not formidable. They have brought no artillery forward that would reduce a second-rate fortress and could not in the time at their disposal. It is therefore essential—I am speaking now from a military inspection of the whole of the facts—that if the Poles are to defend their freedom they must accept the advice and the direction of people who have had four years' experience in the greatest war the world has ever seen, and have shown their capacity. No support will be of the slightest avail unless that is done. That is one point. The next point is this: No Allied troops can be sent to Poland. I made that clear before in this House and it is a position which we definitely take up.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does that in elude the Hungarians?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am now talking only about France and those who were present at the Conference. I am speaking only on behalf of the Conference.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Does that include all arms?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Does it include. Montenegro?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We are sending no allied troops to Poland. There are troops at Dantzig which will be essential for communication with Poland, but we are sendng no allied troops. We have made that clear to Poland, and it is essential we should make it clear to this country. It would not be necessary if the Polish resources were thoroughly organised and well directed. I wish to make it clear that this is all
    264
    on the assumption that the Minsk Conference fails, and fails not because of any obstinacy on the part of Poland and not because Poland refuses to acept terms which we think, under the circumstances, are as good as she has any right to expect. It is on the assumption that the Bolshevik Government imposes conditions which are inconsistent with national freedom and are excessive. In that event, the Allies, out of the stores at their disposal, will help to equip the Polish people for their own defence.
    Mr. MILLS: You are already doing that.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Next the Poles will be supplied with the necessary military advice and guidance. The further action we shall be compelled to take is an action which has always been contemplated in cases of that kind, and that is that we should exercise an economic pressure upon Soviet Russia to release her stranglehold on the life of the Poles.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: You have done that for two years.
    The PRIME MINISTER: We propose to do so either by naval action or by international action, or by both. I come now to another action which we shall be forced very reluctantly to take in the contingency I have described.
    Mr. TILLETT: What will be the position of America?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We are certainly going to appeal to America. I am obliged to my hon. Friend. That is one of the things we shall certainly do. There is the difficulty in America that up to the present she has not ratified the Treaty, and the confusion that exists owing to the fact that the Treaty is the subject of controversy between two great parties. It is not for me to say what view the American Executive will take. I am judging only from the attitude of America at the Peace Conference. America was a strong Protagonist of Polish independence. No man took such an active and determined. and I might say, zealous part in setting up Polish independence and the Polish nation as President Wilson, and whatever differences of opinion there may be in America with regard to the League of Nations, I am certain that there will

    265
    be no difference of opinion in their general attitude towards Polish independence.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: That was before the Poles started persecuting.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I was coming to another point. Up to the present we have taken no steps—since we declared to the House of Commons that we had altered our policy in that respect—to support any attack upon Soviet Russia inside her own territory. There is a very formidable attack, which has developed upon her in Southern Russia. We have sent no supplies.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes you have. They are going from Batum to-day.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is not so, Batum is not in our hands. If they are sent from Batum they are sent by, the Georgians. We have absolutely no control at Batum. We have evacuated Batum. We are not there and, therefore, we cannot possibly be supplying them. I can assure the House that if we had really wished to support General Wrangel we could hare done so much more effectively, and anyone who knows the conditions knows that; there is no country that could have supported him as effectively. But we have not been giving support. We have not done so because we were anxious, to secure peace. The point at which we ceased I have made clear to the House. But in the contingency which I have indicated we shall consider ourselves free to equip his forces. There are very substantial stores which are available in that quarter of the world, captured stores and others, which up to the present have not been allowed to go to General Wrangel. Those we should feel ourselves free to agree to being dispatched to his support. Further, if the negotiations with Poland break down because of the Bolshevist attitude, and if we have to take steps to cut Russia off from contact with the outside world, of course, there will be an end of any trade negotiations. I should regret it deeply. These are measures which we should be called upon to take.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: That would be war with Russia.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not going to enter into that question, but I believe the hon. and gallant Gentleman
    266
    is one of the great supporters of the League of Nations, and he will render the League of Nations futile and nugatory if he says that every time you bring economic pressure to bear upon a nation which is acting in conflict with the dictates of the League such action means war. [An HON. MEMBER: "Through the League?"] We shall consider whether it is through the League or otherwise.
    I now come to another point to which I think it is essential that I should refer, not merely in view of statements in the Press—particularly the subsidised Press—but especially in view of representations made to me to-day by Labour representatives. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did you receive them?"] If any responsible body of men representing a large body of citizens in this country ask that they may be allowed to present their case to me, so long as I am here it is my duty to receive them and I cannot do otherwise. This was a very influential body of men representing very powerful opinion in this country, and in view of some of the statements which they made I am bound to make one or two observations upon it. I gather from them, as I have gathered from the Press, that we are supposed to be engaged in a reactionary conspiracy to destroy a democratic Government representing peasants and workmen. Now, surely, if any one of us was over under that delusion it must have been dispelled since the recent Socialists' visit to Russia. One distinguished Socialist came back and said that the Soviet Government was neither Socialist, democratic, nor Christian, and that the working classes were in a condition which, in many respects, approximate to slavery.
    Mr. CLYNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mrs. Snowden said the same of this Government.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; but I thought that my right hon. Friend's view was that this Government was a very reactionary Government, and if Mrs. Snowden does not put the Soviet Government any higher than this Government, what becomes of this claim that we are a reactionary Government, trying to destroy a free people? After all, it is then only one reactionary Government fighting another.
    Now I come to an hon. Member of this House, a very highly respected

    267
    Member, whom I am sure everybody who has been privileged to hear will regard as a singularly able spokesman of his party. I mean the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw). I am afraid he is not here. This is really rather important in view of the statements circulated that this is an organised conspiracy of great capitalists—like myself—against the workmen and peasants of Russia. It is important that we should understand exactly what it is. This is what the hon. Member for Preston said two or three days ago—I do not think he has returned yet—at a Social Conference at Geneva:
    "In Russia there is no freedom, no democracy, only the autocratic rule of a small group."
    Mr. W. THORNE: He did not say that, I was there.
    Captain STANLEY WILSON: He has said it here.
    Mr. W. THORNE: He did not say it at Geneva, any way. I was there.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Well, I will accept that, and I will quote another statement. It is no use basing your case on a disputed statement where there is really plenty of material which cannot be challenged. Here is what the hon. Member for Preston said in an interview in the "Edinburgh Evening News" on 22nd June. He said there:
    "The people are submitting not only to military compulsion, but to an industrial compulsion, which the workers of Britain have never dreamed of"
    —not even under this reactionary Government. I am reading here about the workers, and this is not a workers' Government.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: But is that—
    The PRIME MINISTER: Really, we have listened a good deal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman expounding Bolshevism in this House, and he must bear with me a few minutes when I just show the House of Commons, and through the House of Commons the people of this country, that this is really not a sort of great trades union organisation representing six millions of down-trodden workmen and ten millions of down-trodden peasants. It is quite the reverse.
    268
    I trust that Members of this House and the country will read a series of very remarkable articles written by Mr. Bertrand Russell. We prosecuted him and I believe he was sentenced. I should have thought he had everything that would commend itself to Bolshevism. He qualified in every possible way for Bolshevism, and he went there a Communist, a pacifist, a sympathiser with Bolshevism in every respect, and he has written his account of it. He says:
    "All real power"
    —remember this is a great Democratic State of workmen and peasants—
    "is in the hands of the Communist party, who number about 600,000 in a population of about 120,000,000."
    That means, if you reduce it to the same proportion in this country that 200,000 men would govern and all the rest would be ruled out. It would only mean one-thirtieth of the trades unions of this country, so it must not be imagined that Soviet Government means Government by trade unionists. It means Government by that little section of trades unionists who assume that they have got all the intelligence, all the intellect, all the knowledge, and all the prescience of the party to try and tyrannise over the trade workers. Now let us see how this Democratic Government, this Soviet Government of the people, is constituted. I would like the attention, especially of hon. Members opposite, to this. It is really worth their while, because it is what I am afraid they are trying to negotiate.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Are you trying to get us out of temper?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I know my hon. Friend is a very good-tempered man, and surely we must not lose our tempers the moment we hear something we do not like. That is all very well in a Soviet, but in a Parliamentary system we are accustomed to listen to disagreeable things about each other and about our friends. This is what Mr. Russell says about this great democratic Government:
    "No conceivable system of free election would give majorities to the Communists either in town or country. Various methods are therefore adopted for giving the victory to the Government candidates."
    HON. MEMBERS: "Coupons!"
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure my hon. Friends that they have improved enormously upon coupons. If they will only listen, they will see how much better these men understand electioneering than we poor infants.
    "In the first place, the voting is by show of hands, so that all who vote against the Government are marked men. In the second place, no candidate who is not a Communist (the printing works being all in the hands of the State) can have any printing done."
    That is what Communism means—
    "In the third place, he cannot address any meetings, because the halls all belong to the State. The whole of the Press is, of course, official. No independent daily is permitted."
    5.0 P.M.
    That is how they elect representatives of the peasants and workmen in this great democratic State which we poor, wretched reactionaries are striving to suppress! This is what they do in the towns, where there are working men, not in the country. There are a few Communists among the workmen, but none amongst the peasants. He goes on:
    "In country districts the method employed is somewhat different. It is impossible to secure that the village Soviet shall consist of Communists, because, as a rule, at any rate in the villages I saw, there are no Communists. But when I asked in the villages how they were represented on the Volost (the next larger area) or the Gubernia (the area next above the Volost) I was met always with the reply that they were not represented at all. I could not verify this, and it is probably an over-statement, but all concurred in the assertion that if they elected a non-Communist representative he could not obtain a pass on the railway, and therefore could not attend the Volost or Gubernia Soviet."
    There is so much of this, which indicates the kind of democratic government representing the workmen and peasants of Russia against which we capitalists are supposed to be fighting! I am all for peace, and I do not think it makes a difference whether it is a Czarist Government, whether it is a Government of which you approve or do not approve; it is a question of peace; but do not let us have the pretence that a Parliament which is elected by practically universal suffrage, whether it be in France or in Great Britain, where the vast majority of the electors are workmen and peasants, is simply out to destroy a workmen's Government in Russia. There are no work and peasants, except one or two
    270
    possibly, in the Government of Russia. Lenin, I believe, is an aristocrat, and Trotsky is a journalist. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Churchill) is an embodiment of both. I want to say this, because of the misconception which is in the minds of the people. [An HON. MEMBER: There are no misconceptions.] Yes, there are, deliberately sown in their minds. I listened to the Trade Union Deputation to-day, and I am going to give an answer. I told them I would give it here. This is the theme that was put before me and my right hon. Friends: "You are fighting this because it is a revolutionary Government, and the workmen of this country will not tolerate your overthrowing a Government merely because it is revolutionary." When the revolution took place it was instantly recognised. The first Government was a moderate one, and we recognised that. The second Government was a mixed one, a moderate one with Socialists interspersed. The third Government there was a purely Socialist Government, with as good a Socialist as is sitting on those Benches at the head of it. We recognised that, we supported it, we gave munitions, and as long as they were faithful to Russia's bond—[An HON. MEMBER: "Bonds!"]—I say "bond." What is the good of a nation that will not stand by her word? She was in the War before us. France came in to support Russia, Belgium came in to support France, and we came in to support Belgium and France. Russia was in first and insisted, and we agreed, that no one should go out and negotiate a separate peace. Who broke that word?
    Mr. MILLS: The Czar.
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, he did not.
    Mr. MILLS rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wishes to be heard, he will have an opportunity. He is not entitled to speak now, but he will have plenty of opportunity later.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I want to make it clear to the people of this country, because up to the present moment we have had propaganda, and now is the counterfoil. We will have the real facts in the minds of the people. [An HON.

    271
    MEMBER: "They are not facts."] I make this assertion here. There were three revolutionary Governments. We recognised and supported them, and if we did break with this one, it was not because it was a revolutionary Government. It was because it broke the bond it entered into, which was to pursue the War to the end. I say now that if they want peace they can get it. The London Conference proposal was intended to establish peace. Sovietism we are quite prepared to fight with the same weapons with which we fight every political creed with which we do not agree. In the end, one or other will triumph, or something else will emerge that will better suit the conditions of the times. I do not mind these conferences. If anyone here wants to preach the doctrines of Sovietism, we can meet them. I trust in the common sense of the people of this country, but peace is essential for all creeds which are worth preserving, and we made an offer which, if the Soviet Government really meant peace, they would have accepted. They could have met all the nations of Europe, and perhaps America, at the Council table and discussed all the conditions.
    This is their test. I do not believe that a mere revenge on Poland, mere punishment of Poland, mere destruction of Poland, is enough in itself, unless there is some other motive, to induce the Soviet Government to decline peace with the world. The point is this. Are they for peace, or have they something else in their minds? Frankly, I think they themselves are divided. In every land you get men who urge wild, extravagant, irrational views. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear' "] I am glad hon. Members recognise that. In every land you get divisions; you get shades of opinion in every Government, and that is right. The whole point is whether those men—and there are men of that type; they are in the minority in Russia, but whether they are in a minority in the Soviet Government I do not know—those men, who are merely out to destroy and to shatter, and who only dance to the music of smashing furniture, are the men who are to be in control, or whether the saner elements are to be in control, because there are saner elements in every land, and Russia is no exception to that. I
    272
    saw a crazy charlatan who was writing today that wanted us to widen the conflict, as if this were not wide enough. You get them in every country. If they have a real desire for peace they can get it, but if they are out to challenge the institutions upon which the liberties of Europe and civilisation depend, we shall meet in the gate.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Asquith.
    Mr. ADAMSON rose—[Interruption.].
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman rise to a point of Order?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I do. I desire to put a point of Order as to whether it is not in accordance with the usage of this House for one of those Members whose names appear on the Order Paper as moving the rejection of the Measure under discussion, and who speak on behalf of a party which is the largest party in Opposition, to take priority over every other speaker?
    Mr. SPEAKER; My answer is no. It depends entirely upon who catches the Speaker's eye. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) rose first, but in any event I think I should have called him, because of the great and distinguished position which he has held for many years in this House.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I have no desire—[Interruption].
    Mr. SPEAKER: If there be any other point of Order, I will deal with it, but that was the only point of Order the right hon. Gentleman raised.
    Mr. CLYNES: I think I rose simultaneously with the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Still on the point of Order, I have no desire to underrate the distinguished position which the right hon. Member for Paisley holds in this House and the country, but I want to say quite frankly, both to you, Sir, and to the other Members of the House—[Interruption.].
    Mr. SPEAKER: These are not points of Order. The right hon. Member for Paisley has the ear of the House. He caught my eye, and I called him. I said in any event I should have called him, and as a matter of fact he had risen first Mr. Asquith.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I am sure my right hon. Friend will not think me guilty of any discourtesy by interposing between him and the House, and I shall not be more than a very few minutes, but I was not aware that he desired to precede me, as otherwise I should have been quite ready to give way. We are discussing this afternoon, although perhaps we may not have thought it during the last quarter of an hour, one of the gravest issues that could possibly come before the House of Commons—the issue of peace and war. The Prime Minister told us, I am sure quite sincerely, and no responsible head of a Government of this country could say or think otherwise, that he is in favour of peace. If so, it appears to me to be a matter for deep regret that during the concluding part of his speech he should, in my judgment, have contributed to the difficulties of maintaining peace by an attack, unnecessary, I think, and uncalled for, on the de facto Government of one of the parties to this great question. I hold no brief of any sort or kind for a Bolshevist State or a Soviet system of government, and on a fit occasion I should be disposed to enter into a good deal of criticism upon it, but it is the de facto Government, whether we like it or dislike it, whether we approve or disapprove. Being the de facto Government, and whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, having been, in fact, for weeks and months past in frequent and almost daily official or semi-official communication with His Majesty's Government, I think that is not desirable in the interests of international goodwill and amity to hold it up as an accursed thing. There is another respect in which I regret to say I do not think the Prime Minister's speech is calculated to conduce to the object which he has in view. I do not think I have ever before heard the House of Commons invited to sanction belligerent measures, for such they are or such they are about to be, though they do not include the actual despatch of military forces, upon a hypothesis which is not realised, which the Prime Minister himself says he hopes will not be realised, and which, so far as one can form a forecast of what is, I agree, an obscure and confused situation, does not seem to he the least likely to be realised.
    In discussing this matter, and we are obliged to discuss it in view of the manner which the case has been presented to
    274
    us, and the duties that hypothetical situation may impose on the House of Commons, it is impossible not to go back, as I propose to do for a very few moments, to a survey of the past which has led to the situation with which we are now confronted in Poland. So far, at any rate—I am not making any attack on her freedom and ultimate and permanent independence—but it is the simple truth to say that Poland, so far, is reaping what she has sown. There she was, six months ago, a population stricken with disease and famine, and, it is no exaggeration to say, on the verge of national bankruptcy, and it was under those conditions that she started this campaign. I agree with all my right hon. Friend said about her past, and the fine qualities of her brave, heroic, idealistic people. She started on an aggressive adventure of her own. Poland was a party to the original covenant of the League of Nations, to which, by the way, she is now appealing. She did not apparently even dream of invoking its sanction to her enterprise. What was her object? Her avowed object as the conflict proceeded was to get rid of the comparatively limited frontier, not an ungenerous frontier, which had been accorded to her, or suggested, at any rate, as proper for her by the Peace Conference, and to go beyond it to the ancient boundaries of the Poland of 1772. She demanded an area of no less than nine Russian Governments, something like 400,000 square kilometres, inhabited by a population of 20,000,000, which included not more than about 5 per cent. of Poles. As I say, it was a purely aggressive adventure. She invaded the Ukraine, she even took the city of Kieff. She used the armaments, with which she had been supplied, or promised to be supplied, by the Allied Powers for the purpose of self-defence, in order to prosecute her offensive campaign. It was a wanton enterprise, which ought to have been, in my opinion, formally repudiated by the united voice of Europe.
    What was the result? As we know, the Russian Army has not only driven tack the invasion of the Ukraine, but has crossed the frontiers of new Poland, and is now threatening the capital city of Warsaw. When we are told, as we are told constantly, that the army with which Poland has now to deal is a Bolshevist Army and a Tied Army, and a propagandist army, composed of missionaries of

    275
    the creed which the Prime Minister has just been denouncing, I venture to say that that is a complete mis-statement In all probability a very small proportion either of the officers or of the men of the army which is now invading Poland from Russia are Bolshevists in creed or have anything to do with Bolshevism. Anybody who knows the facts knows that the effect of the Polish invasion, wantonly undertaken, and connived at by the tacit acquiescence of Europe, was to unite Russia, and to fuse into one body that which has proved a most powerful and effective military force, including men of the old as well as the new regime. The army which is now advancing through Poland and threatening Warsaw are not Bolshevists exclusively, or mainly. You will find that they are the flower of the military rule and experience of Russia, and that is the serious situation with which we have to deal. Do not let us when we talk, and very properly talk, of the necessity, or the possible necessity, of providing safeguards against the destruction of Polish independence, do not let us forget that it is to Poland's ambition and the silence of Europe and the League of Nations, which ought to have been brought into operation, that whatever dangers there are now threatening, Polish independence and freedom are due.
    There were in this history, which has now extended for something like six months, at least two critical moments on both of which in my judgment the Powers of Europe and this country amongst them might have sought to avert the situation which now confronts us. The first was last February, when I think it was my right hon. Friend, the Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Bonar Law) informed us that the Allied Supreme Council published their view about this Polish adventure. They said, "If the communities which border on the frontiers of Soviet Russia whose independence or de facto autonomy they have recognised were to approach them to ask for advice as to what attitude they should take with regard to Soviet Russia, the Allied Governments would reply that they would not accept responsibility to advise them to continue a war which might be injurious to their own interests, and still less would they advise them to adopt a policy of aggression towards Soviet
    276
    Russia," a very proper conclusion, if I may say so with all respect, but an impotent conclusion, perfectly impotent. There you had every one of these Allied Powers who were parties to the covenant of the League of Nations which included articles to deal with this specific case. If they had had any faith, I mean a living effective faith, in the agreement into which they solemnly entered, that was the moment at which they would have invoked it and they would have insisted, as they could have upon the case being laid before the Council of the League of Nations, and the whole of these evils might have been avoided. There was another occasion, a little later—I refer to the despatch which was sent on the 8th of April by the Soviet Government to all the Entente Powers announcing that negotiations for a conference between them and the Poles and for an Armistice were breaking down. That despatch stated the relatively small points on which negotiations were breaking down, and asked for the intervention of the Powers to prevent war being resumed on such inadequate grounds. To that Note no reply was made; certainly no reply was made by our Government. There again, at a most critical moment in the course of these proceedings, if the Executive Governments of the Entente Powers had had the insight or, I venture to say, the common-sense to avail themselves of this new machinery which the Covenant of the League of Nations placed at their disposal, these hostilities might have been brought to an end, or at least suspended. It is impossible for a fair and an impartial estimate of the situation to avoid reference to those incidents of the past.
    I now come to the situation itself, which might, as I have said, easily have been avoided. The right hon. Gentleman tells us what took place, and the conclusions that were arrived at only yesterday at Lympne. He said—and I was glad to hear him say it, because it lies at the foundation of the whole matter—that if at the interview, which is to take place between the representatives of Russia and Poland to-morrow, an agreement is arrived at, the Powers will accept that agreement. They will not insist upon criticising it. still less upon revising it, if it is a agreement which satisfies both part

    277
    and the prospects of peace are assured. That is a very welcome announcement. The Prime Minister tells us that the Allies have come to certain hypothetical conclusions; that is to say, they have agreed upon steps which they will take; if the agreement breaks down—not from the unreasonableness of Poland, but from the unreasonableness of Russia, if I correctly interpreted it. Some of their general conclusions, which are of a negative kind, will meet with universal approval, but the positive steps which they propose to take—there is no use disguising the fact—are all steps of a belligerent kind. It does not matter that they do not include the despatch of troops, if they include, as they will, the use of naval power, and the resumption and increased stringency of the naval blockade, and the other measures which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
    I hope that we shall have another opportunity later on of discussing this matter; but I want to make two points, and it is the whole purpose of my criticism to-day. In the first place, if the negotiations break down, as I earnestly hope, and we all hope, they will not, but if they break down, the question which of the two parties is in the wrong—in the sense, I mean, of being unreasonable, or more unreasonable than the other—is a question about which obviously there must remain a very great latitude for difference of opinion. It is not a clean-cut thing. When you are discussing an armistice, still more, when you are discussing a peace, there are a thousand considerations which enter into the question both on one side and on the other, and it appears to me, in the days in which we are living, and in the stage of opinion which we have now reached, we are assuming an authority we are not entitled to claim or to exercise, to pronounce our own judgment whether this is or is not a reasonable decision. It is a question which ought to be referred to an absolutely impartial and representative tribunal. This is a practical suggestion. It is one which, I am sure, the Government themselves recognise, is made entirely in the interests of peace. If it turns out there is a breakdown or a deadlock—whichever it be—in these negotiations, why not then bring in the machinery of the League if Nations to deal with it? That is my suggestion. I make another suggestion which I lay the same, if not
    278
    greater, stress. My right hon. Friend's speech was based, as he admitted—the practical part of it—upon the hypothesis that the Soviet Government and armies had as their real objective measures which, if not at once, would ultimately lead to the undermining and overthrow of the independence of Poland.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I did not assume that. I said events would show it.
    Mr. ASQUITH: All these warlike methods are based on that hypothesis.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is so.
    Mr. ASQUITH: That was my right hon. Friend's assumption.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I do not want to go into that, until we know. We shall have some indication to-morrow, or in a few days. But I would point out, in considering the probability or improbability, two very relevant considerations. In the first place, the Soviet Government has already negotiated peace with two, and, I believe I may say to-day, three of the border States—Esthonia, Lithuania, and, I think, now Latvia. In none of those cases have they ostensibly interfered in any way either with the independence of the States concerned, or with the form of its government. Judging, therefore, by their action in those cases, one may entertain a favourable view of their probable action with regard to Poland. We have, further, another relevant fact in that connection, in the reply which Mr. Tchicherin gave in that document of 17th July, about which some very hard words were used,—both here and in France. Looking at it from purely a literary point of view, I think it was a very good product of the talent of the new diplomacy. In regard to the form and manner of expression, it seemed to me to compare favourably with some of the documents which used to emanate from the Foreign Office in the days when I had some connection with it. However, that is by the way. Quite apart from its literary merits or demerits, it is worth recalling and recording that in that document Mr. Tchicherin, in speaking on behalf of the Soviet Government, declared that they were prepared to give to Poland a wider frontier, including a larger part of what

    279
    is primâ facie Russian territory, than was accorded to it at Spa. Therefore, I am not disposed myself to regard the hypothesis on which all this policy is based as certain, or, so far as I can see, even probable.
    I now come to my second practical suggestion to the Government Surely, from the point of view of the Government themselves, and still more from the point of view of the House of Commons, when these negotiations have come to an end, before any warlike steps are taken, we ought to have an opportunity of reviewing the situation. I know that the Adjournment is fixed for next Thursday; I am not disposed myself to say the Adjournment might not take place next Thursday, because I do not think we shall have material before us then for a fruitful or a prudent judgment, but there is a power which I have exercised myself in days gone by, which is always at the disposal of the executive government of the day, and that is to bring Parliament back at very short notice—in six days—at any time after an Adjournment has taken place. Very likely a simpler plan would be to adjourn for a week and then see how things went; but, in any case, what I wanted to get from the Government was an assurance that we should not leave here on Thursday next with this matter still absolutely undecided, without any opportunity of parliamentary discussion or revision. It appears to me, in view of the promise, or, at any rate, the assurance, they have given to the House of Commons, the Government ought not to ask—it is not right to ask—that the passing of the Second Reading of this Bill should be deemed to have given authority to enter upon warlike operations, until the House of Commons has had an opportunity of reviewing the situation with the fuller light we shall then possess—because the whole thing rests upon conjecture, supposition, hypothesis—as to the real merits and the true policy which we ought to pursue. I do not carry the matter any further than that to-day. I say it, I hope, with a full sense of responsibility, and certainly no desire to embarrass in any way the possibilities and the hopes of peace. But I do earnestly beg the Prime Minister to reconsider whether both the suggestions which I have made might not be reasonably carried out by the Government with-
    280
    out any derogation from, or any imperilment of, the objects which are common to us all, particularly the object of bringing to an end, at the earliest possible moment, and on the safest and securest basis, a real peace in the East of Europe.
    Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
    The speech of the Prime Minister may be divided into two parts—the part which dealt with the Government's preparations in the event of Poland not having her independence secured, and the second his description of what Government in Russia actually is. I do not know whether the Prime Minister thought that the last part of his speech would be of any service whatever in relation to the objects he tried to attain in the first part, or whether the concluding part of his speech was merely intended to satisfy hon. Members who sit behind him. I am certain, at any rate, that it cannot possibly help to improve relations, especially between the individuals who may have to conduct these negotiations, to have such an attack lodged against the Russian Government at this moment.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would not have intervened if this had not been the second time that that remark has been made. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) was not present this morning, and therefore did not hear the speech, but my right hon. Friend, who makes the statement now, was present, and he knows perfectly well the line that was taken. The line that was taken by the spokesman of the Labour organisation this morning was that this was part of a deliberate attack by capitalists, and a reactionary attack upon a revolutionary and advanced Government. I said to them, "I have no time now to answer, but I will answer in the House." But, really, is a statement of that kind, which was made for publication, as my right hon. Friend knows—the Labour Party said they wanted it published—not to be controverted? Are we to allow it to be said, amongst all the working men of the country, that we are a set of reactionaries attacking an advanced and democratic Government, and we are not allowed to defend ourselves?
    Mr. CLYNES: The right hon. Gentleman, of course, is the best judge of what it is proper to say with regard to state-

    281
    ments made to him by the deputation this morning. He chose to make his statement in this House. I am choosing to reply to him. I say at such a time as this it is not meet that the Russian Government should be described in the terms that were cited by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech, and I am suggesting that, while it might satisfy the Prime Minister and be a joy to his followers, it will not help to produce the improved relations which we know are necessary between those who have to negotiate the peace. The Prime Minister must not take it that we do not try to acquaint ourselves with what actually is the condition of things in Russia. So far as we can, by deputation, conference, reading, we try to make ourselves fully informed, and the fact that all the quotations used by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon as to what is the actual position of things in Russia were from Labour and Socialistic sources itself stands to the credit of our frankness in this matter.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Hear, hear!
    Mr. CLYNES: We try to get at what is really taking place in Russia. We are not trying to conceal the conclusions which privately have been formed by those who have visited Russia. We must not, I say, be taken as approving, in any way, I am not saying all, but most of the methods or principles of the Government upon which now the affairs of Russia rest. We must not be taken as approving them. It is not necessary to approve the present system of Government in Russia to justify the case which we present against the Government here for military intervention between Poland and Russia. It is not necessary to approve all that is occurring, and has occurred, in Bolshevik Russia in order to do everything possible to prevent the recurrence of a new European war. That, then, is the Labour position.
    Poland was pictured by the Prime Minister as innocent in diplomacy, as innocent as an infant or a child in moving along these thorny paths of statesmanship Indeed, in several very eloquent and picturesque sentences, the right hon. Gentleman invited our sympathy for Poland, which was not skilled in these arts of wily men. But who has Poland? Who has coached
    282
    Poland? Who has been stimulating and instigating Poland to these wicked and foolish methods pursued by her during the course of this year? The Prime Minister himself quite recently in this House described Polish action as both wicked and foolish. She had suffered horors because of the Great War. She was reduced to a state of impoverishment, disease, partial famine; she was denuded of nearly all that makes life worth living, yet at the finish of all her sufferings, and in face of these facts, she revived, was able to put an army of half a millon men in the field, to train and drill them, to dress, feed and arm them! Did all that happen by magic? Did that half million army of Poland arise out of the desire for Poland to be even more free, to acquire even greater territory, to have even a greater degree of independence than she had? No! Clearly the prowess of Poland was derived from the support she received from the Allied nations. I refuse to believe that her military competence, that the material wealth required to make her competent as a military power, was provided from her own inner resources, because such resources she had not. Clearly she was supplied from the outside. Those who now ask us to pity Poland because she knew no better are entitled to be told that they themselves ought to have known better—the Allies ought to have known better than to have allowed her to go, though they seem not only to have done this, but virtually to have led her into this reckless and foolish path which has been her undoing.
    I do not want to justify the slightest delay on the part of the Russian Governmetn in respect to hastening negotiations for either an armistice or peace, but we can be too virtuous and righteous in our criticisms of another; and if it be that Russia wanted to spend more days in arranging for armistice negotiations, what are we ourselves to say who took several weeks after Germany asked for an armistice in 1918—some five or six weeks—before the point of the actual Armistice was arranged? I do not say there is an exact parallel, but certainly it does not lie with us now seriously to criticise the Russians because of delay. The victor has always in these things claimed a good deal of his own way. When the victor is Britain we assert our right; when the victor is Russia we cannot deny it.
    The PRIME MINISTER: We do not deny it.
    Mr. CLYNES: The main feature of the speech of the Prime Minister, as I gathered, was that all these preparations and decisions of policy had been reached upon hypotheses, reached upon "ifs" and "buts," and all seem to hinge upon one point—whether Polish independence is to be guaranteed. I would certainly, if I can speak for hon. Members on this side of the House, say that if Polish nationality or independence were seriously menaced we would have to consider our position. We recognise that an independent Polish nation is essential to the continued peace of the world, but Polish independence is guaranteed in every pronouncement of the Russian Government. I think I can say that when the Russian documents come to us and the Russian pronouncement in these negotiations come here, there will be found included a most emphatic guarantee of the independence of Poland. Therefore, the Government ought not to make its preparations, or hinge its policy on the contrary assumption. It will be found when the documents have reached the hands of the Government that will be a condition of the Russian terms of peace.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Absolute independence?
    Mr. CLYNES: Yes, the independence of Poland—to remain absolutely uninterfered with as a nation!
    Commander BELLAIRS: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean Poland choosing her own government?
    Mr. CLYNES: For my part I would not regard a nation as either independent or self-governing if some government were imposed upon it from the outside. There are lights, and shades, and degrees amongst the nations of the world in this matter of independence, as well as in other things, but I cannot conceive a nation being independent unless, as I said, it be free to determine its own form of government. The Prime Minister, I think, has forgotten his previous statement in regard to the League of Nations hinging upon this question of Poland and Russia. May I draw his attention to what we on this side of the House, and I think in other quarters so far as I could recall
    284
    the speeches made by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord R. Cecil), invited him to do in appealing to him to use the machinery of the League of Nations? We asked him to intervene between the combatants, and by diplomatic measures to compose the differences which the two sides proposed to settle on the field of battle. In short, we said that the arts of diplomacy and of the machinery of the League of Nations could and ought at that time to have been used in order to prevent a continuance of the differences, or their actual expression in a resort to arms. We were told that this was not a new war. There was some reason given, whatever it was, but the best of reasons could not have been good enough for not intervening by means of diplomacy. At any rate, sufficient reasons were conjured up by the Government to cause them not to use either the re sources of diplomacy or the machinery of the League of Nations to prevent the unhappy quarrel spreading between Poland and Russia.
    I want to put this view to the Prime Minister: It is a view which I personally hold, and I daresay it is shared by many Members on this side of the House. If it was wrong to intervene diplomatically and peacefully when Poland seemed to be getting the best of it, and Russia to be having the worst of it, is it not even more wrong to propose to intervene by force of arms when Poland is getting the worst of it and Russia the best of it? There ought to be some show of consistency in these matters of high policy on the part of the Government. I regret the views the right hon. Gentleman presented to the House this afternoon as to the function of the League of Nations in regard to such a stage of difference as has been created between Poland and Russia. I understood his view to mean that the League ought to be invoked to defend its members in a military sense when attacked. I understand the League of Nations, however, to be an organisation or a machinery for a very different purpose. It is rather a pacific than a military instrument. I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a pronouncement from one who can speak with very great authority on this particular point, as to how or when the machinery of the League of Nations should be used and in such circumstances as have now been created. I refer to Viscount Grey, who, speaking only a few day

    285
    ago on this matter of Poland, used these words—as reported in "The Times" of 28th July:
    "Surely everyone who cares for the League of Nations should protest against the statement that we were under an obligation to support Poland because we are a member of the League. The League might, and ought, to have been used months, ago to prevent the Polish offensive and to make peace when peace might have been made. To invoke the League now in support of Poland by arms against the consequences of her action is not merely illogical, it is, in fact, a great misuse of the League. For it perverts it into an institution for carrying on war without having prevented it from exercising its first and greatest function of making peace."
    6.0 P.M.
    I commend that to the Prime Minister as the function of the League of Nations in view of the present point of difference reached between Russia and Poland. I would also recall to the Prime Minister, in face of his description of how Russia broke her bond and deserted us in the War, some of the more eloquent passages in speeches delivered by him within the last 18 months. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that he pictured the enormous sacrifices of Russia, how millions of her men fell, how she was worn, torn and exhausted; how through all the corruption of her Government and the failure of her leaders wisely to guide the people they became starved and distracted until no longer they could hold with the rest of the Allies. Russia continued the War as long as it was physically possible for her to do so. Naturally the general internal elements and the factors of the conflict within Russia all tended to bring about the calamity which fell upon us, but all the disasters which Russia suffered and all the sufferings endured by her people ought not now to be translated into terms of a charge of treachery that Russia failed to stand by her bond. Russia stood by us as long as she was able to do so—
    The PRIME MINISTER: I never said Russia. I said the Soviet.
    Mr. CLYNES: At any rate it was the Government with which the Prime Minister was dealing. I think we are entitled to record the enormous sacrifices which the great Russian nation made in the days when her people and her arms could be kept together, and we are also entitled to look at the facts and remind ourselves of what the factors were and give credit for the enormous losses she
    286
    suffered in the cause of the Allies when she was able to stand together. The Prime Minister has still left us in some doubt as to what the Government is actually doing at the present moment. We have had quite a clear statement of what, in certain circumstances, the Government would do, but I would like to ask: Are we at the present moment supplying materials, munitions, and money to Poland? Is not material, arms, and munitions at this moment being shipped to the aid of Poland? Our information is that munitions, arms, and materials of war are at this moment being shipped, and in addition to other sources of information I have here a letter from Germany from the working class movement there clearly proving that munitions by way of Danzic are being supplied to Poland, and that there are threats of strikes on that account. Therefore, it will not do for the Prime Minister to leave us in the dark on these points, and we are entitled to know on which side the Government are at the present moment. We want to know where we stand before the conference between the two sides takes place.
    The position of the Government at this hour is like its position ever since our unhappy differences with Russia began. We have not played a straight game. I do not mean that there has been double dealing, but our policy has not been clear, and it has been as futile as it has been false to the real interests of the world. I do not know that Russia need fear much from the blockade. If the experience of a two years' blockade can still leave Russia able to raise an army of 3,000,000 men able to resist every internal form of oppression set up against her; if Russia is able to repel the attacks of Poland, despite Poland having the material assistance of the Allies; if Russia could do all those things while the conflict was in its most strenuous form, Russia need not fear greatly the reimposition of this particular form of punishment.
    There is a second question which I fear I overlooked with regard to the supply of munitions at this moment, and, if the Prime Minister cannot answer it now, perhaps at some later stage of the Debate a reply will be forthcoming. I am told that in Prance and in Belgium at this moment there are munition dumps being disposed of, and I think I am entitled

    287
    to ask, are those accumulations of munitions being disposed of regardless of their destination? Where are they going to? For what, purpose are they being removed? Surely it is advisable that the Prime Minister, no matter how numerous his backing may be in this House, should in regard to these high matters of statesmanship proceed upon lines that will retain confidence in his word, and let our actions be something like our utterances. It will not do to say, we are giving no assistance, when men can show us actually that strikes are taking place in certain parts of the world because we are sending materials, if we are not sending money at the moment, to support one side in this struggle.
    I want to carry further the view already expressed on this side of the House, that at this moment of crisis, when there is arising what might determine, not merely the fate of nations, but the peace of the world for a considerable time, it is highly advisable that the authority of this House of Commons, such as it is in respect of its general rank and file, should be kept in being. I agree as to what has been said in regard to Ministers as well as Members being overworked, and there is a natural desire for rest and holiday, but what rest can we have in our minds if we do not see these negotiations day by day proceeding to a point of ultimate satisfactory settlement. What rest can there be for us if unhappily these negotiations break down? It may be bad enough for the Government to reach decisions on high questions of policy on hypothetical grounds, but it would be worse for the House of Commons to adjourn in face, I do not say of the prospect, but the danger, of those differences not being composed, and consequently war not only being continued, but being very seriously extended. I appeal to the Prime Minister to find some way of keeping the House in session, in order that collectively we may bring to bear all the influence we can to bring an end to this unhappy struggle.
    Lord R. CECIL: I must say that the course of this Debate has allayed a large part of the anxiety with which, I confess, that I entered this House. There were all sorts of rumours, which happily
    288
    have proved to be untrue, as to the policy of the Government, and although I shall have some criticisms to make, it is a matter for great satisfaction that we have a distinct and definite statement by the Prime Minister that in no circumstances will he commit this country to war-like operations except in defence of the independence of Poland. I quite agree that there was some ambiguity in one or two of his statements, but I take that to be an absolute pledge by the Government. In view of certain rumours, that is a great concession, and it is increased by the fact that, so far as the Debate has gone, all those who have addressed the House have agreed that, whatever steps might be necessary, as to which they very properly reserve their opinion, they do regard the independence of Poland as a matter of the highest importance for the public life of Europe. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) said, in the course of his speech, that we must not forget that for the present condition of affairs Poland was solely responsible. I entirely agree with that statement, subject only to one criticism. I cannot forget that right away back in January of this year, at the time of the attack by the Poles on Minsk, there were public statements made in Warsaw, and uncontradicted, that that attack was only the prelude to a larger attack to be made later on.
    Without wearying the House by going into the whole history of it, I must say that a study of the documents which passed between Poland and the Soviet Government does not redound to the reputation for desiring peace of the Polish Government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this House was fortunate in one respect, that it was in possession of all the facts of the case, but that is not really the truth. I regret very much that so few official papers have been presented to this House on this subject. We are left in this House to pick up the course of the proceedings from a perusal of the newspapers, and very often—not through any fault of the newspapers, because they are not published to instruct Members of Parliament, for that is the business of the Government—they merely print what their readers would like to read, and a great many of the facts are necessarily left out.
    These negotiations between Poland and the Soviet Government are really vital

    289
    for anyone to understand who wishes to form a judgment as to where the real rights of the matter rest. I have not seen these documents printed anywhere in English in this country, although they may have been printed in some newspapers which I have not seen. I have got them in a French translation which was furnished to me. I think it very unfortunate that all these documents, which are really vital to a proper understanding of this case, have not been collected and presented to this House, so that every hon. Member might see exactly how the question stands. Not only so, but the Prime Minister told us that he gave a warning to the Polish Foreign Minister and that that warning was recorded in a démenti which was afterwards sent to Paris. That despatch has never been laid before us. There are parts of it which perhaps might be omitted, but I submit we are entitled to know the substance of that despatch and of that warning. It ought to have been presented to this House, so that we might have known exactly what was done last spring. If hon. Members are fortunate enough to obtain copies of the documents which passed between the Bolshevik Government and Poland, they will see that on the face of them—I do not want to put it higher than that, for everyone must form his own judgment on the subject—there was a perfectly definite offer of peace by the Bolshevik Government to the Polish Government, based on a complete recognition of Polish independence. That was sent by wireless to Poland, but the negotiations broke down between the two parties, not on any big question of that kind, but on the question where the meeting place of the Conference should be. The Poles desired that it should be within the zone of military operations, but the Russians insisted that was a bad place, and that practically anywhere else would be better. It is interesting to note, in connection with that, that the Poles refused at that time a general cessation of hostilities, and absolutely declined to suspend hostilities generally while the peace discussions were going on.
    I do not cite that only for the purpose of showing that the Poles were in the wrong, but I cite it also to lead up to my next point which was referred to by the right hon Member for Paisley that,
    290
    following on this imminent breakdown of negotiations, and when it became clear that the negotiations were breaking down, the Soviet Government sent an appeal by wireless to all the Powers of the Entente. I do not know whether that was printed in any English document. It certainly has not been printed in any document laid before this House. But the Soviet Government drew the attention of the whole of the Entente Governments to the fact that the negotiations were about to break down over the question of the place of meeting, and they asked for their good offices to prevent that happening. I do not know what reply was sent to that appeal, or what was done, and whether it was ignored on the ground that it came from a Government which we could not recognise, or for some other reason. But we do know what the attitude of the British Government was right through. Their attitude was that they would take no responsibility for giving any advice to the Polish Government. I must say I regret that attitude very much. I regretted it then and I regret it now. Perhaps it was most clearly stated by the Leader of the House on the 16th February when, in answer to a question, he said:
    "His Majesty's Government have informed the Baltic States, Finland and Poland, that the question of peace or war with Soviet Russia is one which they must decide according to their own judgment and on their own responsibility."
    Then the Member for Hertford (Mr. Billing) asked
    "May we take it that there is no pressure being brought to bear upon anybody to make the peace referred to?"
    The Leader of the House replied:
    "The answer says that we are taking no responsibility in the matter one way or the other."
    Then I asked
    "Does my right hon. Friend think that we shall be able to maintain a condition of absolute detachment, whatever these powers do?"
    To that the Leader of the House replied:
    "The future must take care of itself. We are only dealing with the present. The policy of the Government in this respect has been very often and clearly put before the House."—["OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1920, col. 502, Vol. 125.]
    I think that was a most disastrous attitude to adopt. I know it is said that warnings were at the same time given. But it was also said that no advice was

    291
    given. I do not understand the distinction. If it was right to give warnings it was right to give advice. It was the case that the danger Europe was incurring was a great one. The Government was warned that it was said by a great many people, they were told that the effect of the attack by Poland would be to combine the whole of Russia against the Poles. That is exactly what has happened. It was said over and over again that to stand aside and to refuse to take any action except to give warnings of which we have never seen the exact terms, was most unfortunate. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told us to-day that last Monday they did give definite advice to the Poles to make peace. I was very much surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it was only done last Monday. It ought to have been done a long time before. It ought to have been done last Spring. It should have been done in the first instance the moment the situation became acute for the reasons I have given. The Prime Minister made a great apology for Poland, an apology which, we all recognise, had in it a great deal of force and justice. It was based on the ground of her inexperience and the difficulties of her position. That being so surely it was all the more necessary that we who had had a principal part in bringing her into existence should have been ready to give her advice.
    I do not want to trouble the House with many details, but there is one other diplomatic despatch to which I must refer. It bears the date of 11th July, and is over the signature of Lord Curzon, from Spa. That despatch, I confess, I think was most unfortunate. It was particularly unfortunate because it embodied a reading of Article 10 which, as the right hon. Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) has reminded us, Lord Grey has recently condemned. The despatch stated that that Article obliged every one of the signatories of the Convention to go to war in defence of the territorial integrity and political independence of every member of the League. Such a statement was most disastrous. I trust I misread the despatch, but that certainly was the impression which it left on my mind, and if hon. Members will read the Article I think they will agree it is a complete
    292
    misconception. What does Article 10 say?
    "The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League."
    I have given a very brief summary of the history of previous events. I doubt very much whether the case of Poland even comes within the limits of the Article. I do not think one can describe this as a case of external aggression on the part of Russia. But even if it does come within the purview of the Article it is laid down that
    "In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression, the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled."
    The whole purpose of the Covenant was to remove warlike action from the individual and to confine such warlike action to the League in which all members should bear their share. I regretted very much that passage in the despatch which referred to Article 10. It was most unfortunate to say to the Soviet Government, "If you advance into Poland we shall give all the help we can to Poland." That was in the nature of a threat, and in my judgment, no threat should ever be uttered unless one is perfectly clear what is meant by it and how it is intended to carry it out. Anyone who listened to the Prime Minister must know well that that condition could not have been fulfilled on 11th July, the date of this despatch. I have ventured to call the attention of the House to these facts, because I want hon. Members to bear them in mind when we come to consider what we ought to do at the present stage. I find myself very much in agreement, and I am glad to do so, with the general lines of the policy which the Prime Minister has announced—that is, if I understand him rightly. There are two things we have to bear in mind. As far as Poland is concerned, and as far as this war is concerned, if we were to go back to the old diplomacy and to the old doctrine that we are to consider merely the direct effect on British interests and nothing else, it would be difficult to show that we had any very direct interest in the matter at all.
    Our interest does not arise from that at all. It arises from the indirect effect which may be the result of this war. There, I think, our interests are enormous,

    293
    because of the questions and disputes that may arise—disputes which will cut down to the very root of the foundation of the peace of Europe. I accept myself fully the doctrine laid down by the Prime Minister as to the importance of Polish independence. I accept it, not only on the ground on which he put it forward, but because, after all, it is one of the things secured by the Treaty of Versailles. I am not an unlimited admirer of that Treaty, but it is a Treaty. It is a thing to which the Powers of the world have set their signature and seal, and a disregard or destruction of its provisions would be, in my judgment, a very serious blow to the sanctity of treaties in Europe in international affairs. That is not the only reason. I think the independence of Poland is in itself a matter of great importance to the peace of Europe. Polish history is a very troubled one, and in some respects not a very attractive one. This, I think, we may say, that the Polish feeling of nationality is as strong as that of any country in the world. So long as they were not independent, so long as their independence was refused to them, they constituted one of the danger spots, and were a source of disturbance and trouble in the world. If there is any meaning in the doctrine of self-determination, nationality, and self-government, then I do think that, within proper limits, Poland has as strong a claim to independence and autonomy as any nation in the world. Therefore, I hold very strongly that Polish independence is a very important interest for the peace of the world. It is an interest of Europe primarily, and of the world. It is not specially an interest of this country, nor is it even an interest for the Entente specially. I want to make that clear, because I think it is of vital importance. If we are going back to the old system of the Entente enforcing its will on Europe in matters which, it may rightly claim, are of great importance to Europe, we destroy the very basis on which the new theory of foreign policy is founded. If this be, as I think it is, a vital interest for peace, let it be dealt with internationally—not by this country alone, nor by this country and France alone, not by this country, France, and Italy alone, but by the whole international authority which we have created.
    These are the general principles which I would venture to lay down. When it
    294
    comes to particular action, I say, and, so far I understand, the Government agree—I hope they do—that, until we know what has taken place at the Minsk Conference, no further action should be taken at all. I say quite frankly that I rather regret even the suggestion, which we were told was made, that there should be a truce as from 12 o'clock on Monday night. If Russia insists—as she has a right, in the circumstances, to insist—on making peace herself, and conducting the negotiations direct with Poland, that is a demand which, in the circumstances, you cannot refuse; and, that being so, the less you say about it, until you see what the proposed terms are, the better off you are. It is far better that we should keep ourselves entirely clear. There is an exact precedent for what I suggest. Hon. Members will recollect that, at the conclusion of the Russo-Turkish War, the Russians, under a different kind of régime, made peace with Turkey. They completely defeated Turkey, and made peace, just outside Constantinople, by the Treaty of St. Stefano. Europe stood aside until the peace was made. There was no League of Nations; the only authority was an authority brought into existence ad hoc. It was after the Treaty had been made that Europe intervened, and insisted, rightly or wrongly—I do not want to go into that now—on certain alterations being made in the Treaty which, in their view, would prevent Turkey from becoming merely the subservient vassal of the Russia of the day. That seems to me to be the sort of line on which we ought to proceed. Since the victorious party insists upon it, let these two parties make their own peace, or, at any rate, let them have their own conference. Then, if that peace does really involve the destruction of Polish nationality and Polish independence, that will be the time, as it seems to me, for intervention of the kind which I have described.
    There are two definite suggestion which I must make. One is of a domestic kind. I make it without any desire of being offensive, but the course of the history of the last few months has convinced me that it is time these great matters of foreign policy were restored to the Foreign Office. It is really a delusion to suppose that anyone can manage foreign affairs. We have in the Foreign

    295
    Office an elaborate organisation, a great fund of information, men of great ability, whose business it to prepare for Ministers the necessary material for their decisions, to warn them of any oversight they may make, to keep the thing regular and businesslike and, if I may use the word, professional. I think there is a great danger in the present division between the Prime Minister's Office—which he has established in what is popularly called the "Garden Suburb," and which is manned by people who, from the point of view of foreign policy must be called amateurs—and, the old Foreign Office, which does not, as I understand, deal directly with more important questions. It is time we sent our foreign policy back to the Foreign Office, reserving, of course, the right of the Prime Minister to advise and to be taken into consultation when any large matter of policy is to be determined.
    The second and the more important thing that I want to suggest is that the next thing to be done, if you wish to get rid of this danger, is to take the matter out of the hands of the Supreme Council and put it into the hands of the Council of the League of Nations. That is not a mere question of words; it is really a different thing altogether. The Supreme Council is a council of Allies. It is a group of Allies—very beneficent, as we hope, but a group of Allies. It does not affect to represent the public opinion of the world. The Council of the League does represent, if not the public opinion of the world, the public opinion of some 40 or more nations of the world. The Prime Minister described as the very foundation of the League its duty to protect small nationalities. I am not quite sure that I put it so high as to say that that is the most fundamental duty of the League. I should have said that the most fundamental duty of the League is to keep the peace. But, whichever way you put it, the point is that you have to get away from the idea of individual nations or groups of nations taking the law into their own hands. That, really, is the fundamental conception of the League of Nations, without which it will have no meaning at all. Therefore, in my judgment, the most important practical step that can be taken is to take this matter entirely out of the
    296
    hands of the Supreme Council and put it into the hands of the League of Nations. We are sometimes told that the League of Nations is a failure, that it does not answer the expectations that were held out. To those who think that I commend the history of the Polish negotiations with which we now find ourselves faced. They have been carried on on the principle of the older diplomacy. We have had conferences between two or three nations, a great amount of secrecy—a greater amount of secrecy, perhaps, than we have ever had—except where it has been broken through by the wireless telegrams of the Soviet Government. We have had a great deal of suspicion; we have had the absolute ignoring of all the nations except those which were immediately concerned; we have had the old doctrine that it is an offence to give advice, that it is not part of the interest of all nations, as we hold it to be, to preserve the peace. We have had all the vices of the old diplomacy, and this is the result.
    The Prime Minister was rather impatient with me the other day when I ventured again to press the present Govrnment really to put their backs into the League of Nations and support it for all it is worth. I must go on repeating that until I see a change in the policy of the Government. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council is fond of saying—he has said it three or four times—that the two great enemies of the League are those who are its cynical opponents and those who are its too-enthusiastic supporters.
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Balfour): Hear, hear!
    Lord R. CECIL: Yes, Sir; but there is a still greater enemy, and that is the halfhearted supporter. Until the Government—I am not speaking of my right hon. Friend—until the Government as a whole, as a corporate entity, can clear itself from the suspicion of being only a half-hearted supporter, it will not have given the League a fair chance. We shall be landed time after time in the kind of disaster under which we are labouring at present, and the whole hope of a new era which some of us think was the only result worth having that was produced by the Conference of Paris, will

    297
    be doomed to disappointment and disaster.
    Mr. MALONE: In order to understand this matter, you must understand the financial interests which Members on the front Bench and their friends have in Russia. Before coming, however, to that part of what I am going to say, I want to make a few remarks concerning the Prime Minister's speech. To listen to the Prime Minister's speech was like listening to an anti-Socialist orator in Hyde Park—and a very indifferent one, too. I do not think, from the arguments put forward by the Prime Minister this afternoon, that he would have earned the £5 a week which the average anti Socialist orator in Hyde Park is able to earn. He made several very inaccurate statements concerning the internal conditions of Soviet Russia. He selected statements from certain individuals who have been to Russia, and he took care to select individuals whose reports favoured the case he wishd to put before us. He chose the reports of a very few individuals—two out of some two or three dozen—who have reported to the contrary effect; and of those two whose reports he selected, one has been disowned by a large section of the Independent Labour Party. I am told that resolutions of protest are pouring in from every part of the country. [HON. MEMBERS "Name!"] It is Mrs. Snowden. The Prime Minister made three points with regard to that, namely, that Mrs. Snowden is alleged to have reported—I hope for her own sake that she has not reported—that in Russia there is no Socialism, there is no democracy, and there is no Christianity. Let me deal briefly with those three points. With regard to the statement that there is no Socialism, no one has ever suggested that there is either Socialism or Communism in Russia. It is futile to suppose that there is likely to be Communism in Russia in this generation. Even if they had not been subjected to the war of intervention and blockade, and to, other difficulties which have been imposed upon them by the Secretary of State for War and his colleagues, it would have taken a great deal longer than two or three years to pull down the old capitalist system and to build up a new socialistic order. You have to disorganise and reorganise nearly every Government department
    298
    —education departments, boards of trade, commercial departments. Every department is built up on a new system. Apart from the war which they have been waging—and, I am glad to say, waging successfully—it is not likely that you would have found Socialism in Russia to-day. The second point which the Prime Minister made was that in Russia there is no Christianity. What is the true fact about that? It is true that they have disestablished the old Orthodox Church. Anyone who knew the pernicious, vile political influence which the old Russian Church held over the people in the time of Rasputin knows what a benefit to the Russian people the disestablishment of that Church has been. People who have been to Russia know quite well that religion is free in Russia to-day, with this difference over the past régime, that the clergy have to obtain their pittance from the contributions of the faithful and not from the taxpayer—a very beneficial change. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have all been murdered!"] Not only I, but many other people have seen these priests and bishops, and as there is prohibition in the country I am sure they are not all ghosts. But it is really rather ludicrous to talk about lack of Christianity in Russia. Are we really so Christian in this country that we can talk of another country which has disestablished its old reactionary religion? I believe Russia is just as religious and as Christian as we in this country, and probably more so.
    The third point was that there is no democracy in Russia to-day. But have we really got democracy in this country to-day? The Prime Minister spoke about elections. Are our elections really free? Are they any freer than the show of hands he referred to? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I do not think so. (Interruption.) I got in by the same method as you got in. [An HON. MEMBER: "How did you get in?"] What happens when an election takes place, when great issues are before the country—new housing conditions, better industrial conditions, and all the hundred and one new social improvements that are required? A great newspaper magnate, or some other great financial interest controlling the newspapers, comes along two or three days before the election, and instead of the issues being real, vital issues which are

    299
    of importance to the country, what comes before the people? Hanging the Kaiser, making Germany pay, and all this futile rot which the people are asked to vote for instead of the real fundamental social basis which they should send people back to legislate for and to improve their conditions. Then even if the people have the sense not to be bluffed, what happens? Last week we saw in this House something of the democratic legislation about which the Prime Minister boasts. In two hours last Wednesday £160,000,000 of the taxpayers' money was voted through the House without a single word, or even half a word, of discussion. That is the democratic legislation about which the Prime Minister boasts. If anyone analyses the electoral machinery of the country, it is the remotest possible form of real democracy. Look at the Press Ninety-nine per cent. of the Press is controlled by financial interests. Only one daily paper is controlled by Labour, and even that paper is in a bad way because it is boycotted on the capitalist bookstalls. It has to struggle against "The Times" and the "Morning Post" and the great papers which represent the financial interests. When I hear the Prime Minister comparing the two systems of electoral machinery I know he is simply talking through his hat. I know he does not mean it. I remember the time when he was living in a little room on the third floor in the City and he was boasting of the day when he would come before this country and lead it to Socialism. I wonder what he thinks of that now. I remember the conference in Glasgow in 1917 when he was howled down and he reminded us of that, too. He said he was going to lead the country after the War to become a great Socialist England. I do, not know whether he is disguising his policy, but if he is, he is certainly disguising it very well. On pure grounds of industrial democracy, election by industrial franchise is obviously and clearly more democratic than election by Parliamentary representation, which confuses, combines, and mixes up hundreds of different interests so that the real vital interests of the people are totally obscured.
    I will pass from that to a point which is of more vital interest to-day. I want to deal with the great financial interests in Russia.—the people who are interested
    300
    in Russia—and I will not leave the Front Bench untouched on this matter. I think there are two causes which are operating in this country in favour of intervention in Russia. First of all we have that large section of Conservatives—perhaps I will call them the people whose thoughts and ideas and ideals are represented by the "Morning Post," who are frankly afraid of Socialism. I admire their outspoken frankness as I admire the outspoken frankness of the Secretary of State for War. At least they have the courage to say what they mean and what they want. They have a legal right from their point of view to oppose Bolshevism and to use every means in their power to fight it, because it is quite obvious that if Bolshevism succeeds the idea is bound to spread, and on that ground they will be quite justified in asking us whether or not we would spend money to fight against this terrible menace which they look upon as a devil, from their point of view. And we of course should vote against it, and we should also use force outside to prevent these troops going to Russia. From that point of view it is quite legitimate. But what I regret is that beyond this there are groups of people and individuals in this country who have money and large shares in Russia, and they are the people who are working, scheming, and intriguing to overthrow the Bolshevik régime, because if Bolshevism continues, what will happen? Under the old régime it was possible to get 10 or 20 per cent. out of exploiting the Russian workers and peasants, but under Social ism it will not be possible to. get anything at all probably, and we find that nearly every great interest in this country in some way or another is connected with Soviet Russia.
    I will run through one or two of the big interests. First of all I will deal with the companies, and I will get down to specific individuals later. First of all we have the Russo-Asiatic Consolidated, Limited. That is an amalgamation of the businesses which were formerly controlled by Leslie Urquhart. This concern has interests in the Russian Canadian Development Corporation. In this Sir E. Mackie Edgar is the controlling influence. This gentleman is also the controlling influence in Sperling's, which is the controlling influence in those centres in which there has recently been agitation—I mean in Motherwell, in Glasgow, in Londonderry,

    301
    and in Belfast. Then there are the British and the French interests. I have been at some pains to try to ascertain the exact extent of British and French investments in Russia, and I find from the Russian Year Book of 1918 it is estimated that approximately they amount to £1,600,000,000. That is a very considerable sum indeed. I should think it is composed, to about a half, of the Franco-Russian Loans, and the Franco-Russian Loans are largely financed by the Rothschild Bank in Paris. I feel it my duty to point out that the Prime Minister carries out these conferences at the house of his private secretary, who is very closely connected with, indeed, I think he is a nephew of, Lord Rothschild. These facts are very unsavoury, but I cannot help drawing attention to them. When we talk about M. Millerand and about Marshal Foch and the French people being opposed to peace with Russia, we do not mean the French democracy, and we do not mean the French peasants or workers, but the French bondholders. Let us be quite clear about that. We mean the people, whose ill-earned savings constitute the £1,600,000,000 which have been sunk in Russia.
    7.0 P.M.
    I will give one or two other corporations interested in Russia. The next concern of any extent is the British Trading Corporation, which was the outcome of the Farringdon Committee. That corporation has two or three branches. It has a branch in Belgrade to watch the interests in Hungary. Naturally it is not in the interest of the British Trading Corporation that Bolshevism should spread to Hungary. It has another branch at Batoum, and it has another branch at Danzig. It is rather curious that this great concern should have this branch at Danzig, and that after establishing the branch at Danzig the Allies should have decided that Danzig was to be a free port and maintained a free port at all costs, for the sake, I suppose, of trading relations with Eastern Europe. This same British Trading Corporation, which controls millions of pounds, also controls the National Bank of Turkey, whose headquarters are situated at Constantinople, and here again we find that Constantinople is in the hands of the British military. There is hardly a single headquarters of these big financial interests which are not being protected by British soldiers
    302
    and British blood. The next thing is the Turkish Petroleum Company at Mosul, another outpost of Bolshevism which we have to protect. That Company is controlled jointly by three companies—the British Trading Corporation, the D'Arcy group and the Shell Company. The Shell Company has vast interests all over the world, and it has interests in Russia. These are some of the interests which the Shell Company, with an nominal capital of £23,000,000, has in Russia—the Ural Caspian Oil Corporation, the North Caucasion Oilfield, the New Schibareff Petroleum Company, Limited, and many others. It is quite obvious to any common-sense individual that these great financial interests are going to do everything they can to fight against Bolshevism. It does not matter what the Prime Minister says here. The War Minister and his organisation is supreme, and whether or not he comes to the House and tells us he wants peace, every effort will be made openly or secretly to carry the war on, even if they have to use black troops from Madagascar or elsewhere. When you have £1,600,000,000 invested in Russia it is not likely that hon. Members opposite, who largely control it, are going to risk losing it. I bring this point out so that people may know the influences that are behind the present movement; so that they may know what is going on, and why the people who are sitting here cheer anti-Bolshevik action. Does the House imagine that hon. Members behind the Prime Minister who cheer his rhetoric, who cheer his socialist bosh, do so with any feelings of humanity in them? Do they want to save life, do they want to have peace in Eastern Europe? No, they want to save their bonds and their dividends in their pockets. [HON. MEMBERS: "Names!"] If hon. Members want names they can look at the directors of these companies. The book of directors is a cheap book to purchase. The British Trade Corporation might form an interesting study in other parts of the world. A study of its ramifications in the Levant Company, in which it holds large stocks, and in Syria and the Balkans might also provide useful information as to many of our commitments, naval and military, in different parts of the world.
    The ease before the country to-day is whether or not peace is to be established

    303
    in Eastern Europe, or whether these dividends are to be made up again. Those are the alternatives. Is peace to return to Eastern Europe or are the profiteers who support the Government to continue to get their profits out of the Russian workers? What I do object to, and what I do think is despicable, is that any member of the Government should be connected with this business; that a member of the Government should have financial interests in Russia. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] I have already spoken about the Shell Company. I know it is a very delicate matter, but this is a very serious business, and it is very necessary that the people should know all the facts about the Russian business. Let us put all the cards on the table. Let us know all the facts, and let everybody in the country know exactly who is getting money out of Russia. I find that in the Shell Company the Prime Minister's secretary holds 9,861 £1 shares. [An HON. MEMBER: "Lucky dog!"] In conjunction with another person, whose name I need not mention, because he is not a Member of this House, he also holds 11,500 shares. There are distinguished naval and military officers whose names also appear on this list, but I am going to observe the ordinary courtesy of this House—which I must say is not always extended to me—by declining to give the names. I will read out the names of the gentlemen who control the British Trading Corporation, the Supreme Council which dictates its policy, the people who control hundreds of millions of pounds. [An HON. MEMBER: "What has that to do with it?"] It has this to do with it, that if these men do not look after their interests they ought not to be there. There is Sir Vincent Caillard, who is one of the chief directors of the largest armament concern in this country, Messrs. Vickers, and its associated companies. Naturally a big firm like that are not disinterested in a little war in a country like Russia. There is Sir Dudley Docker, who is chairman of the Metropolitan Wagon Company, and also, I believe, chairman of the Federation of British Industries. This shows that all these big interests are interwoven one with the other. They are all interested in keeping the war going with Russia. Not a single one, with the exception of a few trading companies and a few exporting companies, are really interested in
    304
    stopping the war. Behind these interests and behind the financiers who sit on the other side of the House are the newspapers and the other influences which go to make up public opinion in this country. In addition to the directors mentioned, there are in the British Trading Corporation Sir Hallewell Rogers, of the Birmingham Small Arms Company, Mr. J. H. B. Noble, of Armstrong, Whitworths, Sir J. Hope Simpson, and Sir Algernon Firth, President of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Great Britain and Ireland. That shows how the big interests are concerned in keeping the war going with Soviet Russia.
    What I do object to more than anything else, and what I do think is a matter which ought to be explained, is something which I found while looking throught the list of stockholders. I find in the Anglo-Russian Trust, Ltd., that £500,000 of debenture stock, registered on the 6th June, 1913, are held in the names of the right hon. Walter Long and another gentleman as mortgagee.
    Sir W. BULL: Trustee.
    Mr. MALONE: The First Lord of the Admiralty is also the trustee for the British Admiralty, the trustee for the British Imperial Navy, and he is also trustee for imposing the blockade on Russia. Is it right that that gentleman should hold this dual position? The £500,000 of debenture stock is not his only interest. Recently his holding in the same company has been increased by a further £3,000. I have here a certificate of copy with an official stamp on it which reads as follows:
    "Extract from the annual return of the Anglo-Russian Trust, Limited, made up to the 14th January, 1920."
    Sir E. WILD: Is it in Order, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. Member to attack another Member of the House, without giving notice of the step to be taken?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I presume that the hon. Member has given notice.
    HON. MEMBERS: Did you give notice?
    Sir E. WILD: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. Member gave notice?
    Mr. MALONE: I have been attacked, as the House knows, once or twice in this House, and I have never had notice given to me.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The custom is that, should an hon. Member propose to attack the personal honour of another hon. Member of this House, he gives him notice that he intends to do it.
    Mr. MALONE: I am not making an attack. I am simply asking for a straightforward explanation.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's attack seems to be that the First Lord of the Admiralty is the holder of certain debenture bonds, either for himself or as a trustee, and that, therefore, he is actuated by the motive of promoting war in Russia. If that is not an attack upon a man's honour, I do not know what is.
    Mr. MALONE: It is a statement of fact. I do not expect the right hon. Member to have any lack of honour, as is suggested. It is simply a statement of fact, and I am putting it forward in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman or his Friends will be able to offer an explanation.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has taken the trouble to raise a matter which requires some explanation and some reply. He would not make the statement without expecting an explanation and a reply, and that being so, it seems to me to be only natural to give notice to the right hon. Gentleman of the proposed attack, so that he might be in a position to give the explanation and reply.
    Mr. MALONE: I did look for the First Lord of the Admiralty before I rose, but I must confess that I did not trouble very much about it. I have made a good many speeches in this House during the last twelve months, but I have not had a single one replied to in detail, especially by the Foreign Office. Therefore when I make a speech I do not expect a reply for a week or two, perhaps by letter, or not at all. It must be apparent that we on this side do not make speeches to get replies. I have only been in this House eighteen months, but I have been here long enough to know that one cannot get a reply, or if one does get replies, they are never to the point. I was in the middle of reading out a statement when the point of Order was raised, and I will now complete it and sit down. This is a very delicate business, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would prefer
    306
    to reply when he has carefully read what I have said:
    "Certified copy from the Companies Registration Office."
    It is dated to-day, in fact at 3.30 this afternoon, so that it is not very much out of date.
    "Extract from the annual return of the Anglo-Russian Trust, Limited, made up to the 14th day of January, 1920. Name, Rt. Hon. Walter Hume Long. Address, Rood Ashton, Trowbridge. Occupation, Member of Parliament. Number of ordinary shares held, 3,000."
    I am sorry to have had to raise all these matters, but we are dealing with men's lives; we are dealing with the lives of hundreds of men. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are dealing with men's reputations!"] There are 180,000,000 people in Russia who have been suffering for two or three years due to the blockade, who have been deprived of the elementary comforts which they require to preserve life. I saw an account a few days ago of a man who came back from Russia, and he had his eye gouged out with an old razor because there was not a single anæsthetic in Russia which could be used. That is only one example of the countless thousands of cases which show the misery and privations and suffering which you, due to your dirty financial interests—
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Is the hon. Member in order in addressing the House or any portion of it as having acted on the ground of dirty financial interests?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to address me.
    Mr. MALONE: I have too much respect for the Chair to do that, because I know it would be my last speech if I did so. What I was referring to was the dirty transaction—[An HON. MEMBER: "To whom are you referring?"]—I have put evidence enough before the House.
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long)here entered the Chamber.
    HON. MEMBERS: Repeat your charge. Be a man. Do not be a coward.
    Sir E. WILD: On a point of Order. With the permission of the House, will the hon. Member be allowed to repeat his charge now that the right hon. Gentleman has come into the Chamber?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I will leave that to his discretion.
    Mr. MALONE: I shall be very glad to read it out again. I looked for the right hon. Gentleman before I made it. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have to take whatever opportunity we get of speaking on these Benches. Perhaps he will reply in the morning when he has read the text of the discussion. The two facts which specifically apply to the right hon. Gentleman are these. In the Anglo-Russian Trust, Limited, I find that £500,000 worth of debenture stock are held in his name as a mortgagee in connection with someone else. But the more up-to-date feature which I read out just now, and which was copied this afternoon at the company's registration office, is his holding of 3,000 shares in the Anglo-Russian Trust, Ltd. Those are the two facts which I read out to the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Repeat your innuendo."] I merely asked for an explanation. I shall be very glad if any individual concerned will explain his connection with this company. In the mass, these financial interests are behind the Government in waging war against Russia. The right hon. Gentleman may have nothing to do with it, but I cannot leave out one name, however much I may like to. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why do you not repeat the charge?"] The mere fact that millions of pounds are behind the Government—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why do you not say it is a dirty financial operation?"]—I say these are the influences behind the Government in waging war against Russia. I hope, if there is any question of war against Russia, the people of this country, both the ex-service men and the service men, and the workers in the munition factories, and on the ships will have no hand in this foul play against Soviet Russia, and will not lift a single finger or give a single ounce of energy in the dirty work for which British lives, British energy and British material have too long been sacrificed.
    Mr. LONG: I make no complaint of the fact that the hon. Member spoke in my absence, although he will forgive me for saying that his search for me cannot have been of a very industrious nature as I have been either in my place on this Bench, or in my room, or in the room of the Leader of the House, where I was attending a meeting of my colleagues; so that I could
    308
    have been easily found. I make no complaint. I understand that the hon. Member has brought a general allegation against His Majesty's Government in regard to the conduct of the operations with Russia. Why he limits it to Russia I do not know. I have no doubt that if he were equally industrious, he would find that Members of the Government have holdings in various financial interests in other countries besides Russia. He tells the House that he finds I have a holding of, I think he said, £3,000 and £5,000 as a trustee. [HON. MEMBERS: "£500,000!"] I presume that is because I am a trustee to the company. I have been a trustee of the company for many years. I had a holding of £3,000, and have now, I believe, although I have had no dividends upon it for a good long time.
    But let me tell the hon. Gentleman that there are two ways of bringing these charges. One is in the House of Commons, where he is protected. The other is in the columns of the newspapers. In the Press this charge was brought against me, and I met it by entering an action for libel, as I will meet the charge of the hon. Member, if he chooses to bring it specifically against me in public, where he is not protected by privilege. I went into the witness box, and was cross-examined on oath, and my evidence given on oath is there for him to read if he chooses. If he had been so industrious and so anxious to know the truth, and if he had taken the trouble to read the report of that case which was published broadcast, not voluntarily, he would have seen that I stated quite specifically on oath—this would not affect him, because he would not believe me—in answer to a question put to me whether this interest had affected me in any way in my action as a Minister, that I regretted to say that, which perhaps did not do credit to my business qualities, that I had entirely forgotten that I had this holding. I had no recollection of it, and so far as my public work was concerned it certainly had not affected it.
    This charge against myself I have met by making a simple statement of the facts of the case. I have been 40 years in public life. I have lived in what I might term the forefront of politics for 25 years, and I have not been a politician who has worn kid gloves. I have hit as hard as I could, and I have been prepared and expected to be hit back. But I have hit

    309
    above the belt, and I expect others, whatever their politics may be, to hit above the belt. It is an old English fashion. But the hon. Gentleman is one of those who was described by the late Mr. Chamberlain as a friend of every other country except his own. He does not think it beneath him to come here and suggest that Ministers are actuated by sordid financial interests in what they are doing. As far as we are concerned, the charge is a contemptible one, and I am prepared to stand in this House before my countrymen, and be judged by my actions throughout a long life. I do not attach any weight or any importance to the sort of charge made by the hon. Member. The personal aspect of the case is a mere detail, a mere bagatelle. The individual imputation of the character of an individual Minister is a very small matter. But this is intended to go much further. This charge is deliberately made by the hon. Member in order to create the impression in minds outside, less well-informed and less instructed than the minds of many Members of this House, that Ministers are actuated by low and sordid motives, and that because they have holdings, which may or may not be of importance to them in this or that particular investment, therefore the whole of their policy is dictated by these sordid motives, and that they are governed, not by an honest desire to serve the Empire, or to serve the cause of peace in this particular case, but that they are actuated by the sole desire to maintain their own financial interests and add to their own possessions.
    The charge against myself, as I say, I dismiss, because facts are facts; but I am concerned with this deliberate attempt of the hon. Gentleman, at a moment of supreme importance like this, when grave issues are at stake, and when we all want to do our best to keep our heads and to let our minds be well controlled, to create in this country the worst and bitterest form of class feeling and class hatred. That is his contribution to this supreme moment in our existence. I say this, and I do not care whether Ministers come from the Front Opposition Bench or the Treasury Bench, or from other parties or from the party to which I belong, that the charge that any Minister is actuated by motives of this kind, and that every Minister does not bring the most honest and purest motives to bear in the performance
    310
    of his duties, is one that cannot be substantiated by a tittle of evidence, search where you will. The charge ought not to be made except on evidence that I know the hon. Member cannot command. For myself, I dismiss it, as I have said, as contemptible, and I say for those with whom I am associated, and proud to be associated, and for all Ministers of the Crown, whether they are chosen from one party or from any of the parties, that, equally in their case, this charge is a contemptible one. It does no dishonour to them or to this House, but it does everlasting dishonour to the man who makes it.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I merely rise to emphasise one or two observations which have fallen from the Noble Lord. But before doing so, may I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question concerning the attitude of Italy in these negotiations? The Prime Minister referred constantly in his speech to the attitude of the Allies, and I have assumed in saying that he referred to the French Prime Minister and himself. Why I am concerned with the attitude of Italy is this. I see that the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs referred in the Chamber, in the discussion of the Russo-Polish situation, to the Spa Conference, and said that the Prime Minister had informed both M. Millerand and himself of the steps which he had taken with regard to the Bolsheviks, who in their turn proposed to enter into negotiations with Poland. "I myself," he said, "recommended at Spa the Polish statesman to conclude peace." The Italian Prime Minister went on to say what has been emphasised by the Noble Lord and others this afternoon, that the advance on Kief was a mistake, but he then proceeded to outline what we must assume is the Italian policy towards Russia. He said this:
    "There are two policies which can be pursued towards Russia. One is the blockade and the other is what was described by M. Clemenceau as the barbed wire cordon. The barbed wire cordon has given way everywhere. As for the blockade, the moral advantages gained by the Bolsheviks were far more important than the material damage suffered.
    I think that is true in every respect. He went on to say:
    "We have concluded an agreement with the Moscow Government for the admission of a Russian representative to Italy and of

    311
    an Italian representative to Russia, to secure the development of economic relations "between the two countries."
    He added that the Russian representative was expected very shortly in Rome and that he would enjoy the greatest hospitality in the country. On that I would ask, is the Italian Government in full accord with the agreement that has been come to between the British and French Prime Ministers at Lympne? What I have quoted would seem to indicate that the attitude of the Italian Government towards the Bolshevik Government is somewhat different from our own. The Prime Minister said that the Polish attack was unjustifiable and that he regretted it took place in spite of the warnings of the French and British Governments. I suggest that it was within the power of the French and British Governments to prevent the Polish attack taking place. As has been said, many of our difficulties to-day are due to the control of our foreign policy having been taken out of the hands of the Foreign Secretary and vested in the Prime Minister. On more than one occasion I have ventured to draw the attention of the House to that fact, but I am sorry to say that my voice has been the voice of one crying in the wilderness, and I have gained very little support. I was, therefore, more than glad to hear what fell from the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) in this respect. So long as our foreign policy is vested in the Prime Minister—I do not care who the Prime Minister may be—so long will our foreign policy be based upon no principle and no fixity of purpose. All our history for the past year and a half emphasises that—our vacillating policy towards Russia, our policy in the Near and Middle East. Our policy in every quarter of the globe appears to be based neither upon historical precedent nor upon any real knowledge of foreign affairs. I hope the day is not long distant when our foreign policy will again be vested in those who have some knowledge of foreign affairs.
    I would add my voice to those who have urged the Government to show a real and living faith in the League of Nations. The history of the League during the past six months has given those of us who are its earnest supporters ground for the belief that the Government are willing to use the League when it suits
    312
    them and are anxious to throw it aside when it does not suit them. We have had instances of that in the Polish and the Russian negotiations. Now we have the Prime Minister coming down to the House and urging those who support the League to do all in their power to assist in the maintenance of the independence of Poland. I say to the Government that had they employed the machinery of the League at the right time and in the proper way, we should never have found ourselves in the midst of the difficulties that confront us now.
    Mr. MILLS: Members of the Labour party nave approached this particular problem from a standpoint entirely different from that of other Members. Whatever else we may be charged with, I think that at least we can say with some degree of sincerity that of all the people who compose the British nation, those who comprise the working people have a right, and a prior right, in the decision as to whether or not there is to be peace or war, and at this particular puncture, having regard to what has happened since 11th November, 1918, we feel bound to take the most drastic action it is possible to take in order to bring home to the Government the peril of the steps to which their foreign policy is leading them. We are sometimes charged with showing no efficiency whatever in matters of Government, national or international, but this I would ask of those who speak from the point of view of statesmen. How long has there been this enthusiasm for the independence of Poland? Not very many months ago someone could recall that it was the very Government which conducted this country through the War which agreed with Russia that in the event of an Entente victory Austrian Poland and Prussian Poland should be merged into Russia and that the settlement of Poland after the War was to be a matter of domestic and internal politics within the Russian Empire. No particular cry was raised then as to the rights of small nations, although by the development of the forces within Russia the Czarist régime had been overthrown. I rose this afternoon in order to protest against the statement of the Prime Minister that Russia had deliberately broken the bond she gave to the Allies in withdrawing from the War. The present Prime Minister spoke at the Queen's Hall at

    313
    a celebration of the Russian Revolution in the early part of 1917. At that meeting he made the statement that but for the Revolution the Czar and his advisers were bent upon, and had almost con summated, a separate peace with the Germanic and Austrian Powers. That statement was made, and, therefore, I suggest that somebody is handling the truth rather carelessly. Since the Armistice the Labour Party are entitled to be somewhat suspicious of the attitude of the British and French Governments towards Russia.
    From time to time since I have been a Member of this House we have tried DO elicit information as to what was the policy of the Government with regard to the Bolsheviks. No one reading the notes that have been exchanged between the Soviet representatives and the British representatives over a period of years can deny that this provisional Government in Russia, before it withdrew from the idea of representative government, had secured a majority in the Constituent Assembly at Petrograd. These people could not have carried on this war, blockaded by sea and fighting on nine separate fronts, for over two years, unless they had had the Russian people behind them. No man knows better than the Prime Minister that what he is saying is partly untrue when he suggests that the Russian Government is in the hand3 of a gang of fewer than 600 people, who are ruling with fear and force the destinies of 160,000,000 people. All through these negotiations colour has been given to the suggestion that some other motive, sinister or otherwise, is behind the opposition to any conclusion of peace with the Bolsheviks. If you speak, as the Prime Minister spoke, of the deliberate breaking of the bond which Russia had given to "carry on," then you are not cognisant of the incidents that have occurred in Russia. Everyone knows that some of our greatest writers and publicists in this country wrote optimistically and continuously of the might and power of the Russian steam roller. We know that that roller gradually rolled back and that finally the Czarist Government was overthrown by a combination or coalition of the aristocracy, the middle class and the workers of Russia. Between them they set up a Provisional Government which was to act until a Constituent Assembly could be called together. As that Government
    314
    officiated, day by day the war weariness of the Russian people was demonstrated beyond hope of contra diction. Then the man who is now eulogised in this House, seeing the position more clearly than any other person, begged that some sort of Inter national Conference should be held between all the belligerents. At once the whole Press of this country set out to misrepresent the position. Kerensky was "turned down" in a storm and tumult by the very people who should nave backed him. The Russian people subsist largely on agriculture. The Russian armies melted away when the cry was raised that the land would be for the people. That was the situation with which the Bolshevik Government had to deal, and a real definition of the word Bolshevism does not convey the sinister meaning at present propagated. There are two schools of Socialist thought in Russia—Menshevik and Bolshevik. The one claims the maximum amount of reform possible, and the other is willing to accept the minimum obtainable. Let me illustrate it in this House. Over there sit the National Democratic party—a party who believe in a coalition; over here sit the Labour party. May I translate Russian terms, and say you are the Menshevik Socialists, and we are the Bolsheviks. We believe that, by independence of any coalition, we shall get more than the Mensheviks will get by coalition. But perhaps events will demonstrate which is the more effective force in the near future. They created the border States, and made the creation of Poland possible. Therefore I say of this Government this is a new-found enthusiasm for the independence of Poland. When Poland found that the whole world was at war, Poland turned to Austria, and the Field-Marshal who leads Poland to-day, Pilsudski, was in the Austrian Army and led a Polish Army Corps against the Allies, because they believed that the Austrians were prepared to give them the utmost they could hope for from a dominating foreign Government, as they found that since the Treaty of Vienna the only Power which had attempted to carry out its pledges was the Austrian Government, which, at least, gave them complete autonomy. The right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) referred to the subscriptions which were raised in the British workshops in

    315
    support of Poland. I was working in Woolwich Arsenal at the time, and I know the response that was made to the appeal of M. Paderewski towards the relief of the starving Poles in Poland. That appeal met with a response there and throughout the country as favourable as that given in the other cases during the War. I submit we must have an answer to the question as to where Poland received material support for its aggressive attack on Russia, since it could not have done so without some outside help. I submit that the French Government are behind and have been behind that and without hiding the fact. We had M. Clemenceau's speech when he talked about barbed wire entanglements which told us of the facts. They hoped that Poland would take active aggression against Russia and they hoped that Czecho-Solvakia would join and that Rumania would also do so, and it is on record that they offered to Rumania a huge loan on very easy terms. Rumania declined and Czecho-Slovakia had had sufficient of the Imperialistic aims of Poland.
    Poland undertook this act of aggression. Protests were made here, and information was asked for, but was declined. We were constantly referred to answers given on previous occasions, and from day to day the question drifted until the Polish forces had been overcome and flung back, not only on their own boundaries, but behind them. The great crime of the Bolshevik Government seems to be that they are demanding, after victory in a fight against aggression, that this time the people who took the measures of aggression against them shall be checked in such a manner that they cannot take aggressive action again. Having reviewed the offers of the Soviet Government, and having tried to arrive at what the true motives were, we have formed the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, in spite of what the Prime Minister may say, that the Notes furnish conclusive proof that the Bolshevik Government are willing to respect the boundaries of Poland, but are determined that never again shall they be threatened with aggression from a nation which, by its very poverty and smallness and area, could not possibly have developed the offensive which it did develop unless outside forces were at
    316
    work. The Prime Minister stated that they even contemplated, and are, I think, prepared, if things come to the worst, to give military assistance. The "Manchester Guardian," one of the most respected papers in the whole world of newspapers, published from a special correspondent in Warsaw on last Friday a paragraph stating that British guns, heavy and light, were arriving, and that every day one sees columns of heavy guns passing through the streets bedecked with flowers and branches, and that many trains from Danzig are arriving Through the streets passed thousands of troops clothed with English accoutrements and uniform and with brand new English guns. We do not rely on newspapers for information; we have information that leads us to a certain conclusion that, unless we get a satisfactory answer from the British Government with regard to this issue, then the least we can demand is either a satisfactory pledge from the Prime Minister or the continuance in session of this House, irrespective of the desires of the Members for holidays.
    I can assure the House we on these Benches are sick and tired of what has gone before in the way of war, and we are determined to take any and every possible step rather than see war start again. We believe that this question should be dealt with in terms of reason. We believe that if once peace is concluded, and Russia is thrown back on its own industrial resources, it will have to create a constituent assembly, because there will be no diversion to prevent that, and that then will come constructive criticism of Bolshevik methods which may lead to a more progressive and more democratic constitution within the boundaries of Russia. We say and we demand that the Russian people have the right to manage their own affairs. We believe that only when peace comes will Bolshevik theories of administration be successfully challenged, and by the people of Russia, who are the only people who have the right to do so. The continuance of any other measures upon which to hang some form of moral, material, or physical support against the Bolshevik Government is leading not only the trade unionists of this country, but a good section of the middle classes and the business people, to wonder what form of madness possesses the Government and keeps them hankering

    317
    after war, when every person, irrespective of social status, is sick and tired of the sacrifices that have been made during the last six years.
    Mr. SEDDON: I am quite sure everyone will join with me in complimenting the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken on the temperateness of his speech, on the information he has given, and the intentions to which he has given expression. I have risen to say a few words in support of the request made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). During the discussion this afternoon I felt somehow or another that we were forgetting the seriousness of the immediate situation which faces Europe and the whole world. There was a tendency to a spirit of levity which did not harmonise with the terrible position facing us and the rest of the world. What was said about Poland will, I think, be acceded to by every hon. Member. Historically, Poland has claims upon the rest of the world for her chivalry, her patriotism, and her bravery. I would almost paraphrase words spoken of Poland many years ago, when a writer said at that time, when she was menaced by Russia and other enemies: "The heart of Poland, though not ceased, though her blood doth drown the fields, and out of every smouldering town come cries lest brute force be increased." We have got to remember that after one hundred and twenty-eight years of the tyranny under which she groaned she was given her liberty, but that liberty did not connote licence to go beyond what was given by the Peace Treaty of Versailles. There she was given all that she was reasonably entitled to. I join with the critics of the Government in saying that they have given if not open at least tacit support to that military spirit which has driven Poland to her present disaster, and to our immediate concern. I know there may be something said by the Prime Minister in extenuation of her wrong. He pointed out that when she had the opportunity of exercising Government on her own behalf and had suddenly thrust upon her these great responsibilities that in new untried hands they became less efficient, and there was also a reference to the military position. After all, there is the plea that, the quality of mercy is not strained, and, whatever may be the faults of Poland, I think it will be accepted by th.3 workers in this country
    318
    that if the Bolshevik Government have the ulterior motive of destroying that nationality, then Russia will be held responsible before the bar of judgment and before all the peoples of the world. What does it amount to? Poland is in danger of destruction. It is obvious, even if the Government wished it, and I am far from thinking that they do, that armed intervention by this country is physically impossible, apart altogether from the expression of opinion of any political party. The ravages of the late War and the memory of that War in every home throughout the length and breadth of this country make the people revolt against any form of armed intervention at the present time. I want as I commenced to stress the plea put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley.
    8.0 P.M.
    So far as we on these benches are concerned, we have a very strong objection to Bolshevism as it has expressed itself up to the present. Bolshevism is based upon hatred. It has grown upon destruction of life without rhyme or reason, and I say here that, as far as I am able to follow the history of mankind, no system of society that is based upon hatred has the seed within itself of progress and continuity. We object to Bolshevism in every shape and form as it has expressed itself, and we are fearful that if Poland goes under it will extend its operations, by paid mercenaries, because there is no doubt about it that the men who are forming the Red armies are not merely the peasants and workmen of Russia, but they are the militarists who will fight for any country so long as they are fighting. Therefore, if Poland is to be overrun and Germany is to com6 within the sphere, and all the border States, then what we object to in Bolshevism will become a real danger to the rest of these countries, and to that extent we are prepared to oppose Bolshevism to the bitter end. But this is not a question of fighting Bolshevism; it is a question of saving Poland. If what the right hon. Gentleman said with reference to the intentions of Russia has any substance in it, I say it would be a crime against God and humanity if this or any Government lifted the smallest finger to project us and the rest of Europe into another war. What is the claim of the right hon. Gentleman? He said, "Do not disperse this week,"

    319
    because he recognised that what will go on to-morrow between the Russians and the Poles will take time. According to our time table, we are supposed to leave here on Thursday. This question is too vital to be left to any Government. We know the old theory that wars are made by kings and Cabinets. To-day we are in a democratic age, and I for one object to any Government making peace or war, unless it has given to this House, and through this House, to the whole of the country, all the causes and left this House to decide what shall be the conduct of this country in any collision that may take place. Therefore, the plea of the right hon. Gentleman is that we should not prorogue, but that we should have an adjournment till next week or the week after, and as soon as the arrangements have been come, to and there is any Division, then the House can be reassembled and given an opportunity, as the representatives of the people, of hearing what are the causes of the differences between these two countries.
    With the second request the right hon. Gentleman made I am also in agreement. I am getting a bit tired of this lip-service to the League of Nations without giving any outward and visible sign of these expressions, which we think ought to be accompanied by a living faith. The League of Nations, if it is to be anything at all, is to be used in cases similar to the one we are discussing at the present time. Now is the favourable opportunity. The Government can give to that machine its life and spirit, and they can, through that machine, relieve us from the horrible possibilities of engaging in another war. They can also say to the rest of the world for the first time in the history of mankind: "Through the collective brains of all the countries we have brought to the bar of judgment the differences of two countries. We have laid down what is good for both of them and for the world, and woe to any country that declines to take the decisions of this world-wide assembly, which will bring to bear an unbiassed mind in the interests of humanity, peace and progress." I appeal to the Government that the Cabinet shall wholeheartedly, without any reservations whatever, accept the request made by the right hon. Member for Paisley. If they do that, then, without entering the
    320
    domain of prophecy, I feel confident that war will be made impossible and that these two unhappy countries which are locked in war at the present time will be able to live side by side in peace and amity, for the good of themselves and of the world.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: The last remarks of the hon. Member who has just sat down would lead this House to believe that all that it is necessary to do is to call in representatives from a number of minor nations to the Supreme Council to get a mandate which would ensure peace. I also dislike these constant references to the nebulous League of Nations. I do not say "nebulous" in any offensive sense, but, excepting the Supreme Council, what is the League of Nations? It is a League of the only nations, with the exception of America, who have the least political, financial, or military significance in the world, and the fact that some 20 or 30 minor nations, neither of which could give any effective power to its recommendations, either economic or from a naval or military point of view, are not present to discuss the matter does not, in my opinion, influence the possible decision that is being taken in connection with Poland. I think it is a great pity that the League of Nations was ever conceived, not on account of the ideal, but it is a great pity that it was brought into existence in the way that it was. The Supreme Council at Versailles found themselves faced with enormous difficulties, which they were not even prepared to discuss, difficulties which they feared to discuss, and so, just as is frequently happening in this House, they as a representative Government appointed a Committee to which all these things were to be deferred. All these difficult and delicate subjects which they did not wish to discuss they referred to the Committee known as the League of Nations, but it has never functioned.
    Let us assume for one moment that this question of Poland was handed over to the League of Nations. If the League of Nations recommended in their wisdom that the powers which they have to enforce their decisions should be invoked, and that the invasion of Poland by Russia should be stopped, is there any hon. Member of this House who would suggest that we, at the dictates of the League of Nations, should send a vast

    321
    armed force to Poland? What is the position, then? It seems to me that the League of Nations is acceptable to every nation so long as the decisions of the League are in the best interests of that nation, and directly the interests vary, the League will collapse in actuality. It was born in panic, and it will be killed by ridicule. It was born because we were all war-weary. [An HON. MEMBER: "And still are."] Yes, but the mere fact of war-weariness does not bring peace. There is a vast army of military men marching to the westward. Why are they marching to the westward, and what is inspiring them? Are we to understand that the bitterness arising out of the miniature invasion of Russia, the almost flea-bite on its borders, which was made by Poland, is causing this vast army to march to the westward? Are they matching west because they are a starving nation? You cannot fight on an empty stomach. Are they marching to carry the banner of Bolshevism westward? If so, what is the banner of Bolshevism? Some hon. Members would say lust and loot. Yes. and a mercenary army without fixed ideals can always be kept on the march by lust and loot, but what is behind that? There must be something even greater than lust and loot that is keeping this army marching to the westward under the banner of Bolshevism, which, literally translated, means "majority." That is admirable, but the real meaning of a word, in my opinion, is what it conveys to the majority of people, and Bolshevism does not really imply to the average man in the street "majority." It implies "democracy," and I submit that that is wrong, that that is an illusion.
    There is not a more Imperialistic State in the world to-day, and there never has been, so far as my knowledge goes, than Russia. There is not another nation in the world which is putting its workmen to the bench at the mouth of the machine-gun, as is Russia. There is not another nation which is driving the army to the westward by the same fear and the same terrible rule, as is Russia. Do we think that because some few hundreds of youths, liberated from the prisons of America and New York for ulterior political reasons, ran amok in Russia for a few months, they could sustain for two years what is known as the Soviet Government? No; in my opinion the
    322
    Russians are an Imperialist nation today, and the army marching west is an Imperialist army, marching under the cloak of Bolshevism, if you like, but the only thing that Russia lacks is an Emperor. The whole of its Government is an Imperialistic Government, and if it does march to the westward, it will before very long march right into the heart of the second great Imperialistic country in the world, which is Germany. If Germany embraces the Imperialism of Russia she has everything to gain. If she denies it, she has everything to lose. Armed confusion in Europe to-day would create an impression in this country, and the same men would stand up and say, "We will forego the indemnity." Germany knows that if she joined with Russia to-day—call them Bolshevists if you like until the great day comes to put the Emperor at the head of them—she could snap her fingers at the Allies, as Russia is snapping her fingers this very night. Is Germany unarmed to-day? There are 1,000,000 rifles to be delivered to the Allies, to say nothing of what we allowed them to keep; there are hundreds of thousands of the very latest types of machine guns; there are 10,000 heavy cannon still to be delivered to the Allies; there are 45,000 fighting aeroplanes still to be delivered to the Allies.
    If Germany gives those up and turns her back on Russia, she has to face two generations of slavery as the price of waging the war that she did wage. If she embraces Russia, that would be abolished, Germany would be a free nation, free of the debt, and allowed to re-establish herself as a great Imperial nation. Is that what the Labour party want? Do the Labour party want to see Germany a great imperialistic armed nation again, and Russia likewise, with Poland and all the surrounding States purely vassals of these two great imperial nations, who would dominate the western hemisphere? So far, this is the only solution of the present position that I can see. I ask the Labour party if they were satisfied that Russia's aims were imperialistic and military, and that she was marching into Poland with the idea of imposing on Poland, as victors can impose upon the vanquished, any form of rule they choose, what would their position be then? Would they still say to the Government, "You must not interfere"? Would they wait till the Russians

    323
    got to n, or would they wait till they entered the gates of Paris, or the Channel ports? What is the end going to be? That is the thing that occupies my mind. I know that the world is war weary, and that any man who stood up and suggested that an armed force should be raised in this country to-day would be howled down by the most thinking, in fact, by almost everybody. There is not one Member who has stood up during the Debate and suggested that we should do anything of that kind. We have said to the Bolsheviks that if they did a certain thing—and they did it—we would do a certain thing, but we did not do it; and one of the reasons why we have not done it is because the Government really fear the manifesto which the Labour party have sent out declaring they would paralyse this country by a general strike. Does the Labour party call that democratic? We are within two years of the last general election. We had a democratic election by the broadest franchise that has ever been granted to any country, and within two years of it a minority of representatives in this House suggest that unless the majority—unless the Bolshevik section of this House—will accept the dictates of the minority the minority will, by direct action, enforce their will by paralysing the economic life of the country. Is that democracy? It certainly is not Bolshevism. They do that in the interests of peace. Do they think that the country would stand for it? Do they not think that some alternative to direct action will have to be found in this country; or do they think that we, as a nation, are the puppets of the trade unions, to bow down and kowtow to any threats which they care to throw out? Are we to take it lying down? And what if an armed force was brought to bear to stop direct action? Would the Labour party and the trade unions say, "Oh, if you are going to bring an armed force, it means a fight, and we do not believe in fighting, we believe in peace, so we will all go back to work"? Or would they fight the force which endeavoured to destroy direct action? It is the lack of consistency that I complain of. I complain of it not only in the Opposition, but equally in the Gvernment. Everyone says, if you do not agree with the general
    324
    view, what is your alternative? My alternative is to ask the House to consider what is the real meaning behind these 3,000,000 men who are marching to the West. Do they intend to stop at Poland? Are we as a nation desirous of embracing a Soviet Government, and, if so, do we know what the Soviet Government is? Is Bolshevik rule purely a cloak to hide what is essential in imperialistic movements? This is only a suggestion. I have no right, no more than any other Member has a right, to give anything more than his opinion, based on such scanty information as it has been possible to obtain. There is a lack of reality about this Debate.
    Mr. SEDDON: I think the hon. Member is not entitled to make a general application of that term.
    Mr. BILLING: There is a lack of unreality about it. What did the hon. Member who has just interrupted me say? He said the Government must keep the House in Session in order to be able to appeal to the House for a mandate before anything is done. Quite right. But what a lack of unreality! Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Government cannot muster in the Lobby a sufficient majority to do anything they wish? Has any Division in this House in the past two years, even at times of much advertised and boomed crises, which we have periodically to keep alive in this country political life in despite of the present political apathy—
    Mr. JESSON: But this is a question of war.
    Mr. BILLING: This is a question of war, and the Government have come down to the House and told us that there shall be no war unless Russia refuses to recognise the political independence of Poland, and even under those circumstances, he told us, we will not send an armed force, but only contribute arms and ammunition to strengthen the Polish defence. There is an issue which we can vote about to-night.
    Mr. SEXTON: Yes, you can; and you will get it in the neck.
    Mr. BILLING: From what the hon. Member on the Labour Benches says, the Government are going to be defeated to-night. If the Government are going to be defeated, I think it is absolutely essential that we should remain in Session.

    325
    If there is any possible hope of private Members or the alleged Opposition ever imposing their will upon the Government in the Division Lobbies, we ought not to go out of Session until this question is settled. I quite appreciate that it is the most important question which has faced us since Versailles, because we have to decide now whether or not we wish to embrace Soviet rule. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchen (Lord R. Cecil) told us that it was only for technical reasons that we could not accept the Soviet rule of Russia and recognise it. I do not know whether he meant that, but presumably he did, because he repeated it. Before this Debate is over I hope we shall have a considered reply from a Minister, at least to the more or less definite questions that have been put to the Government.
    There has been, if I may say so, an atmosphere of personality. The hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Malone) used the Debate as an opportunity for being rather unnecessarily abusive to a Minister of the Crown. I think if the Minister had considered the position for one moment, he would not have taken the attack quite so seriously, because we have to remember that the Minister in question was the First Lord of the Admiralty, who was responsible for. cancelling the hon. Member's commission in the Royal Navy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That, naturally, might cause a, certain amount of bitterness, and I think it was more a personal than an Imperial note that was touched on on that occasion. It is not an original thing. Even the Prime Minister has been guilty—as I have reason to know, and anybody has reason to know who will read the Parliamentary Debates—of equally vicious attacks. I remember, in a late war, his attacking the late Mr. Chamberlain, and informing him that "the more the British Empire expands, the more the Chamberlain family contracts," which is quite as offensive as any remark we have heard this afternoon. But I am sorry that that should have been introduced, and I am equally sorry that, although it is the dinner hour now, there is not even a quorum of the House, and there has not been a quorum for the last hour and a half. The Debate will fizzle out, and no matter what the opinion of the Opposition is, they will not be able to enforce it on the Government, because the Government have already given way.
    326
    I am accused of being a militant. I am not a militant, but I do say that you cannot bring about a condition of peace by keeping on apologising to a person who keeps on spitting in your face, and the condition in Russia to-day ought to be fully debated, not from a personal point of view, not from any desire to score off the Government, but the question I should like to see debated is why the Russian Army is marching to the eastward, and what is the reason it is doing so? What are the limits we intend to allow—we, speaking for the Allied races, who do not recognise and do not appreciate the extraordinary amenities of Soviet rule. Do we intend to stop it? Where then do we intend to stop it—in Warsaw, Berlin or Paris? That is what I want to know, and I should like the Government in replying not to make any threat, but to assure this country that no matter what happens, no matter if they are threatened by direct action from the trade unions of this country, they will take such steps as they, in their wisdom, may consider necessary to keep away from the shores of this land the bloody horrors of the Bolshevist régime in Russia.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The House will agree that the problem which we are discussing to-night is one of the most acute difficulty for Labour, not only in this country, but certainly in Europe. The real difficulty of Labour in a controversy of this nature arises, not so much from the old trade unionists, not so much from men and women who have years of experience in the cause, but from many people who have suddenly discovered themselves to be Labour's friends, and who would graft on to this cause in this country and elsewhere, a set of opinions and doctrines which are inconsistent with its history, and, in my view, would bring about its downfall and ruin. I believe, personally, we shall be greatly assisted in understanding the present crisis if we look briefly to labour conditions in Poland, to labour conditions in Russia, and, perhaps, in the third place, to what is happening within the borders of Germany as well. According to a recent review, which indicated, I think, a population of approximately 30,000,000 of people in Poland, it was pointed out that they had an organised trade union movement of only 947,000 souls, and that that so-called organised trade union movement in Poland was divided to the extent of about one-half industrial organisations on the one side,

    327
    and about one half nationalist and semi-religious organisations on the other. So that, perhaps, only about 400,000 or 500,000 people in Poland could be said to belong definitely to organised labour, and the remainder of the people who had the appearance of organisation belonged to forces whose dominant outlook was either the nationalist faith in Poland or some religious cause. That helps us very greatly to understand the difficulty of Polish labour at this hour, and it should also help us, as a Labour movement in this country, and as a people—because this, of course, is wider than any sect or class—to determine our attitude in this crisis from the point of view of Poland's welfare.
    Within the last few days I read a publication, which appeared to be issued by one of the extremist sections in this country, which poured ridicule on organised Polish labour, and it indicated that, if we examined the history of Polish labour in recent times, we should discover that, from the point of view of the working' classes of Europe, it had been in reality a dangerous force, and support for that argument came from the consideration that it had never really been actuated by what we should call economic considerations at all, but it had been dominated by religious, and particularly by nationalist considerations, and that time and again these nationalist considerations had had the effect of placing Polish labour at the mercy of any Imperialist power of aggression or aggrandisement that might come along. That publication went on to argue—and I mention it as a type of mind that might prevail in so-called advanced circles—that it was our business at this time to encourage any movement on the part of Russia which would have the effect of wiping out that so-called organised labour in Poland in the hope that there would then arise in Poland the more advanced conditions which were understood to obtain in Russia, and that there should be built up for the first time in that troubled Polish State something resembling a real labour and Socialist cause.
    I have not the slightest hesitation as an individual in saying—and I think in this matter I can possibly claim to speak for the party as well—that we should be violently opposed—I should put it as high as that—to any such doctrine, because,
    328
    after all, nationality and a great nationalist cause are a very valuable factor, properly interpreted and properly understood, in the world, and, in any event, we are never entitled to support any movement which would have the effect of wiping out labour faith or labour organisation simply because some people here or elsewhere do not regard it as sufficiently advanced. We cannot really superimpose advanced ideas upon a people in that way. Advanced ideas, whether in economics, political or cultural pursuits, must come from a growing power in the individual and in the mass. They must be consciously worked out and understood. They may be imposed in part, but they cannot, as a rule, be suecessfully imposed as a whole, and that appears to me to be the fundamental error of the doctrine which is contained in the publication to which I have referred.
    No, Sir, we must set our faces very strongly against any such tendency. We must leave the Polish people and all the peoples of the world to work out their own salvation in their own way; to move from economic process to economic process, from political change to political change by a steady growth and development of education. I therefore lay on one side entirely a doctrine so mischevious, so thoroughly undemocratic, or so much opposed in essence to all that is best and highest in our Labour movement in this country. When I say that, and have tried to indicate that it is our aim to secure Polish independence and to allow the Polish people to express themselves in their own way, I greatly regret that the Prime Minister this afternoon should have introduced what appears to me in many ways to be an extraneous and quite an unnecessary element into his speech, namely, the references to the Soviet System in Russia and to Bolshevism, and to the views which have been expressed in regard to the political and economic system there.
    The precise method which has been adopted for the time being in Russia appears to me to have no dominating interest in this problem at all. I am firmly opposed, and here I speak for myself, but I think also for many others, to the Bolshevist system. I am quite satisfied that there is not the slightest danger of the adoption of Soviets in this country, or in hardly any other country,

    329
    because they are fundamentally contrary to the well-ascertained facts of human nature and human experience. The Soviet System in Russia with its attendant dictorship of the proletariat and the equally marvellous organisation which has undeniably been built up in that country appear to me to have been supported and to be strengthened by two great causes. The first cause is one for which, in the main, I hold ourselves hers in Great Britain responsible, namely, outside interference economic pressure of one kind or another, and, as I regard it, the equally mischevious policy towards the Russian people. Our delegates who have returned have made it abundantly clear that there has been no greater force in binding together the large mass of the people in Russia who had no personal or public sympathy with Soviet tendencies or Bolshevist ideas. I say there has been no greater force in binding these people together in a form of Government which they could understand and appreciate than our pressure, or intervention, or our present policy towards Russia at large. That is the first cause of that, I think, comparative, but as I believe, artificial strength which is attached to the Soviet System and to Bolshevik rule.
    There is another cause which is always of the very highest importance in any kind of economic crisis similar to the one through which the world is passing. Russia, above all things at this hour, needs a strong hand and an iron rule, some force which will be able to supply commodities, which will be able to organise labour, to give some direction and lead to all the people who are torn by chaos and confronted by all manner of public and personal problems. There is no doubt whatever, however much we may be opposed to the dictatorship, however much we may resent that system, it has had the effect for the time being, in the present condition of Russia, of supplying those things so far, and to bring to its banners very large numbers of people who would not normally give it support.
    To my mind, the Prime Minister indicated in a very large part of his speech that he feared the extension of these ideas to other parts of Europe, possibly to this country, and that it was necessary—this, I think, will not be disputed by Ion. Members as a logical deduction—to establish in Poland some kind of buffer
    330
    between the system of government represented by Russia and its possible acceptance by the German people. It is on that third point, the present attitude of the German democracy, that I want to speak for not more than a minute or two. Strange as it may appear, I should be prepared at this hour to make the assertion that there is probably less possibility of the adoption of the Soviet system and Bolshevik doctrines, particularly as represented by the dictatorship of the proletariat, in Germany than in almost any other country. Germany is at the present time faced by a great economic crisis. She has not found her feet politically. She has not so far returned to stable government. In pre-War times from 1870 onwards there was in Germany the remarkable movement of the German Social Democrats. There can be no doubt that while that movement represented advanced ideas, while it had a marvellous power with millions of the population, it contained within itself one feature which was always watched with anxiety, if not with dismay, by the much more elastic Labour opinion in other parts of the world, including this country. That feature was the mechanical element, the element of control and regulation. It was just as true of the German Social Democrats in pre-War times as it was true of a considerable body of German thought and doctrine. In short, the very ideals of efficiency and to some extent the ideas of world-power which permeated these people, and dictated their efforts, had moulded in many respects even their Socialist politics. At the present time, if we review the opinions of German democratic leaders, we must be impressed by the very great and very substantial change. No doubt some of them cling to the old pre-War doctrines, but a very large number have realised that progress must proceed from the individual; that there must be great scope for elasticity in thought and outlook. I should say that there is not any real danger, any substantial danger, of any extreme form of organisation on Soviet lines, nor the point of view of the dictatorship of the proletariat, being accepted by the German people. I do not think it is a reality.
    If that analysis of the present position of Germany be correct, then the argument for any kind of buffer State, so to speak, to hinder the spread of that

    331
    doctrine from Russia to other parts of Europe would, to my mind, disappear. What we feel very strongly on these Benches is this: our attitude towards Russia is plain and simple. We say that the Russians have a perfect right to determine for themselves their political and economic organisation. We have no right to interfere. If it is found that their system is better than ours, then it may be copied, if the peoples of the rest of Europe so determine. At all events, there must be a free and unfettered choice. That is our plain, clear, and definite attitude towards the Russian people. Having made that attitude plain, we argue very strongly that nothing should be imported into the present negotiations for peace which would seek to give the Russian people the idea that we were going to do anything to interfere with any form of organisation which they might adopt. I say with great feeling and conviction that nothing could be better calculated than many of the passages in the Prime Minister's speech to give the Russians the idea that we were going to interfere with the choice of their own economic and other organisation. That was the inevitable conclusion forced upon us who have the best desire in the world to find a way out of this difficulty. Let us say to Soviet Russia that they have a right to determine their own system. We may agree or differ with them, but we are not pressing that for the time being. If they are willing to place all the cards on the table, and make a genuine peace consistent with the independence of Poland, and promote the peace of Europe on a stable basis, then we will do everything we can to encourage that movement. And it is because I feel sure that they are willing to make such an offer that I regret the attitude which has been taken up by the Prime Minister in the Debate to-day.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: have had a conversation with the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Malone) apropos of his duel with the First Lord this afternoon, and I want to say, on his behalf, that he at once accepts the personal explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. He made a personal attack, but he was met with a personal denial, and he accepts that at once, and so do I.
    332
    If the Government want to refute the statement made by the hon. Member for East Leyton that they are actuated by sordid motives in pursuing the war against Russia, then they will have an opportunity of doing so. They already know the peace terms to be offered to Poland, and if the Poles refuse them through sheer jingoism there will not be one shred of excuse for us continuing a blockade or a veiled war against Soviet Russia. I am told that the peace terms offered to Poland are the complete independence of Poland, and, in saying that, I wish to remind hon. Members that the first nation in Europe to acknowledge the independence of Poland was Soviet Russia when we were still bound and shackled by a secret treaty which gave the whole of Congress Poland to the Czar of Russia.
    I want to make one or two observations upon the speech of the Prime Minister. What on earth was he thinking about not to ask M. Krassin and M. Kamenoff down to Lympne? You had down there M. Millerand, Marshal Foch and the naval and military advisers of the Government deciding an issue which might mean life or death to thousands and millions of people, and here you have these two Russian plenipotentiaries fully empowered to treat for peace. Why were they not invited to Lympne to give their point of view? Was it on account of an objection raised by the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir P. Sassoon) to having them at his house? They were at 10, Downing Street, and they saw the Members of the Cabinet and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and I presume they shook hands with M. Krassin and M. Kamenoff, and why were they not invited to Lympne? If we have blundered and find ourselves ultimately involved in hostilities with Russia, one of the principal causes will have been that the Government were too proud or too stupid to invite the Russian plenipotentiaries in London to Lympne in order to give the Russian point of view. The Prime Minister says he has his doubts and suspicions, but why did he not ask M. Krassin and M. Kamenoff to give him some explanation? When the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Harmsworth) replies, perhaps he will be able to explain this point.
    When the Polish delegates crossed the line to discuss the terms of the armistice

    333
    and peace in accordance with the suggestion of the Minister for Foreign Affairs by wireless, it was found that these delegates only had a military mandate to discuss the terms of the armistice and they had no mandate to discuss the terms of peace. The representatives of the Soviet Government told them that they should have those powers, and the Polish delegates were told that they could use the Soviet wireless to telegraph to Warsaw and ask for representatives to be sent by courier with full credentials, and that would have saved a good deal of time, but they refused to do this and went back to Warsaw, and it is said that they did this at the behests of the Allied Missions in Warsaw and by their influence. It is all very well for the Prime Mininster to talk about the insolence of these people, but I want to know is it a fact that they were offered the use of the wireless and that they were told that the Soviet authorities would accept the credentials sent by courier, and that this was refused. I want to know whether the Allied Missions at Warsaw had any hand or finger in that matter. Apparently Poland can make as many mistakes as she likes, but if Moscow makes one mistake then it is argued that we must use the whole of the power of this country against Russia. Ministers may propose, but the people dispose. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) referred to British guns and uniforms in Warsaw, and these must have been sent long before the Polish arms crossed the borders of Poland. In these circumstances it is wicked hypocrisy for the right hon. Gentleman to say that in certain conditions we shall put on a blockade and strengthen Poland.
    I think the most remarkable omission in the Prime Minister's speech was the fact that he did not mention General Wrangel. This General must have been supplied with British munitions long after the 31st of March which was the date given to this House, and the voluntary army of General Wrangel was supplied with munitions during April, May, June, and July. We were told by the Lord Privy Seal that these were munitions which were sent to General Dennikin and had not arrived, but were on their way at the time. As a matter of fact some of these uniforms were sent from Egypt, Constantinople and Batum, and it was only in the beginning of July that these supplies ceased. France is now
    334
    supplying aeroplanes, officers and material support to General Wrangel, and it is useless for the hon. Member for Luton to say that we have no responsibility for this. The excuse of defending the integrity and freedom of Poland has gone. The Bolshevik peace terms will be in the hands of hon. Members in the next 48 hours, and then there will be no excuse for continuing fighting. I am going to prophesy, however, that a very strong effort will be made by the interventionists, in this country and in this House, to use Wrangel as a casus belli for continuing hostilities against Russia. Wrangel, we are told, is defending refugees in the Crimea, but the hon. Member for Luton to-day admitted to me that the Soviet Government had offered a full amnesty to all these refugees, and the position is exactly similar to that which obtained when we withdrew our troops from Murmansk and Archangel. At that time it was desired to keep our lads out there on the ground that we could not abandon the people to the Bolsheviks, but we did abandon them, an amnesty was accepted, they have not suffered, and of the 60,000 of Denikin's men who laid down their arms and were completely amnestied, thousands of officers and men are now fighting in the Red Army against Poland from pure motives of patriotism.
    Mr. JESSON: No, because they are hungry.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Denikin himself offered his services against Poland.
    Mr. JESSON: How do you know?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I heard it on very good authority, that of an Englishman. What is the actual position? I accuse the Government of playing a double game on this matter. They burke questions, they refuse to give information, and Wrangel is going to be the next rock on which the ship of peace is to be split. When the House is up, when organised labour has been temporarily satisfied, when the newspapers have told us that everything in the garden is lovely, we are going suddenly to discover that we are helping Wrangel and very soon Russia will again be devastated by Wrangel and his mercenaries. I want more information on this question. I venture to assert that if this Government

    335
    by these negotiations runs us into war it will not last 48 hours; it will have to go. [An HON. MEMBER: "In favour of whom?"] No body of men could do worse. Not one hon. Member dare stand up here and make a speech in favour of war against the Bolsheviks, not one Member of the Conservative party, whose feelings are well-known, will support publicly the taking of action against Russia, because they are afraid of their constituents.
    Mr. JESSON: No one wants war any more than you do, but no one is more likely to bring it about than you are.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The leader of the National party in this House last Session said he would send an army to Russia, but I venture to say that not one Member here has the courage to get up in favour of war with Russia. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO one wants it."] Then let us have peace.
    Mr. JESSON: You are not helping; it is speeches like yours which make war.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If hon. Members want peace, and I think they are sincere when they say they do, let them agree to remove this Wrangel. Let us withdraw support from him, let us insist that he and his followers accept the amnesty offered them. Let us cease supporting him, secretly or openly. Let us accept the peace which is offered apparently in good faith.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), speaking earlier in the Debate, referred to the difficulty he was under in following the various ramifications of the present position. I submit that if the Noble Lord, with all his training and experience in diplomacy, and with his access to document? which we have not, is unable to follow the trend of affairs, we mere back-Benchers must give up in despair any effort to understand the intricacies of the various stages through which the present trouble has passed. One fact, and one cardinal fact, emerges from it all, and that is that it would be an appalling crime, an unheard-of tragedy if out of this welter in Europe there should come another war. I am perfectly satisfied, whatever the feeling
    336
    in this House may be, that the feeling throughout the country is absolutely and resolutely opposed to any action which may ultimately land us into a deplorable state of war, Although the clouds have only darkened recently on the horizon, I think we must all have had innumerabl protests from our constituents, in the strongest language, objecting to any action on the part of the Government that might by any chance have such an appalling result.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I have had none.
    Mr. THOMSON: Possibly the hon. Member's constituents knew that their appeal would fall on hard ground. Most of us who went overseas in the late War did so in the belief that we were waging war for the last time, and that it was a war to end war. We vowed during the time we were there—at any rate, I did so—that if we were spared to come back, we would leave no stone unturned, but would use every effort of which we were capable to protest against the possibility of a recurrence of such a state of affairs. Therefore it behoves all of us to raise our protest on every occasion against any action which might result in that way. Not merely was it a war to end war, but we were told that it was a war which would do away with the old-fashioned diplomacy, secret and dark and devious in its ways, and that we should have the free light of day upon international relations and negotiations. What do we find? We find still that the old diplomatists are at work. If it is not a question of the old bogey of the balance of power in Europe, it is the new bogey of buffer States, which must be organised and arranged in order to keep the peace of the world. It is time that diplomacy and foreign affairs were taken out of the hands of the old school, who, like the Bourbons of old, have forgotten nothing and learned nothing by the experiences of the past. It is time that the ordinary man in the street, and the ordinary backbencher in this House, had some say on questions of foreign policy and diplomacy. When all is said and done, the ultimate result of such action in foreign affairs has to be borne, not by the statesman, but by the common people and by those in humbler positions. It is time it was realised that foreign affairs are no longer the private preserve of certain

    337
    intellectuals, but that the ordinary man in the street and the ordinary backbencher in this House have the right to decide on the policy—not on the details, but on the broad policy which should govern foreign affairs in such matters. We have heard to-day, from the Noble Lord and others, that we know little of the details with regard to the negotiations in this matter. The Prime Minister told us that we were not going to be at war, so far as assembling men was concerned, but that we were going to send munitions and to give support in other ways. Surely, you cannot be at war and not be at war. You have to be either the one thing or the other. If you start on the slippery slope of playing at being at war, you will have to count what the end will be. I am certain that the Government are deceiving themselves if they think that, when the time came, they could raise another army of many millions. Therefore, they should count carefully the cost before beginning to take the first step which might ultimately lead to such a terrible state of things.
    Reference has been made to the League of Nations, and one hon. Member suggested that there was really no difference between the Supreme Council and the League. I suggest that such a criticism shows a want of appreciation of the fundamental principles behind the League of Nations. The Supreme Council is, surely, a league of victors, which is the very antithesis to what we understand by a League of Nations. If our lip service in the past is not to be a fraud and a hollow mockery, surely, as has been already said, there never was a time such as the present when we could put our faith to the testing point, and show that our belief in the League of Nations, is a reality and not a sham, by putting upon the League the responsibility for the broad question which we have at issue. I shall support those who have already advocated giving to the League of Nations the opportunity in this case of enforcing the decision of the Treaty of Versailles. It is said that, because Poland was a party to that Treaty, and we were a party to it, therefore we are bound by our pledge to assist her at this particular time. Surely, however, in invading Russia, and passing beyond the boundaries ascribed to her by the Treaty of Versailles, she has entirely ruled out that obligation. She did not keep her
    338
    bond; she did not keep faith with the Treaty when she invaded Russia, and therefore our obligation has ceased. Apart from that, it is not for us as a nation, nor for our Allies, to take upon ourselves the enforcement of that Treaty, should it be necessary. It is for the League of Nations, which is bound up with the Treaty of Versailles. The responsibility for that action should be upon the League of Nations. It is one thing for a league of victors to set about a new world war, or even a blockade, but it is another thing entirely to call in the League of Nations, and, by the moral force of the power of blockade exercised through the League of Nations—not by a league of victors—to carry out that Treaty. I join-with others in suggesting that we should not adjourn until this matter is settled. We have gone past the days when foreign affairs were the private preserve of kings, counsellors, and those in high authority. Those who have to bear the burden of the cost, whether it be in wealth or in blood—they, as represented in this House, representing the nation as a whole, should have a decided voice upon such an issue of life and death. Let them have the opportunity of expressing their views when the facts are known, and let the Government decide according to that decision.
    Lieut.-Colonel HURST: The hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) was very inquisitive, and wished to have a great many questions answered by the Under-Secretary of State. I think, however, that he would have been performing a public service had he himself given a little information to the House. He told us that he knew exactly what the Bolshevist terms to Poland were. I think the House would have been very grateful if he had been willing to tell them what those terms were and how he learned them. I do not share in the feelings which prompted my hon. Friend (Mr. Thomson) in protesting so vigorously against the policy of the Government. It seems to me that the Prime Minister in his speech struck two notes which are in absolute accord with the main currents of public opinion at the present time. The one dominant note in English public opinion to-day is a passion for peace. I do not think there is any party or any class in the country which is not determined, so far as it can

    339
    possibly be done, to avert from our country for as long a period as possible the illimitable calamities of war. I think that on that ground everyone will welcome the Prime Minister's declaration that no British life shall be sacrificed in this struggle between Poland and Russia. At the same time, although we want peace, we want to have peace with honour; and British honour and British interests are alike bound up with the maintenance of the independence of Poland.
    I should like to give two reasons why the independence of Poland must be supported. I do not share, to the full at all events, the admiration which certain hon. Members, and, I think, also the Prime Minister, expressed for the past history of Poland. Poland has, of course, been very much handicapped by the absence of natural frontiers. She has also been very much handicapped by the absence of a middle class. No state which consists only of an aristocracy and a peasantry can ever prosper. I imagine that the only valuable contribution that Poland ever made to the history of Europe has been the saving of Vienna on one occasion from the Turks. We, however, are concerned with maintaining the rights of little nations, which formed so prominent a part in the British propaganda during the War. It would be an ill sequel to the War if we gave up all those ideas of the, principle of nationality and the rights of little nations which we then championed. It is very remarkable that those members of the Independent Liberal party who have spoken, and who are always such slaves of maxims and catch-words, have now no word of praise whatever for the rights and liberties of little nations. In fact, the hon. Member (Mr. Thomson) alluded to the idea of maintaining the independence of Poland as the new bogey of a buffer State. All I can say is that this new bogey of a buffer State is only the old Whig idea of the principle of nationality brought down to modern times. We are under an obligation to these little nations whom we ourselves have done so much to bring into existence, and the idea of leaving all their concerns to the protection of the League of Nations is absolutely fatuous. Everyone knows that no League of Nations can
    340
    possibly operate effectively in international diplomacy unless it has some coercive sanction behind it, and the only coercive sanction behind the League of Nations to-day is the armed might of England, France, and Italy.
    Let us be frank and face these facts. Do-not let us follow catch-words and think that, by merely appealing to the League of Nations, we can settle all these international problems. The real danger of leaving Bolshevism unchecked, and of allowing Poland to be entirely submerged, is that the Bolshevik force which we have to face in Europe is not content with managing the internal affairs of Russia. We do not care in the least what the internal conditions of Russia is or what constitution the Russians care to adopt for themselves. But in meeting Bolshevism we are not meeting an ordinary national force at all. We are meeting an armed enthusiasm, and there has been nothing more difficult to curb in the history of the world than the armed enthusiasm of zealots. That is what was such a great danger in the Holy Wars which have been waged from time to time by Mohammedan peoples. Europe has had to withstand these onslaughts, not because the men who were making the attack believed in a particular form of religion, but because their propaganda was waged with fire and sword, and if it was not withstood it would simply have overwhelmed the whole of civilisation. In the same way with regard to the French Revolution. Europe had to fight the French Revolution, not because it was revolutionary, but because it aimed at subverting the constitutions of all civilised nations. The reason is that these armed enthusiasms, like Bolshevism, live by war and live on war. The moment you establish peace Bolshevism must necessarily fall to the ground, because it is the rule of a minority founded on force. It is a very old truth that you can do anything with bayonets except sit on them. You can win anything by overwhelming military force, but you cannot establish and live permanently in a stable society when the whole mandate for your rule comes from military supremacy, and that is the reason why the leaders of Bolshevism are bound to start this Bolshevik crusade, to the enormous injury and detriment and danger of the whole of Europe.
    I believe the policy which has been indicated by the Prime Minister is based on absolutely sound lines, and makes for

    341
    the security of our country and of the world. The lesson I think the Government ought to draw from the crisis through which we have been passing, and from the Debate this evening, is the essential necessity of educating public opinion. There are three ways in which it is clear that public opinion on this great subject is at present very uninformed and very unenlightened. First of all it is quite obvious that a very large section of society believes that Bolshevism represents a perfect type of democracy. It is vital for the Government so to teach public opinion that all men and women of every class realise that Bolshevism involves the re-introduction into society of the servile state—a state where the great body of citizens remain in absolute subjection to the rule of a dominant minority whose power is based upon the sword and upon the sword alone. Secondly, and this is an even more important point, the Government has come to a decision which happens to be more or less in accord with the views of the spokesmen of organised labour, so far as the maintenance of peace is concerned, and the abstention from sending armed forces to Russia. Let it be made absolutely clear to the country that that decision has not been come to as a truckling to the Labour movement, merely because the "Daily Herald" has wanted it, or because the spokesmen of organised Labour have demanded it, but because it is the right thing. That seems to me to be all important. No party in England, no class in England wants war, and if the Government has sought peace and has ensued it, let it be set down to the credit of the Government and of the country, and do not let public opinion be so misguided as to believe that that decision has been come to because the Government has found it necessary to surrender to the spokesmen of this uninformed, ill-instructed democracy represented by the Labour party.
    We have had a great deal of propaganda about the League of Nations in this country during the past few months, and so far as that represents an education in political idealism, of course no one can challenge it in any way at all, but it is idle for people to imagine that we are going to enjoy, in peace and comfort, an everlasting security behind the fabric of the League of Nations. The price of peace
    342
    is eternal vigilance. It is a great thing if the country recognises that while we may emerge all right from this crisis, we are not safe in crises in the future; and it is well for the country to realise that there never was greater necessity than at the present time to have our united services absolutely supreme and ready, as in previous ages, to face all comers at all times. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will be able, by following the policy he has indicated to-night, to steer past this great danger as he has steered past other great dangers. But I hope the opportunity will be taken at the same time to educate public opinion to a, larger, wider and clearer knowledge of foreign affairs, because it is only by having a really enlightened democracy that we can truly establish the peace and security of our country both at home and overseas.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I wish to draw attention more particularly to some of the concluding statements of the last speaker in which he hoped the Government had taken up the attitude they were taking up with regard to having no war, because they believed it to be the right thing and not because they were truckling to the Labour party and the unenlightened and uninstructed democracy whom they represent. Let me suggest to him that whether the Government have done the right thing or the wrong thing, whether the Prime Minister and the Cabinet have arrived at a right decision or a wrong decision on this important question to-day, if that decision be one that is going to plunge this country into another war, it will not be truckling be the Labour movement in this country. He will find that by refusing to listen to the Labour movement there has been brought into this country a revolution which will sweep him and the party he represents-from power. [HON. MEMBERS: "Threats."] That may be your opinion It is mine that I am expressing, and I have a right to express what I believe to be the feeling in the country. It is not Members of this House of Commons who-will vote in support of the Government who will have to fight, and will have to bear the burden of the war. It is the rank and file of the working classes outside, and they, at any rate, have said in no unmistakable language that they are having no more war in a cause in which they at least are not interested.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir J. Baird): All classes did their duty in the War.
    Major PRESCOTT: What did you (Mr. N. Maclean) do?
    Mr. MACLEAN: I tried all through the War to stop it, and I am here because of the attitude I took up during the War. I am quite prepared to take un the same attitude in this war. [HON. MEMBERS: "What war?"] The proposed war. [HON. MEMBERS:"No!"] There have been suggestions, always from your side of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Your side!"]—from that side. [Interruption.]
    Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): Perhaps the hon. Member will address his remarks to me.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I am addressing my remarks to you, Sir, as representing the House. Of course, if hon. Members do not desire to listen patiently, it is the general inclination of an individual who IS interrupted to reply to these interruptions. I rose to state the point of view that I believe the people of this country have in regard to any attempts on the part of any section of this House to plunge this country into another war. We know, or at least we believe, that there are certain forces at work doing their best to engineer attempts upon Russia to prevent the Soviet Government from having the proper rule that it ought to have over Russia. We have found that to be the case since Soviet Russia was first established. Sneers have always been raised and misrepresentations have been made against Lenin and Trotsky right from the first. We have had column after column of slanders in the papers regarding the rule in Russia, coupled with platform speeches denouncing anything that is attempted or anything that may be done by the Russian Soviet Government. That has been going on for the last two years, and in no place was it more pronounced than here where from these benches during the Polish advance we questioned the attitude which the British Government was taking in backing up the advance of the Poles against Russia. Then we had jeers from the other side, we had cheers from the Coalition benches, because the Poles were seemingly defeating Bolshevik
    344
    Russia. Those who were cheering formerly are now demanding that, unless Russia stops her advance upon Poland and unless Russia agrees to the terms which we are prepared to submit to them, we ought to take some steps either by sending troops, by sending munitions, by sending material, by sending naval assistance or in one or other of these forms giving support to Poland against Bolshevik Russia. We have nothing whatever to do with Bolshevik Russia and Poland in their quarrels. The quarrel was brought about by Poland attempting to invade Russia. Russia retaliated and drove her back. Russia is now within easy distance of Warsaw. I hope, no one more sincerely, that there will be no further occasion for fighting in Poland or in Russia. I hope that it will be possible to bring about between these two powers a satisfactory peace that will leave Poland her independence, free and unfettered—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—to work out her destiny—[HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—just as I believe we should leave Russia alone to work out her destiny. There are no cheers now. Hon. Members opposite believe in Poland working out her destiny but there is silence when I appeal for Russia to be left to work out her destiny. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I am glad to have elicited that sentiment, and I shall look for support from hon. Members in future when I am urging that Bolshevik or soviet Russia be left to work out her own emancipation. I am sorry that the Prime Minister twitted Soviet Russia in a way that spoilt the whole of his speech. There was no occasion to sneer and gibe at the Bolshevik rule. He pointed to it as being undemocratic and dictatorial.
    Colonel GREIG: He only read a Report.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Will hon. Members allow the speech to proceed without interruption.
    Mr. MACLEAN: When reading those extracts he made gibes in comment upon them and he tried to prove that that Government was one for which we ought not to have respect. That is placing Soviet Russia in a position in which it ought not to be placed. Russia to-day cannot be considered from the point of view of a nation that is at peace. Russia to-day is at war. Hon. and right

    345
    hon. Members in this House know that we in this country had to submit to dictatorial and repressive measures and restrictions on our freedom during the War, and we were always told that it was because we were at war. The very Prime Minister who has been twitting Soviet Russia for its lack of freedom and its lack of democracy was the very individual who was responsible for deporting from my own city and suppressing a newspaper in my own city for daring to tell the truth about a speech that he himself made there; yet this is the statesman who points to Russia as the only country that is undemocratic and whose Government ought not to be considered in a satisfactory manner by the Government of any other nation. I look to the time when we shall recognise Soviet Russia. I believe that we shall find it to our advantage. Hon. Members will recall that in every speech I have made in this House regarding Russia I have appealed to our Government to recognise Soviet Russia and to bring this nation into trading relationship with Russia. I have pointed out the large amount of commerce in pre-War times that came to this country from Russia, and I have pointed out the shortage of these particular articles in this country to-day. No one knows better than hon. and right hon. Members the vast stores of raw materials and the great resources of economic wealth that lie-latent in the soil of Russia, waiting for the world to be once again placed in a normal condition and for nations to be put at peaceful relationship with each other so that these natural resources can be tapped and the people of the world benefit thereby.
    It is not by chiding, by deriding, by sneering and scoffing at the Soviet Government, but by doing our best to realise the difficulties in which they are placed, fenced around by a ring of Poles, righting for their existence not only against actual enemies and against starvation imposed upon them by the economic blockade that we have set up. Paced as we are, or as it has been stated we are, with the grave crisis of the possibility of war in the event of the Soviet Government not doing something which the Prime Minister and the Cabinet desire, I hope that all these questions will be taken into account by the House, as well as the people, of this country, and that if the terms of peace which Soviet
    346
    Russia is prepared to discuss with Poland—which I understand have been handed to the Government since the Prime Minister made his speech—are Satisfactory they will be accepted, and if they are not satisfactory, I hope the Government of this country is not going to take any part in the particular line of action outlined by the Prime Minister, and that we are prepared to send munitions, material, and naval assistance, if necessary, to the Polish people to fight against Russia. I want to finish in the spirit in which I began and to say that if the Government make any attempt to send munitions, material, or to lend naval assistance to Poland in the fight against Russia, the people of this country will rise against it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] I am quite prepared to leave it an open question with any hon. Members to face a constituency on this particular question. The people will not have it. They are sick of war, and I hope every hon. Member is sick of war. I hope they will consider seriously any possibility or probability of this country once again being brought into war. If we are going to consider it seriously, let us hope this Government, this House, and the people of this country will decline to give any assistance to Poland or any other country that would involve this country in another war and bring our young manhood once again to the battlefield.
    Mr. LAWSON: I join with my hon. Friend (Mr. N. Maclean) in his regret that the Prime Minister should have made such an excellent statement for three-fourths of his speech and then have taken a line in the rest of it which seemed quite unnecessarily aggressive. It conveyed the impression to me that the Prime Minister was trying to lead the public to believe that some of us were in favour of the Soviet system. That may be the case with one or two Members, but I know none who are declared believers in the Soviet system. For myself, I should not like to see the liberties which have been won after a century of struggle by the working classes lightly thrown aside for any such new-fangled system, but at the same time that no one can deny the Government has taken a course during the last 18 months which has driven moderate men, who have some reverence for our institutions, into line with those who are called extreme men, just as the Government

    347
    has also driven the old aristocracy and some of the middle class and moderate forces in Russia into the arms of the Bolshevists because they believed their country was being attacked. No one can deny that. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War attacks Bolshevism. The people of Russia implied that as attacking Russia. It is a well-known fact that in the Army and in administrative posts there are the old aristocrats of Russia, and all sections, who did not hold with Bolshevism, but who rallied to the aid of the Government because they believed they were attacked as a country. On the facts it is very difficult to evade that conclusion. When peace is made, if it be within sight, I do hope it will be a peace without reservation, because, just as all the workers and the mass of the people are tired of war, so I believe every Member here is tired of war. It is time we began to create an attitude of peace, because as a matter of fact every one of these scenes of unrest which we cut off will give us a better chance of narrowing the issue and of dealing with the other parts of the Empire with which we are concerned.
    As far as the working classes are concerned, I believe they are not only themselves solid in the attitude they have taken in this matter, but from my own observation I believe they carry with them a great proportion of the thinking part of the middle classes and upper classes in the country. I went to my own constituency this week-end, and I had no hesitation in saying frankly to my constituents what my view of the present situation was. There were not only workers at those meetings, there were tradesmen and people of the middle class generally, and I want to say—it is worth this House remembering and thinking over—that some of the most enthusiastic people at those meetings over the attitude which the Labour forces have taken up were peope who are generally understood to be called the middle classes.
    We cannot have any limited responsibility in this matter. It is no good saying we will supply munitions and we will blockade. We cannot do that without involving ourselves in war ultimately. The Chief of the General Staff, Sir Henry Wilson, has made that quite clear in his Memorandum upon the
    348
    question. You have an army upon land, and for this purpose, if we blockade and if we supply munitions, the Polish Army will be part of the Allied Army upon land, and Sir Henry Wilson says that, once a military force is involved in operations on land, it is almsot impossible to limit the magnitude of its commitments. I repeat that, for the purposes of this war, if we do commit ourselves in a limited way, Poland will have our backing, and it will be part of the Allied Army upon land. Who can tell what will be the effects upon the whole of the Eastern and Western part of the world, even if we do give limited help in that way?
    We agree that the independence of Poland will have to be respected. No one doubts it. The Prime Minister said we are not quite sure that they are going to keep faith upon this matter. I submit on the history of the last eighteen months the people we are dealing with have as much right to question our good faith as we have to question theirs; but, for all that, I do not think British Labour will be any party to the violation or to the annihilation of the liberties of a nation. I am not so sanguine as the Prime Minister is as to Poland's future, even if she be left alone. He read us a lecture on history. I am not prepared to take my history from the Prime Minister if he does not give a better outline of Polish history than he gave this afternoon. There are those who question very much exactly what her future will be. But I do hope, if there is a possibility of settling along the lines that have been mooted within the last few hours, that the question will be settled without reservation. Let us clear the air once and for all, in order to give other people as well as yourselves an opportunity of settling down to constructive work for peaceful purposes, so that our people may have some of those gifts which were promised to them, but which have been denied them up to the present time.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I only desire to make two very short points. The first is this: the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House have repeatedly informed us that this country would never be committed to any warlike preparation until the House had been consulted and had given its consent. I submit that if we are compelled

    349
    to go to a Division to-night upon the information now before us as to the Government's position, that condition will not have been fulfilled. The Prime Minister has informed us that in certain contingencies it will be our duty to lend full support to Poland, to continue and intensify the blockade against Russia, to supply munitions to Russia's enemies, and to give expert military advice to the Polish army. If it is at all possible, in the interests of the Government itself it ought to be made clear whether that contingency has arisen, and whether the House of Commons believes it has arisen. On the question whether the independence of Poland is in danger, it is obvious that there may be differences of view when the Russian terms are disclosed. I understand that the Russian terms are already in London, that they are in the possession of the Government, and that they are being circulated in this House. I do not definitely press for a reply now, because it may be that further consideration than has yet been possible is necessary before the Prime Minister and the members of the Government can say whether, in their view, those terms endanger the integrity of Poland or not. At any rate, we should have some declaration with regard to their view. In any case the Russian terms will be fully disclosed to-morrow. I suggest that this House should not adjourn on Thursday. It is very desirable, of course, that Members should have their holiday as early as possible. I feel that as much as anyone, but this matter of peace and war is of infinitely greater importance than our convenience The Adjournment of the House should not take place until Tuesday. In the meantime the terms will be published, and the Government would be able to secure a definite decision of this House on a definite issue, and public opinion would have an opportunity of expressing itself. If that course were taken, I would be prepared not to support any adverse Motion to-night. On the other hand, if the Government insist on forcing an issue to-night, the result of which can only be a desire to be able to take these warlike seeps without the approval of the House of Commons and of the country, I shall certainly go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.
    The other point has been dealt with fully by the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil). The Prime Minister founded the action taken by the Government upon many considerations,
    350
    and one of them was that Poland is a member of the League of Nations, and that as this country is also a member of the League, we are bound by Article 20 of the Covenant to go to Poland's assistance if her independence is assailed. I traversed that position entirely. If such an interpretation of the Covenant is to prevail, then, indeed, the future of the League is in jeopardy. Is the doctrine put forward that if the League gives advice to a member of its body, and that member disregards the advice and goes forward in an aggressive war, then the League of Nations is bound to come to its support in the moment of its defeat? It is a doctrine which is absolutely untenable. In any case, if action is to be taken to protect Poland, that action should be taken regularly by the Council of the League after due deliberation. Are all the Allies taking action? It is not merely that the Council of the League has not been convened and has not taken action. Does it come to this, that action is to be taken in the name of the League by two Powers and two Powers only? In that matter the case of the Prime Minister was singularly weak, and would not justify this country being forced into warlike preparations. I strongly protest against the Government assuming to itself power during the Recess to drag this country into all the hazards of war.
    Mr. CLYNES: With the permission of the House, I would like to state why we wish to go to a Division. In the ordinary course of things we would not think of dividing against such a Bill as this. There has been published to-night in at least one newspaper the terms offered by the Russian Government to settle the differences between Russia and Poland. We hope that in those terms there may be found the material for a peaceful settlement of this trouble, and we should desire to co-operate with any body of public opinion in this country to that very necessary and welcome end. But, in order to emphasise our feeling with regard to what has been the policy of the Government on the question of Russia and Poland up to the present time, and as an act of protest against the conduct of the Government, we intend to go to a Division.
    Sir DONALD MACLEAN: My right hon. Friend who has just spoken has made an announcement of very considerable,

    351
    and indeed of vital importance. If it is true that the terms which Russia is prepared to offer to Poland have been made public, and if those terms are in the hands of the Government, obviously an entirely new position has arisen. Hitherto we have been groping about in the realm of conjecture and hypothesis. If the terms have been received, we should have a statement from the Government of their views on those terms. I have here a newspaper containing the terms set out. [HON. MEMBERS: "What paper?"] The "Daily Herald." [HON. MEMBERS: "A special edition."]
    Perhaps as the Prime Minister has come in, I may repeat my statement. The right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) two or three moments ago announced that the terms of peace offered by Russia to Poland had appeared in a copy of the daily Press, in a special edition of the "Daily Herald." I was asking if His Majesty's Government had received a copy of the terms, and whether if they had a really new situation has arisen. The country is, of course, entitled to know, and I am sure the Government will be wishful to state what their views are on those terms. I quite agree that I cannot very well ask the Prime Minister on so short a notice as this to express an opinion on them. But certainly it is reasonable to ask that the Government should be prepared, at any rate, tomorrow, on the Third Reading of this Bill, to give us their views on these terms, if they have received them. I leave the matter at that.

Russian Terms for Armistice and Preliminaries for Peace.
10.0 P.M.
The PRIME MINISTER: By permission of the House, as I have already spoken, I should like to answer the question put to me by my right hon. Friend. In the course of the discussion this evening a document came into my hands signed by M. Kameneff. I will read it to the House. I could not read it without obtaining the permission of those who have communicated it, and having now received that permission I can read it. I received the document some time after I had spoken this evening, and it is as follows:
" Mr. Kameneff presents his compliments to the right honourable D. Lloyd
352
George and begs to communicate to him the terms of the Armistice and Preliminaries for Peace which will be submitted at Minsk by the Russian Delegates. Mr. Kameneff makes the reservation that these terms may be-supplemented by details of secondary moment.
The following are the terms of an Armistice and Preliminaries for Peace with Poland:—

1. The strength of the Polish Army shall be reduced to one annual contingent up to 50,000 men and the command and administration of the Army to an aggregate of 10,000 men.

2. The demobilisation shall take place within one month.

3. All arms, over and above such as may be required for the needs of the Army as reduced above as well as of the Civic Militia, shall be handed over to Soviet Russia and the Ukraine.

4. All war industries shall be demobilised.

5. No troops or war material shall be allowed to come from abroad.

6. The line Volkovisk-Bielostock-Crajevo shall be placed fully at the disposal of Russia for commercial transit from and to the Baltic.

7. The families of all Polish citizens killed, wounded, or incapacitated in the war shall be given lands free.

On the other hand:

1. Parallel with the demobilisation, the Russian and Ukrainian troops shall withdraw from the Polish front.

2. Upon the termination of these operations, the number of Russian troops on the Russian frontier line shall be considerably reduced and fixed at a figure to be agreed upon.

353

3. The Armistice line shall be the status quo, but not further east than the one indicated in the Note of Lord Ourzon of Kedleston of July the 20th. The Polish Array shall withdraw to a disstance of 50 versts from that line, the zone between the two lines being neutral.

4. The final frontier of the independent State of Poland shall in the main be identical with the line indicated in the Note of Lord Curzon o£ Kedleston of July the 20th, hut, additional, territory shall be given to Poland on the east in the region of Bielostock and Kholm."

That is the whole of the document. Immediately on receiving the document. after consultation with as many of my colleagues in the House, we communicated the terms to Poland and we communicated the terms to France and, I think, to Italy. I do not think that it is quite fair that my right hon. Friend should ask me to express an opinion. My right hon. Friend asks me whether it would be fair to-morrow. I will give my reason why I do not think it would be fair. The Russian Government have insisted on conducting the negotiations direct with the Polish Government—I am not complaining of that in the least. They said that they were entitled to direct negotiations and they have preferred that course. Having taken that course, I do not think it would be fair for me, when the delegates of both sides are meeting, perhaps to-morrow or the day after, to express an opinion which might embarrass the discussion. There are certain things of which I do not quite know the meaning, and on which the Polish delegates would certainly ask for an explanation, and a good deal depends upon the explanation that is given. I think it would be very unfair for us to express an opinion upon detailed terms of this kind. We have given our preliminary impression to the Polish Government. Beyond that I do not think it would be fair for us to go. It would be taking the negotiations out of the hands of the Polish Government. I do not think that we can express an opinion either to-day or to-morrow, but I agree
354
with my right hon. Friend that this creates a new situation.
Sir D. MACLEAN: May I urge on the Prime Minister that he will not close his mind to-night to the urgent request that has been made from these Benches and from our Labour colleagues, and which has received a very large amount of assent from the general body of the House, that the House should not adjourn until the public of this country is fully seized of the actual position.
The PRIME MINISTER: I trust my right hon. Friend will not press that to-night. I am very hopeful that it will be casting an unnecessary burden upon the House of Commons, even if we agree to adjourn for a few days. If the right hon. Gentleman is still of the same opinion on Wednesday or Thursday, he might put the question again, but as at present advised, I think it would be very undesirable for us at this stage to indicate any acquiescence in the proposals he put forward. I think, from the point of view which we all have in common, namely, the securing of peace between the parties, it would be very undesirable at this stage to give an undertaking of that character.
Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: We are only anxious that peace should be made, and that the House of Commons should have a voice in the making of peace, in deciding whether the terms are reasonable or not. In the meantime, while these negotiations are going on, can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that we and our Allies will cease from hostile action against Russia, both as regards sending munitions to Poland and as regards any assistance to Wrangel or anybody else acting against Russia, and will the right hon. Gentleman, if he is as sincere as we are in desiring that peace should be made—
HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. A. Chamberlain): The hon. and gallant Gentleman is singularly offensive.
Captain BENN: I had not the least intention of being offensive, but let me say this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: You were speaking in an offensive way.
Captain BENN: If we are to have peace, it is essential that we ourselves should abstain, not only as regards the Polish side of the situation, but as regards Southern Russia, from any offensive action against Russia by ourselves and our friends, and also from any attempt to break up the peace negotiations by the Secretary of State for War or anybody else. [Interruption.] We are simply anxious to get peace, and we want an assurance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—All we desire is that peace shall be a permanent peace for the whole of Russia.
Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

FERTILISERS (TEMPORARY CONTROL OF EXPORT) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]

FERTILISERS (TEMPORARY CONTROL OF EXPORT) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Power to control temporarily the export of certain fertilisers.)
  (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, His Majesty may by Order in Council prohibit the export from the United Kingdom of any of the fertilisers specified in the Schedule to this Act.
  (2) An Order under this Section—

  (a) may provide for the issue by such Government Department as may be prescribed by the Order of licences for the export of articles to which the Order relates; and

  (b) may authorise any such licence to be issued subject to such conditions as may be specified in the licence, and may contain provisions imposing penalties for any breach of, or failure to comply with, any such conditions.

  (3) Any Order made under this Section may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Order so made.
  (4) This Section shall have effect as though it were included in the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, and the provisions of that Act, and of any Act amending or extending that Act, shall apply accordingly, and if any articles prohibited to be exported by virtue of this Act are exported from the United Kingdom in contravention of an Order made under this Section, or are brought to any quay or other place to be shipped for the purpose of being so exported, or are water-borne to be so exported, the exporter or his agent shall be liable to the same penalty as that to which a person is liable under Section one hundred and eighty-six of that Act for illegally importing prohibited goods.
  Captain KNIGHTS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to add the words
  "Provided always that the quantity of sulphate of ammonia reserved for use in this country shall, in the case of each manufacturer, be equal in proportion to the quantity so reserved by any other manufacturer, and that, on application, any manufacturer shall be licensed to export the proportion of sulphate of ammonia not so reserved."
  My sole object is to give protection to individual firms who wish to remain out of this ring which will be forced on the producers of sulphate of ammonia if the Bill as printed is passed. There are producers of something like 60,000 tons of sulphate of ammonia who wish to remain outside the ring, and I think the House realises, and people who have been trading during the period of control realise, that we wish to get back to normal conditions. The producers of this large quantity of sulphate of ammonia are anxious to be allowed to trade with their proportion overseas without restriction and without sending it to the Equalisation Committee and giving away their private secrets to trade competitors on that committee. If this Amendment is accepted, it will create no further work in the right hon. Gentleman's Department. It will mean that people producing the sulphate and who have not only given the quantity required by the Government for consumption in this country, but have exceeded the quantity, will be enabled to export this 14 per cent. or 15 per cent. under licence without giving away trade secrets. I formally move the Amendment and trust that the Minister will be able to accept it.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): I cannot possibly accept this Amendment. I think there is a complete misunderstanding. It is quite true that the principle suggested that the export trade should be divided equally among the different firms according to their output is found very fair, but really the fair part of that proposal is arrived at by the present scheme under which the Equalisation Committee, which represents no less than 90 per cent. of the output, arranges for all the orders at home and also for the surplus being exported abroad and divides the profits of the export among all the firms contained in the Equalisation Scheme in accordance with their production. That is the fact. My hon. and

  357
  gallant Friend says there is something like 60,000 tons of sulphate made by firms who have not come into the Equalisation Scheme. My hon. Friend is really quite wrong. There are 499 firms. Of those no loss than 444 have come into the arrangement and the 55 that stand outside only produce among them 17,000 tons. Of this 17,000 tons one firm, namely, the South Metropolitan Gas Company, produced 15,000 tons, and it is simply because this one firm have not come in with the others this Amendment is moved. The South Metropolitan Gas Company. I quite agree, are a good firm and make a high class of sulphate of ammonia, but they have not chosen to come into the Equalisation Scheme, and last year, at a time when every ounce of nitrogen was really required for fertilising the soil here and for export, which would be valuable for the purpose of helping our exchanges, they actually preferred to hoard five or six thousand tons and not use it at all. I cannot be a party to making an exception for the sake of a company simply because they did not chose for their own private reasons, whether they be good, bad, or indifferent, to come into a scheme to which 90 per cent. of the output has come in. In addition, if I adopted this proposal it would be absolutely unworkable. There are 499 firms and some of them produce very small quantities—not more than ten tons a year. If each firm is to have a licence to export a certain proportion of their production what would be the result? We should have little parcels of a few hundred weight exported by this or that firm, and the present system whereby exports take place in bulk, saving shipping and expenses generally, would be destroyed. The scheme proposed by my hon. Friend, apart from every other consideration, would simply wreck the whole Bill and make it unworkable. I would like to point out one other thing. The trade have behaved magnificently, apart from the instance I have mentioned. They undertook the whole responsibility of supplying a whole market and arranging for exports. They did it on a perfectly clear basis. They saved the Government the whole cost of administration, and if we were to adopt the plan suggested by my hon. Friend, instead of that duty being undertaken by the trade themselves, we should be obliged in the Ministry to set up a special Department
  358
  at considerable cost to the taxpayer. Therefore, because this is merely moved, as I believe, in the interest of one firm, because also it would make the whole scheme unworkable, I cannot possibly accept this Amendment.
  Mr. ACLAND: May I, in a word, back up what the Minister in charge of the Bill has said? I was Chairman of the Fertilisers Committee, during part of the War, and I know it is perfectly true what he has just said, that you could not carry out this organisation without a considerable staff, and, of course, the accompanying formalities and expense of bureaucracy and all that sort of thing. I know exactly how specious this Amendment is, and how difficult it would be to enforce it in practice. I know the Government would be bombarded by claims of the makers that their storage room was chockablock, and that they must have licences to export, and so on. I know of the chances of working unfairly as between the small maker and the large maker, and the thing would be worked, of course, to the advantage of large companies After all, under the equalisation scheme, although they actually use all their output at home, the small makers get some share of the higher prices which are made for the general proportion of the output that is sent abroad. It would really not be possible under the Amendment for small makers in inland places actually to export any of their produce without a very great amount of unnecessary clerical work and a great deal of use of transport. The effect would be that the small inland maker in rural districts would get no exports, and therefore would come off very much second best compared with the powerful companies. I only want to speak from real practical experience as to the difficulty of managing these things in any other way except by an Equalisation Committee, and I think it my duty to support the Minister in charge of the Bill.
  Captain LOSEBY: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman precisely what he docs propose to do on the lines of this Amendment. Do I understand him to say in effect that if any firm for any reason, whether that reason is good or bad, is unable to come into this Equalisation Committee, it will not be able to take licences to export at all? If the right hon. Gentleman will give us the

  359
  assurance that he is going to make some attempt to meet what, I believe, to be the very real fears, of some of these firms that cannot come into this Equalisation Committee, then I for one would not wish to see this Amendment pressed, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman realises that some of these firms—again, I say, rightly or wrongly—are genuinely afraid of a ring in this particular trade. They believe that this Equalisation Committee will have the effect of producing that ring. They are quite unable to come in because they think, rightly or wrongly, that it will be necessary for them to reveal trade secrets, and they have other fears. But it does appear to me completely wrong to put into the hands of the Government this power that by Order in Council, they can practically issue an edict saying, "You shall, and must, for our convenience"—because that is what it amounts to—" come inside this ring, or else we shall give you no facilities whatever for your export trade." It is rather hard, and I do press the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how he proposes to meet the difficulties of these particular people.
  Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I am very sorry the Minister in charge should find himself unable to make some concession along the lines of this Amendment. Those who have put it forward are not at all against the principle of the Bill. They are quite prepared to see that the home supplies are conserved, and that nothing is allowed to go outside the country until the home market has been fully supplied. The Minister suggests that he cannot accept this Amendment because the vast majority of makers do not want it and are prepared to come into this ring, or whatever it may be called. That is really no argument at all. If a small minority objects to it, the mere fact that they are in a minority should not tell at all. Their case seems to me to be a very good one.
  The South Metropolitan Gas Company has been referred to as being one maker which has taken the lead in objecting. It has been suggested that they have hoarded and that they are out to make money. My information is that in the last three and a half years they have sold in the home market something like 90 per cent. or over of their make. That does not suggest that they are going to evade
  360
  their responsibility in this matter. The objection they have to-day seems to me to be quite a good one. They have made it quite clear. I cannot help thinking that if we set up an Equalisation Committee—call it what you will—at the present time, it is bound to develop into something in the nature of a ring or combine. That ring or combine will continue to exist after this Bill has gone. They must fix prices to some extent while this arrangement is going on. They will continue to fix prices after the Bill has ceased to operate, and the agricultural community at home will become a prey to such a combine. Also, I think it is quite a fair objection that these makers make, that they have to go to a ring or Committee of this kind and ask their permission for export licences, and they are bound to show to this Committee, which will be entirely made up of trade competitors of their own, all their foreign markets, all the firms with whom they have been trading in foreign countries, and give away all their trade and market secrets, and do themselves a great deal of harm as a result. It is, I say, quite a fair objection that they take in this matter.
  During the War, I can quite understand, there was much greater need for some regulation of this kind than there is at the present time, because we not only wanted to conserve our home supplies, but we wanted also to see that any supplies sent overseas were not sent to enemy countries. The necessity for any regulation of that kind has gone. There seems no reason why the makers who are allowed to export—each individual maker—should not be allowed to export whatever they like. It seems to me, therefore, that it is quite a reasonable demand they make: that each individual maker of this country should be asked to set aside from his own manufacture the proportion that is required for the home market, and be allowed to do whatever he likes with what he sends abroad. That is to say, if the total make at home is 400,000 and the total required to meet the needs of the home market is 300,000, each maker should be enabled to export one-fourth of his manufacture and be allowed to send it wherever he likes so that his trade will not be interfered with, and when all these restrictions pass away he will get a return for the work he puts into it now. If this Amendment is pressed to a

  361
  Division I shall support it, and I hope the Government will announce some concession.
  Mr. SEDDON: I do not think that these minority firms will have to give away their trade secrets. If the hon. Member who just spoken knew more about trade, he would know that whether in a minority or a majority they are all chasing the same customers. As an old commercial traveller I can speak with some experience on this point. I always knew what my competitors were doing, otherwise I should not have been able to keep my job. I think the necessity is past and gone for making a corporation a close ring, and this requires an answer from the Government. Unless the answer is satisfactory I shall vote against the Government scheme.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I desire to have some reason given for keeping this wartime restriction, because there is no need for it. They have to go before an Equalisation Committee, and if the Government cannot accept this Equalisation Amendment, then they must be contemplating some of the mischief which has been pointed out. The Amendment is reasonable, and it does not make it necessary for these people to put themselves into the hands of any Committee. We want to get out of the grip of these Committees and control of all kinds, and this is an attempt to renew that system. The Amendment will minimise these evils, and for these reasons I hope the Government will accept it.
  Mr. RATCLIFFE: I am going to sup port this Amendment on the ground of opposition to anything in the nature of a monopoly. For some considerable time I have had a good deal of experience with the control of certain articles produced in this country, namely, hides. During the War the hide business was under the control of the Ministry of Munitions, and very proper restrictions were placed on the exportation of hides, which could only be exported by a special licence. Tanned leather all the while was allowed to be exported and had a world-wide market. The position during the first six months of this year has been that whilst the tanners have bought their hides in an absolutely closed market to everybody but themselves, they have had the great advantage of exporting their tanned. leather to every part of
  362
  the world where they could find a market for it. The consequences were that during the first six months of this year the export of tanned leather was four times what it was in the corresponding months of 1919, yet to-day, in spite of the very great world-wide trade in tanned leather, they still have an absolute monopoly of the purchase of raw hides in this country, and the producers of raw hides, whether they be wholesale or retail meat purveyors, have no market to which they can send their hides except those in which they are at the mercy of these men. I am afraid the same thing will happen in regard to the product which is dealt with in this Amendment, and that is why it has my support. I think the day has come to get rid of the grip of Government control, and to allow things to have a free market.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think the Debate has proceeded under a complete misapprehension. There is no idea of creating rings or unduly prolonging control. For two years firms producing 90 per cent. of the output have agreed to a certain price for the home market. The price is high; it might be very much higher. At the same time they have agreed that the surplus shall be exported, and that the profit on that export shall be divided amongst the firms which have come into the scheme, in proportion to their output. No fairer arrangement could be made. The whole system will merely last as long as the export is controlled. The Bill is a temporary Bill, and the arrangement I have referred to will come to an end as soon as the Bill itself comes to an end. We have not the slightest desire to create rings or to extend control. All that is asked is that for the time being this process shall be carried out. Practically the whole trade is agreed. The hon. Member asked what would happen to the firms who had not come into the arrangement. There are 55 which have not done so, and the whole of them, with the exception of the South Metropolitan Gas Company, produce only 2,000 tons out of the 360,000 tons produced; they have not come in because it is not worth their while, for they never did export. My hon. Friend asked why not adopt the simple principle of saying that each firm shall export a quarter of

  363
  its output? There are 499 firms, producing 360,000 tons a year. Some of them do not produce more than ten tons a year. Could anything more unbusinesslike or wasteful be conceived than that each one of the 499 firms should export a quarter of its output, whether large or small?
  Major M. WOOD: They need not do it unless they like.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Then you are merely giving the advantage to the large firms which make for export. Our plan is a business-like and fair one, and it has been working satisfactorily for two or three years. We merely wish to continue it during the period for which it is necessary to control the exports. If this Amendment is carried, the Bill simply becomes waste paper, and it is no use proceeding with it. In that case, all I can say is that the land of this country will suffer, because fertilisers will not be applied to the soil. I hope the Committee will not divide, but if they do I must appeal to them to support us.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. WARREN: I desire to join in the appeal which has been made to the right hon. Gentleman on the broad principle of the removal of control. As one who is in touch with a very large body of persons engaged in small businesses, I know that they are sick to death of everlasting control, and the sooner it is removed the sooner will it make for the peace of mind of a great many people and for the general well-being. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that this has worked well during the War, and with that I have nothing to find fault. Many things worked well, or apparently well, during the War, because people were willing to sink many of their differences and conveniences, and to overlook much that had to do with their general prosperity, in their desire to win the War. Therefore what happened during the War is no fair criterion as to what should be continued after the War. It worked well during the War, and it is only to work as a temporary measure—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is making a Second Reading speech. We must keep to the Amendment.
  Sir A. WARREN: I beg your pardon, Sir Edwin. The point to which I want to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is this: Already there has been formed a federation to control and watch over this, even after this temporary measure has ceased. Although it may be the intention of the Government and those who are urging the Government that this should be temporary, already those who are interested are entrenching themselves in the position that, whenever the temporary measure is withdrawn, they will be able to hold this trade in the hollow of their hand. I believe the feeling in this House is in the direction of giving the greatest opportunity to the trades of this country to expand in a free and unfettered way in order that they may work for the general good. Personally, although I regret it very much, I shall, if this goes to a Division, have to vote against the Government.
  Mr. ROYCE: I hope the righthon. Gentleman will stick to his guns. If the operations referred to by the last speaker are dangerous to the community two years hence, they are far more dangerous just now, and there is no reason why they should not be put into force now rather than be delayed for two years. Here is a very clear case of a strong corporation which wants to get a bigger price by exporting this material—
  Major M. WOOD: No.
  Mr. ROYCE: Well, what is their object? Their object is freedom in the matter, and a bigger price, I presume, is obtained at the present time for the exported material than that which is paid at home. Agriculture has a right to have the benefit, and if you do not look after your farmers, and are going to sell this stuff because you can get a bigger price outside the country, it is an act of madness, especially at the present time.
  Major M. WOOD: I wish to say a word in answer to the speech to which we have just listened. I am certain it was delivered under a complete misapprehension of the facts. The minority do not in any way wish to deprive home agriculture of their full requirements. Indeed, it is part of the scheme that everyone accepts that, before a single ton goes abroad, the whole of the farmers of the country are to be satisfied. The suggestion that this is an attempt to enable

  365
  farmers to send their produce overseas and deprive the home consumer of any, is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
  Captain KNIGHTS: I want to put one point to the Minister, because I am certain what he said has entirely misled the House. The position is that the minority to which he refers say, "Will you allow us to export such a percentage as everyone it entitled to export, whether in the ring or not, and free us from any of the restrictions by going to the Equalisation Committee?" The firm to which he alluded as having hoarded this stuff have exported in 3½ years 93 per cent. of their entire output—and they are the largest producers in the country bar one—as against other people who have only sold 60 per cent. to the home consumer. It is absolutely wrong for the Minister to say they have been hoarding to that extent. The time has arrived when the bureaucracy should finish and persons who have goods to export should be entitled to export, the same as those who belong to the ring, free from restrictions and without giving trade secrets to trade competitors in the form of a ring.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2 (Short Title) and Schedule ordered to stand part or the Bill.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): By His Majesty's command, I have to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, gives His Consent, as far as His Majesty's interests are concerned, that the House may do therein as they shall think fit.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION [GUARANTEE].
Resolution reported,
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums not exceeding £100,000 required for the fulfilment of any guarantee against loss resulting from the holding of a British Empire Exhibition given by the Board of Trade."
Resolution agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Sir Robert Home, Mr. Montagu, Mr. Baldwin, Lieut.-Colonel Amery, and Mr. Kellaway.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION [GUARANTEE].
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (GUARANTEE) BILL,
  "to enable the Board of Trade to guarantee part of the expenses of a British Empire Exhibition"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 212.]

SEEDS [EXPENSES].
Considered in Committee.
[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]
Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move,
"That it is expedient for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law with respect to the sale and use of seeds for sowing und of seed potatoes and to provide for the testing thereof, to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament up to an amount approved by the Treasury of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland in carrying such Act into execution."
This is the Financial Resolution which is necessary in connection with the Seeds Bill, the Second Reading of which was passed last night. The expenditure under the Bill arises under Clause 12, which provides for the establishment and maintenance of seed-testing stations in England, Scotland and Ireland. Clause 13 authorises the payment of expenses for administering the Act. I do not expect the expenditure will be large, nor will it exceed what is being expended, since the seed-testing stations actually exist. All that the Bill does is to make permanent what is being carried out now under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. I have circulated a White Paper which shows very, clearly what the cost will be. The proposed expenditure in connection

367
with the seed-testing station and administration in England and Wales is approximately £9,000 per annum. The net expenditure in England and Wales is £7,500. It is estimated that the net expenditure in Scotland and Ireland together will probably not exceed £6,000. Therefore all we are asking for is about £13,500, which represents practically the expenditure at the present moment. It is not anticipated there will be any additional expenditure in the establishment of new seed-testing stations. Of course, if the expenditure grows in future that will appear every year in the Estimates.
Major COURTHOPE: A question has occurred to my mind in listening to my right hon. Friend's statement that the expenditure proposed is approximately the same as that which has taken place during the War. But I understand, in addition to the seed testing which has taken place during the War, the testing of forest tree seeds is to be added. Surely the scope of the seed testing stations cannot be extended from agricultural seeds only to forest tree seeds without some additional provision being made? I should like to receive an assurance that the forest tree seed testing is not going to be omitted under this provision.
Sir A. BOSCAWEN: There is no intention of omitting that. We have ample funds.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That it is expedient for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law with respect to the sale and use of seeds for sowing and of seed potatoes and to provide for the testing thereof, to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament up to an amount approved by the Treasury of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland in carrying such Act into execution."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

MAYOR'S AND CITY OF LONDON COURT BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee.
[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.].
Clauses 1 (Amalgamation of courts), 2 (Judges of Amalgamated court), 3 (Supplemental
368
provisions as to judges), 4 (Judges' term of office), 5 (Registrar and other officers), and 6 (Court buildings), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

MAYOR'S AND CITY OF LONDON COURT BILL [Lords].

  CLAUSE 7.—(Court moneys and treasurer.)
  All moneys payable under the Acts relating to the Mayor's Court and the City of London Court or under this Act or under rules, regulations, or orders made under any of those Acts, and all moneys standing to the credit of the Mayor's Court Suitors' Fund or the General Fund of the City of London Court respectively shall be paid into one fund to be called "the Mayor's and City of London Court Fund," and all the remuneration of any assistant or additional judges of the Court and all outgoings and expenses of or connected with the Court shall be paid out of the said fund; and the Chamberlain of the City of London shall be the treasurer of the fund, and shall deal with the fund and account for the same to the Common Council in manner directed by the London (City) Small Debts Extension Act, 1852.
  Amendment made:
  At the end of the Clause add:
  "Provided that, notwithstanding anything in the Acts relating to the Mayor's Court or the City of London Court, any deficiency arising in the said Mayor's and City of London Court Fund in any one financial year shall be chargeable to and made good from the general rate of the City of London made in the financial year following that in which such deficiency arose, and any surplus arising in the said fund shall be applied in aid of such rate."—[Sir G. Hewart.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, with an Amendment.
  As amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Consideration of Lords Amendment read.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendment be now considered," put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of rating limit, and provisions as to audit of accounts. 50 and 51 Vict. c. 42.)
  (1) From and after the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty, Section eight of the Public Libraries Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1887, shall have effect, and shall be deemed to have had effect, as if for

  369
  the words "one penny" therein occurring there were substituted the words "three pence," and the accounts of the Committee appointed under that Act shall be audited as part of the accounts of the rating authority, or, in the case of a combination of burghs or parishes for the purposes of the said Act, as part of the accounts of the rating authority making the largest contribution to the expenses of the Committee: Provided that the Secretary for Scotland, or, where the rating authority is a parish council, the Scottish Board of Health, may, as regards any burgh or parish, as the case may be, sanction a further increase in the amount of the libary rate to an amount not exceeding threepence in the pound,
  Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words
  "Provided that the Secretary for Scotland, or, where the rating authority is a parish council, the Scottish Board of Health. may, as regards any burgh or parish, as the ease may be, sanction a further increase in the amount of the library rate to an amount not exceeding threepence in the pound."
  Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment deprives the local authorities of the power of levying a rate and is therefore a privileged Amendment
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  With some regret I suggest to the House that it should agree to this Amendment. The history of the Amendment is simple. The proviso which the Lords have deleted in another place was not in the Bill as originally presented to this House. When the Bill came before the Scottish Standing Committee, an Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), not precisely in these terms, but in somewhat similar terms. I accepted the Amendment in the terms In which the proviso was inserted in the Bill before it went to another place. I was moved by two considerations: first of all, that in the corresponding English measure the local authority had no restrictions whatever placed upon it as to the amount of the additional rate which it might levy, and that in the corresponding Irish Act there was a degree of elasticity provided similar to that provided in the Amendment that I proposed to accept. There was also the consideration that the working of a 3d. rate might be uneven in different districts in Scotland. In the so circumstances,
  370
  and under the assurance that the power conferred upon the Secretary for Scotland and the Board of Health would be exercised with care and discrimination, I accepted the Amendment and inserted it in the Bill in the form in which it went to another place. The proviso was deleted in another place, and I suggest that the Amendment which has been accepted in another place should be agreed to. If it is not agreed to, the Bill as a whole, looking at the stage of the Session we have reached, will be placed in imminent peril, and I think it would be a real calamity to lose the measure as a whole. It must be remembered that, in another place the Second Reading of this Bill was carried by only four votes and if the Bill goes back to another place, this House having disagreed with the Amendment, I very much fear that the Bill will be lost. A great deal was said in another place on this Amendment about economy. No doubt that is a desirable thing, but whether it is desirable to economise in the matter of public libraries may be a matter for discussion and even for dispute. Under the circumstances I have mentioned and animated simply by the desire to save this Bill I move.
  Dr. MURRAY: I am sorry that the proviso has been altered, and that the authorities in Scotland have not been given this power.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. SPEAKER: A special entry will be made.

DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL.
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 2nd August, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at Eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

BRITISH ARMY.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DRAUGHTSMEN'S TAY).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DRAUGHTSMEN'S TAY).
  APPLICATION FOR RELEASE (SERGEANT H. A. BLACKMORE, MANCHESTER REGIMENT).
  APPLICATION FOR RELEASE (SERGEANT H. A. BLACKMORE, MANCHESTER REGIMENT).
  NATIONAL PROJECTILE FACTORY, LANCASTER.
  NATIONAL PROJECTILE FACTORY, LANCASTER.
  REGULAR COMMISSIONS (CANDIDATES).
  REGULAR COMMISSIONS (CANDIDATES).
  WAR MEDAL (SERVICES IN INDIA).
  WAR MEDAL (SERVICES IN INDIA).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  INCREASED RENTS.
  INCREASED RENTS.
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  TREATMENT AND TRAINING.
  TREATMENT AND TRAINING.
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
IRELAND.
  ANCIENT ORDER OF HIBERNIANS APPROVED SOCIETY (Mr. MORAN).
  ANCIENT ORDER OF HIBERNIANS APPROVED SOCIETY (Mr. MORAN).
  ALLEGED POLICE REPRISALS, TUAM.
  ALLEGED POLICE REPRISALS, TUAM.
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  DUNDRUM ASYLUM (SCALES OF SALARY).
  DUNDRUM ASYLUM (SCALES OF SALARY).
  DR. MANNIX.
  DR. MANNIX.
EDUCATION.
  EVENING CLASSES.
  EVENING CLASSES.
  CONTINUATION SCHOOLS (COST).
  CONTINUATION SCHOOLS (COST).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPPLY).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPPLY).
TRANSPORT.
  CURED FISH INDUSTRY (RAILWAY FARES).
  CURED FISH INDUSTRY (RAILWAY FARES).
  RAILWAY ROLLING STOCK OVERSEERS.
  RAILWAY ROLLING STOCK OVERSEERS.
HOUSING.
  DAWLEY URBAN COUNCIL'S SCHEME (DEFICIT).
  DAWLEY URBAN COUNCIL'S SCHEME (DEFICIT).
  PRISON ADMINISTRATION.
  PRISON ADMINISTRATION.
  ASSAULTS ON CHILDREN.
  ASSAULTS ON CHILDREN.
  PROBATION SYSTEM.
  PROBATION SYSTEM.
  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
  NIGERIA (CHRISTIAN MISSIONS).
  NIGERIA (CHRISTIAN MISSIONS).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS (MR. E. PARRY, LEIGH).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS (MR. E. PARRY, LEIGH).
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
  FORESHORE RIGHTS, SEAVIEW, ISLE OF WIGHT.
  FORESHORE RIGHTS, SEAVIEW, ISLE OF WIGHT.
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT HAY (DISPOSAL).
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT HAY (DISPOSAL).
  AGRICULTURAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES.
  AGRICULTURAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
THE LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN (THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHRE): My Lords, as Lord Great Chamberlain I have to call attention to a regrettable incident which took place yesterday during the sitting of the House.* The Right Hon. A. Carlisle, a Privy Councillor for Ireland, standing upon the steps of the Throne, took upon himself to interrupt the proceedings of your Lordships' House by a disorderly observation. This is a grave offence against the dignity and decorum of the House of Lords, and I have felt it my duty to bring the matter to your Lordships' notice.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): If I may say so, my Lords, I think the Lord Great Chamberlain is entirely justified in bringing this incident before your Lordships' House and in characterising it in the strong language which he has employed. I was not here myself yesterday afternoon, and therefore I only became acquainted with the incident when I returned to London late in the evening and when I perused in the papers this morning exactly what had passed. The Lord Great Chamberlain has described the incident as "regrettable." It was indeed a deplorable incident—an incident, I believe, without precedent in the previous history of this House, and without desiring to magnify its importance I think the Lord Great Chamberlain was quite justified in saying that it involved a grave affront to the dignity of your Lordships' House.
In these circumstances we have to decide what to do. Not having been present I can form no opinion as to how far the incident in question and the interruption by the Irish Privy Councillor (whose name has been given) may have been deliberate, or may have been the result of sudden impulse; it may have been one or the other. In
* See OFFICIAL REFORT of 9th August, column 1026.

1103
either case I think it would be in consonance with our dignity to give the right hon. gentleman who thus offended an opportunity of making an explanation, and, if he so thinks fit, of tendering an ample apology to your Lordships' House. I would therefore suggest to your Lordships that on the whole the best way to proceed would be that a letter should be written to the right hon. gentleman in question, calling his attention to the gravity. of the offence that he committed and inviting an explanation from him. When that explanation has been received, it will be my duty to offer such advice to your Lordships' House upon the matter as I can and for you to decide what further action, if you so desire, you will take.
If my advice be followed, there only remains the question as to the manner in which and the source from which this letter should emanate. The Lord Great Chamberlain is the official custodian of the Palace of Westminster, and this offence was committed on territory which is under his control. At the same time the affront was one which was directed at your Lordships' House; you were the sufferers; it was your dignity that was impugned. If your Lordships are inclined to favour the course that I propose, I should be willing myself to assume the responsibility on behalf of the House of addressing to the right hon. gentleman, Mr. Carlisle, a letter of the nature I have indicated.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think your Lordships will probably all agree that the course proposed by the noble Earl the Leader of the House is one which would be thoroughly satisfactory. Having been present, I am sorry to say, on the occasion in question, I am sure it was not an incident which your Lordships would wish to pass over without very serious notice, and the course which the noble Earl proposes seems to me to be quite adequate to meet the occasion.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.

THE SITUATION IN POLAND.
LORD TREOWEN: My Lords, in pursuance of what took place at the beginning of business yesterday, I now beg to ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether he is in a position to make any statement to the House.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, in answering in the negative the question put by my noble friend I think I owe to him and to your Lordships' House an explanation of the reason for which I so reply. In my absence yesterday afternoon the noble Lord, who has for long taken a great interest in the question of Poland, and who, not unnaturally, desires to have an opportunity of expressing his views upon the matter, asked a question as to whether it was likely that a statement would be made.
In the course of his observations he remarked that His Majesty's Government had steadily and continually departed from the long established precedent of making statements in your Lordships' House in regard to such a crisis as now exists. Let me assure my noble friend that he is entirely mistaken. There has been no departure from precedent in this case, nor indeed, so far as I know, in the practice that has been adopted in your Lordships' House since I have had the great honour of being its Leader. On many occasions during the last three or four years in which I have occupied this position I have had the honour of making at this Table statements simultaneously with and, as far as could be arranged, identical with the information which was given in another place, and on no occasion justified by precedent have I failed in that which I regard as a duty of respect to your Lordships' House. I will go further than that and say that on many occasions when such a duty has not arisen I have intervened, whether in response to questions or otherwise, to give to your Lordships' House information on foreign affairs which I venture to think has been as full and as exhaustive as, indeed I think I might say more full and more exhaustive than, has usually been given by the representative of the Foreign Office on this Bench. My noble friend Lord Crawford defended me in this particular yesterday, and, if I may say so, defended me with justice.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I can recall, not I hope in a spirit of self-gratulation, more than one case—cases, for instance, relating to the position in Egypt and in Turkey—when I have volunteered very full and ample statements to your Lordships' House which have not simultaneously been made in another

1105
place, and which have exposed the Government there to the charge of having withheld from the House of Commons information which had been given in abundance to your Lordships' House. I therefore, with all respect, regard my withers as unwrung in this matter.
Now arises the question whether this particular case is one in which such a statement ought to be made. My noble friend Lord Salisbury, in his remarks yesterday, appeared to answer that question in the affirmative. May I point out to him that I think he is mistaken. The question is whether the present situation is one in which such a statement as I have been speaking of ought to be made to your Lordships' House, and I am answering that question in the negative for the following reasons. During the last five or six years, years of war, there has necessarily grown up a practice quite without precedent in the previous history of polities in this country—namely, an exchange of opinions, Conferences, between your own Ministers and the Ministers of Foreign Powers. During the last six or seven months I have myself had to attend no fewer than seven or eight of these Conferences. But they did not begin with this Government; they equally existed in the time of the Government of Mr. Asquith, and I recall many occasions, on some of which T was present, when the French Prime Minister and the French Foreign Minister came over here and,
correspondingly, British Ministers have frequently gone over to France or other parts of the Continent. They go to exchange views and to arrive at a common course of action.
In not one of these cases has it been thought necessary to make a simultaneous statement to both Houses of Parliament. I was present at three or four of such Conferences during Mr. Asquith's Government —I was not Foreign Secretary then—and no such statement was made. I think it is clear that, if an account of such Conferences is given, in so far as it ought to be given at all it is better that it should be given by the chief Plenipotentiary in the House of which he happens to be a member. Your Lordships can readily conceive that of any one of these Conferences, difficult and delicate as they are, an account given by two Ministers simultaneously might contain certain divergencies, I will not say contradictions, which might be a source of
1106
controversy and friction. Therefore we have adopted the plan of the statement, wherever a statement is required of the results of such Conferences, being made by the chief Plenipotentiary, who happens in this case to be the Prime Minister. I think that is the right procedure. The cases in which simultaneous statements of policy are involved are cases where the country has a right to know the decision or views or advice of the Cabinet, but in matters of this sort it is more often a narrative of what has taken place at these Conferences and of the general conclusions that have been arrived at.
If I may confirm my account of the correct procedure With regard to such Conferences, I would like to remind the House, if they do not recollect it, that in no less important a case than that of the Berlin Conference of 1878, when Lord Beaconsfield and the noble Marquess's father, the late Marquess of Salisbury, came back after that triumphant vindication of British authority and influence, no statement was made in both Houses of Parliament. The chief Plenipotentiary, Lord Beaconsfield, stood up in your Lordships' House and made a statement, and if you will look at the proceedings of the House of Commons on the same day—July 18, 1878—you will find that no statement was made there at all. A question was asked there as to whether a statement would be made, and if so when, and an answer was given that if a certain noble Lord of influence would put down a question on the Paper—Lord Hartington I think did—the question could be raised at a later date. Therefore I am
relying on a precedent of the first value and importance when I speak of procedure that is normal being adopted with regard to Conferences of this nature.
It is for these reasons that I think it on the whole desirable not to make a statement to-day, but on the other hand I am most anxious to meet Lord Treowen in any way that I can. He has a Question on the subject on the Order Paper for to-morrow, but I gather from the course of business that it may not be reached until a late period in the evening. I think the best plan would be this. Arising out of what has been said in another place to-day, which will be in all the papers to-morrow, my noble friend or any other noble Lord may desire to put certain questions to the Government about Poland. They will not desire that 1 should repeat the state-

1107
ment made over the way to-day, but they may want to put a question or challenge the conduct of the Government in any particular. If my noble friend wishes to do so, or any noble Lord, and will give me notice of the particular point that he wants to raise, I will either give a reply when the Question of Lord Treowen comes up in its ordinary course upon the Paper, or if he likes to put the question at the commencement of public business to-morrow, I will answer it then. That suggestion is applicable to-morrow or the next day, whichever is more convenient to noble Lords. In that way your Lordships' House and my noble friend will have the opportunity desired, and at the same time I shall be acting in accordance with ordinary precedent in the manner I have described.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps you will allow me to say one word, as the noble Earl has been good enough to refer to me. I have certainly neither the historical knowledge nor the responsibility of the noble Earl to enable me for a moment to contest the conclusion at which he has arrived. It may be more convenient that the statement should be a single statement made by the Prime Minister in another place rather than a simultaneous statement in both Houses of Parliament. I certainly have a recollection, not perhaps so clear as that of the noble Earl, of a number of occasions on which there has been a simultaneous statement in both Houses; and there is this very special reason why we ventured to urge it upon the Government last night, although we did so with great diffidence. We have the great pleasure of having in your Lordships' House the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and we naturally expect that upon Foreign Office questions he would speak with at least as great authority as the Prime Minister. It was for these reasons that we made the suggestion.
We ought to be grateful to the noble Earl for the way in which he has met our wishes to hear what he has to say about Poland, and I am sure the noble Lord will accept the suggestion he has made and put his Question to-morrow; whether it be; before Public Business or at the end is a matter to be decided by private conference. We shall be grateful to the noble Earl if he will answer in the fullest degree as the matter is a very grave one. The noble Earl's statement will he accepted by the
1108
country equally with that of the statement of a still greater Minister in another place.
LORD TREOWEN: My Lords, I should like to express my regret if, in the heat of the moment, I in any way exaggerated what I believed to be a certain grievance which I thought your Lordships' House might feel, as I did, that we do not hear statements so often from the noble Earl as we should wish. He will believe me when I say that I was actuated not so much by a desire to criticise any action of the Government but by a desire, which is shared by many of your Lordships, that we should have the privilege of hearing direct from His Majesty's Ministers what they have to communicate on a great crisis such as the present. I thank the Loble Earl for the way in which he has considered my
position in the matter and for the kind suggestion he had made. I can assure him and your Lordships that I do not wish unduly to press any of His Majesty's Ministers at such a time as the present, and I realise that, having placed this matter before your Lordships, I am in the hands of the House. It is possible that some other noble Lord may wish to raise questions with regard to Poland. I will therefore consider whether that be your desire before finally surrendering such rights as I may have to put the Question to the noble Earl.

COATBRIDGE BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed and sent to the Commons.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BILLS).
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGTIMORE): My Lords, I can explain these alterations of the Standing Orders in three sentences. They cover three points only—first, a point that has arisen under our Private Bill Legislation as regards Bills coming from Scotland, which renders it necessary that I should make certain amendments; secondly, further points that have arisen through the creation of the Ministry of Transport; and, thirdly, No. 33 (4A) is an alteration involved by a Motion passed by the House at the instigation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, which makes this one single alteration in the Standing Orders necessary,

1109
so that the decision should be carried out in the Standing Orders. Unless your Lordships wish me to explain the matter further I will content myself by moving that these Amendments of the Standing Orders be agreed to.
Moved, That the Standing .Orders relative to Private Bills be amended as follows:
15. Leave out "and lessee" and insert "lessee and occupier."
16. After the second "lessees" insert and "occupiers."
25B.Leave out "Board of Trade" and insert "Ministry of Transport."
26A, 30, 33 (6), 33 (12) (twice). Leave out "Board" and insert "Ministry."
33 (3). Leave out. "Ireland at the Irish Office" and insert "Scotland or Ireland at the office of the Secretary for Scotland or the Irish Office, as the case may be."
33 (4A). Leave out "water" and leave out "or to the generation or supply of electricity."
33 (4B). After "electricity" insert "at the office of the Ministry of Transport and."
36 (A). Leave out "Local Government Board" and insert "Ministry of Health."
61. After "Ireland" insert "and in the office of the sheriff clerk of every county in Scotland in which such alteration is proposed to be made and where any county in Scotland for sheriff-court purposes is divided into districts, then also in the office of the principal sheriff clerk in and for each district in which such alteration is proposed to be made" and after "London" insert "Edinburgh."
62, 64, 66. After "London" insert "Edinburgh."
106. Leave out from the second "the" in line 1 to "Promoters" in line 2 and insert "generation or supply of electricity," and leave out "Board of Trade and also" and insert "Ministry of Transport and, in the case of any Bill relating to the generation of electricity for supply to persons or bodies other than the promoters."
123A. Leave out "Board of Trade" and insert "Ministry of Transport,"—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF MINES BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Appointment of Minister of Mines.
1. For the purpose of securing the most effective development and utilisation of the mineral resources of the United Kingdom and the safety and welfare of those engaged in the mining industry, it shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint an additional Parliamentary secretary of the Board of Trade.
TILE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, now that we have reached the Ministry of Mines Bill I desire first of all to put a question to the Government with reference to the course which they propose to pursue. The Amendment which I am about to move is, of course, in its nature consequential on the Amendment which was carried in Committee, altering the Bill in such a way as to eliminate the Minister of Mines and substitute for him a Secretary of the Board of Trade. Naturally I should move it without any observations at all, but I notice that there stands in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, an Amendment immediately following this one, in which he proposes, as I understand, to ask your Lordships to reverse the decision which was come to in Committee. Now the question I desire to put to the Government before I proceed with my observations—and the noble Viscount can answer by a nod of the head—is whether it is proposed to proceed with the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I wonder if I can answer with something more definite than a nod of the head. I certainly do propose to proceed with the Amendment. I do not know whether the noble Marquess wants to take the discussion on this point on his Amendment, which I do not think is in some way so satisfactory as if it were taken upon my Amendment, which raises a more direct issue. I am in his hands. If he or if the House thinks it would be better to take the discussion on the direct issue I am perfectly prepared, if I may say

1111
so without prejudice, not to oppose the present Amendment, if it is not to be taken as a general assent to the whole proposition.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:: If the noble Viscount does not object to my Amendment, I will not anticipate the discussion on his.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I cannot say I do not object, but I will not oppose, if it is understood to be without prejudice.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("establishment of Ministry of Mines") and insert ("administration of mining industry").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEELmoved, after "lawful for His Majesty to appoint," to insert "A Minister or Mines, who shall, by virtue of his office, be."
The noble Viscount said: I think that your Lordships have taken the more convenient course, and I new have to move the Amendment which stands in my name. What I am thereby proposing, as the noble Viscount has already quite accurately stated, is to alter a decision arrived at by your Lordships on the previous occasion when, the House was in Committee. The reason I do that is this. First of all this decision was taken by a very small House, and was also passed. by a very small majority. I therefore think it fair to your Lordships to give you the opportunity of considering this point again, because your Lordships will see that much turns upon this particular point. The second reason why I ask your Lordships to reconsider this matter is that the discussion on the point was a very general one, as to the setting up of different Departments and so on, and the precise point at issue in this particular Amendment —namely, whether the officer at the head of the Mines should have a position of limited independence as a Minister, or merely be an Under-Secretary, and therefore subject to all the disabilities of the office of the Board of Trade—was not very much discussed, and I want to ask your Lordships to concentrate your attention upon that particular issue.
I think we may fairly say that we have gained something by the discussions which have already taken place, because I
1112
think we are all agreed that these different duties connected with the Ministry of Mines and connected with the administration of the mines which are now scattered between different Departments, should be concentrated under one officer. Whether he be called an Under-Secretary of the Board of Trade or a separate Minister I am not now discussing, but we are all agreed so far. Moreover, I think that was involved in the Bill which was passed by your Lordships, at the instance of Lord Gainford, some time ago.
We get down, therefore, to the smaller point as to what the head of this Department should be. There are three things which he might be. First of all the Government might propose that there should be a separate and independent Minister of Mines—an important officer not answerable to any other Department or to the head of any other Department. I think that is the type of grandiose scheme which would not have recommended itself to your Lordships. If I may interpret the feelings which you have displayed on other occasions towards the creation of new Ministries, I think there would have been what Lord Salisbury would call "some enthusiasm" in rejecting such a proposal. Therefore the Government have not taken that course, because they want to keep this off from any grandiosity of proposal. The other alternative is to merge all these duties in the Board of Trade and I suppose possibly to have an additional
Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade.
The proposal of the Government is rather different. It is that the Parliamentary officer at the head of this Department shall be called a Minister, and shall have a rather larger salary—£500 a year more than the ordinary Under-Secretary is deemed to earn—and that this officer should have a certain amount of independence. That is to say, he should have to answer questions in Parliament and deal with the general routine, but that he should be, in matters of general policy, under the direction of the President of the Board of Trade. Thus you would have certain advantages. You would free the President of the Board of Trade from the enormous additional labour of dealing, as he must necessarily deal otherwise, with all the details of administration; and you would have a special officer, with a position of some dignity, to whom all persons con-

1113
neeted with the coal mines could resort with perfect freedom, knowing that it was his business, and his business alone, and that he had no other business except to attend to the mines. That proposal has been received with satisfaction by the coal industry. I use the term "coal industry" in a collective sense. It is rather remarkable as a point on which the miners and owners are alike united, and in the Division which we had in favour of the Ministry of Mines my noble friend Lord Gainford walked into the Lobby, if not with enthusiasm, with a whole-hearted satisfaction that these were the proposals of the Government and that he was acting with the miners themselves in the action which he took. Therefore, there is, so far, agreement.
At this stage I should like to deal also for a moment with the question of finance, because I think there was some impression among your Lordships that there would be more expense if there was this Ministry with limited independence than there would be if the duties were merged under the Board of Trade. That is not so. Your Lordships will see that in Clause 5 of the Bill there is a limitation of the expense. It is an unusual clause, but it was agreed by the Government that the expenses of this Ministry should be limited to a certain amount. They must not be more than £250,000 a year. Therefore, the question of expense which is involved centres round £500. If you think that the Government scheme should be adopted you will certainly support the payment of £500 more than the sum proposed by Lord Salisbury. The financial difference is a difference of £500 only, and I submit with great respect that if you are really going to secure (as we hope you will) harmony in the coal trade by the expenditure of this extra sum, there is not one of your Lordships who will not support it with great satisfaction.
There is one further point which I wish to press, and I desire to press it as forcibly as I can. It is this. There is some fear that this Bill and all its valuable provisions, and all Part II, setting up the hierarchy of committees, may not, be worked by the men. It would be a great misfortune if that were so, and there is a proposal, as your Lordships know, that in certain circumstances the Ministry of Mines, with, I suppose, the assent of Parliament, could indicate that Part II should no longer exist. It was thought that you could not keep elaborate arrangements of this kind open
1114
for ever. We hope that the fear I have mentioned will not be realised. Your Lordships may think that this question is perhaps one of nomenclature and of amour propre which may make a very great difference as to the acceptance of the whole scheme by the miners themselves. Your Lordships are very well aware that great masses of men are very often not governed by logic, though they are sensitive to the existence of sentiment, and there is no doubt that on this question of the nomenclature of the Ministry of Mines a good deal of sentiment among the miners is concentrated. This point was expressed very strongly by Mr. Brace in another place on the Third Reading of the Bill. He said that this was a matter to which their attention was very much directed.
What I want to urge upon your Lordships is this. If there is a risk that this Bill, with, as we hope, its beneficent effects, may not be successfully put into operation, and if the chance of its successful working would be a good deal lessened by the rejection of the Government proposal, is it worth while for your Lordships to take the risk of lessening the chance of the operation and success of the Bill by refusing to accept the Government's scheme and by quarrelling over this matter of £500? I strongly urge your Lordships to give the Bill the best chance that you can, to support the action of the Government, and thereby to satisfy the whole of the industry, not only the owners and employers but the great masses of the men themselves. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to support the Amendment which I have moved.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, after ("appoint") insert ("a Minister of Mines, who shall, by virtue of his office, be").—(Viscount Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it is a very unusual procedure for your Lordships to be asked, upon Report, to reverse the decision come to in Committee. I do not mean to say that there is anything irregular about it—
VISCOUNT PEEL: Lord Selborne is doing it also later on.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:—but it is not the usual course to pursue. The noble Viscount complained that the Committee in which the Amendment was carried contained a small number of your

1115
Lordships. The noble Viscount will remember that I did my best to persuade the Government not to run that risk, but they were absolutely determined to do it and they forced your Lordships, much against the wishes of many noble Lords, to take this decision at an inconvenient time. It hardly lies in their mouths, I think, to complain of the result. But this is a small point. The real matter is the substance of this proposal. The question is whether there is any good ground for your Lordships to reverse the decision to which you have come. I put it in that way because obviously the burden of proof has changed. When we were in Committee the burden of proof rested upon those who wished to change the Government Bill. Now that your Lordships have decided in Committee that it should run in a certain way and the Government desire to go back to the original words, the burden of proof is upon them. Have they any ground to show why this should be done?
I do not intend to detain your Lordships more than a few minutes, but let me state the case briefly. Your Lordships' House, in conformity with the general opinion throughout the country, is opposed to the creation of these abundant new Ministries. There are too many new Ministries already. The feeling of the country is quite definite about it. It is against these new Ministries. It believes that they lead to expense; it believes that they lead to undue Government interference and the checking of private enterprise; and it believes that they lead to all sorts of bureaucratic activity. The country, with a sure instinct, knows all these things to be bad, and therefore there are everywhere evident symptoms of a desire to abolish many of those Ministries which exist and to prevent the creation of any more. The Government, notwithstanding that feeling, propose to create a new Ministry in the shape of a Ministry of Mines.
I dare say your Lordship's are aware that there is a large organisation, consisting of members of both Houses of Parliament and also of many gentlemen of great distinction in the business world, that has been formed in order to check as far as they can the growing expenditure under which the country suffers, and one of the main things they have put forward is that there should be a limitation of these new Ministries. That is the first branch of the case. The next branch is that the particular form in which this new
1116
Minister was proposed by the Government—the form which the noble Viscount now proposes to restore—seems to us to be thoroughly unworkable. He is to have a double nature. He is to be partly a Minister of Mines, quasi independent, and partly a Secretary of the Board of Trade, not at all independent, and he is to be a Minister of Mines "in virtue of his office" as Secretary to the Board of Trade. Of all astounding phrases that could have been used I think "in virtue of his office" is the most astounding, and the Government proposes to put these very words back into the Bill. What can those wonderful words mean? They can mean nothing other than this, that the Minister of Mines, so far from being entirely associated with mines, is to be "by virtue of his office" a Secretary of the Board of Trade in all respects. Otherwise there could be no meaning in the words. He is to be a joint Secretary of the Board of Trade in addition to being a special Minister of Mines. That is the proposal which the Government makes, and it appears to be entirely inconsistent with the argument that the noble Viscount has submitted to the House.
Our proposal is a much simpler, and a much more straightforward one. I do not use the word straightforward in any invidious sense. We say that the policy of the Government Bill makes, in the last resort, the President of the Board of Trade responsible. Very well. Let there be no doubt about it. Let there be no ambiguity. Let there be no question as to the Minister's responsibility for any act done. I have urged upon your Lordships—and except that the Government have forced us to consider it again, I should not dare to refer to it once more—that nothing makes bad administration more certain than an ambiguity as to the responsibility of the Minister, and as to the real control of Parliament. The real control of Parliament lies in this, that if anything is done wrong in administration you have somebody whom you can hold responsible—some one, as the phrase goes, to hang if things go wrong. Some mistake is made in the administration of mines and there is a Minister to whom you can say, "You are paid £5,000 a year, or £2,000, or £1,500 a year (or whatever the figure may be) to do this thing right, and you have done it wrong, and you must answer for it. "That is what Ministerial responsibility means. If you leave in doubt whether the

1117
Minister of Mines or the President of the Board of Trade is responsible, you can never bring home responsibility for any mistake that may be made. Therefore we must make it clear. The Under-Secretary fairly stated the alternatives in his speech just now, and I think he rightly eliminated the alternative of making the Minister of Mines entirely dependent, though he did not recommend—
VISCOUNT PEEL: We are agreed on something.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We are very often agreed, but if the Under-Secretary had a free hand I think we should agree much more often. What I was saying was that the noble Viscount has very properly eliminated the alternative of making the Minister of Mines completely independent. The only other way out of the ambiguity of the Bill, as the Government introduced it, was the Amendment which your Lordships passed in Committee on my Motion. Let the Secretary of the Board of Trade who is constituted by this Bill have all the advantages that he requires, but let us get rid of the ambiguity, and let us make the President of the Board of Trade responsible and check extravagance and bureaucracy.
LORD GAINFORD: On the Committee stage of the Bill I thought the discussion was sufficiently prolonged, and I did not intervene upon this particular point, but I should like to mak it clear why it was that Lord Joicey and I, endeavouring to represent the interests of the coal industry, supported the Government on that occasion. We are absolutely at one in our strong objection to the creation of new Ministries, whether in connection with food, munitions, or anything else. We have felt that these Ministries have been extravagant, and the last thing that we want is to encourage a Ministry of Mines to become an all-powerful Government Department, as are the other independent Ministries to which reference has been made. But we have, as a coal trade, a very strong view—which may be regarded as prejudice by my noble friends on my left—in favour of officials who shall have exclusively work connected with coal mines at the Board of Trade, and who are not identified with any other interest. We have had sufficient experience of seeing how our interests, first in one Government Department and then in another, are put
1118
on one side whilst various other matters are discussed by the permanent heads who have interests in a large number of other questions. Take, for instance, the Board of Trade with their great shipping interest and all their varied interests connected with textiles, manufactured. goods, shipping, toys, leather, and innumerable other things.
What we desire is, if Parliament decides that there shall be a Mines Department, whether it be presided over by a Minister of Mines or by a Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, that he and all those under him should concentrate solely on work connected with mines. Coal mining is one of the chief industries, if not the key industry, of the country. The wages paid to miners are greater than are paid in any other industry in the country,. and we feel that we ought to have access to a Minister, whether he be a Minister of Mines or a Parliamentary Secretary, who shall have no duties to perform other than those of looking after the great interests of the coal-mining industry, and we further desire that the men under him should be-solely engaged in connection with the work of his Department. We believe that as control diminishes, so may the existing staff of the Coal Control Department be reduced. We do not want a body set up, which is going to be extravagant and to suffer from swelled head and unnecessarily to magnify itself. What we want is a co-ordinated body to whom we shall have access. It was because we thought this object would be better secured by a Ministry of Mines than by a Parliamentary Secretary that Lord Joicey and I voted with the Government, and I propose to vote with them again to-day.
LORD ISLINGTON: I hope that your Lordships will adhere to the decision you came to with clearness and precision the other night, and will oppose the Amendment of my noble friend which is now before the House. I listened with interest to the speech of my noble friend Lord Gainford, and with the exception of the last remark that he made—a remark which he only made quite tentatively—I agree with every word that he said, and I think that those who support the proposal for confining this to an Under-Secretary would equally share that view. I think every one in this House fully realises the importance of a great industry like this having co-ordinated under one Department all its various functions, and that can

1119
perfectly well be done by the establishment of an Under-Secretary under the President of the Board of Trade.
As I read this Bill, the Under-Secretary who is to be appointed is to be an ad hoc Under-Secretary for exclusive purposes in regard to mines, and all the functions that will be applied to him and that he will be asked to perform will be functions which an Under-Secretary should be perfectly capable of undertaking. My noble friend Lord Peel, in urging your Lordships to support his Amendment, said that this Minister of Mines would be under the presidence of the Board of Trade for the general direction of policy. That is quite compatible with the duties of an UnderSecretary—in fact, I should venture to say very much more compatible with the duties of an Under-Secretary than of a Minister.
We must remember that there already exists a Minister for Labour. The really important functions that a Minister for Mines would have to perform would, in the ordinary course of events, be referred to the Minister for Labour. The ordinary routine work could perfectly well be carried out by an Under-Secretary. It is those larger and more grave questions, questions of differences of opinion which lead to strife between the two great bodies in the industry, that would, in the ordinary course, if there were a Minister of Mines, have to be referred either to the President of the Board of Trade or else to the Minister of Labour. I therefore cannot for the life of me see—and I listened with great care to my noble friend's speech—what function there is that an Under-Secretary could not perfectly well perform.
At the risk of being told that I am repeating an argument, in asking your Lordships to reject this Amendment I am going to repeat one which I advanced the other day, because I think it is of great importance. There at present appears to be very little likelihood that this Bill when it is on the Statute Book is going to be given effect to, because we are told that by a unanimous decision the miners are not going to associate themselves with these measures. There is a clause in the Bill which says that if this be the case, Part II—the operative part of the Bill-is to be brought to a termination at the expiration of a year. All this elaborate machinery of the various committees is to be brought to an end. Then there will merely be left, as I said the other night, a skeleton Ministry with a very
1120
substantial limit of expenditure—I venture to say it is a most excessive limit of expenditure—of £250,000 a year, with practically no functions to perform except those of the routine work connected with the Government in their relation to the Ministry. It is for these reasons that I sincerely hope your Lordships will reject this Amendment.
LORD TREOWEN: The noble Viscount, in his speech to which we have just listened, made a great point of the question of sentiment with regard to a Ministry of Mines. When you get on the ground of sentiment you get on very dangerous ground, and misunderstanding is very possible. What he said on that point did not carry conviction to my mind. There has been a great deal said in the country on a very much larger policy than any that he has adumbrated, and the question of a Ministry of Mines is very apt, when discussed by the less informed in the mining industry, to lead to the belief that it is the policy of His Majesty's Government. That, my Lords, is an argument which seems to me of such effect that it is quite sufficient to decide me to support the Bill as it has been amended.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not want to detain your Lordships, but I think I ought to say one or two words on points that have been raised, more particularly because I think they were stated under some lack of appreciation of the general position in which this Minister would be placed.
A NOBLE LORD: Is the noble Viscount in order in speaking again?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Then with the leave of the House—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think it is a very good plan to go on speaking.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If your Lordships do not wish that I should reply to the points I will not do so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It seems very ungracious, of course. If the noble Viscount wishes to make an explanation I am sure your Lordships would wish to hear it; but I understand it is the order of the House that on Report we only make one speech.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Continue.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is very good of your Lordships. There are two points which were made by the noble Marquess. One was that he took great. exception to the phrase "by virtue of his office," and seemed to think that there was some rather mysterious meaning attached to it. All that it means is that in the case of an ordinary Under-Secretary he would be appointed by and be responsible to the. Minister. Those words are a drafting expression to attach the Minister of Mines to the President of the. Board of Trade. If those words were not there, and if his position as a Secretary of the Board of Trade were not defined, then he would be a Minister of Mines independent of the Board of Trade; and it is to do precisely what the noble Marquess wants that those words were introduced to establish this connection and also the subordination of the Minister to the Board of Trade. Therefore I do not think the noble Marquess really ought to object to those words.
The noble Earl, Lord Curzon, reminds me that in speaking again I am doing so in the exercise of privilege. Therefore I am in a very favourable position indeed. The second point is that my noble friend made great play with the question of responsibility, and suggested that, in all Government matters there should be some head that could be definitely hit. Of course, there is a head to be hit to advantage. In most Departments you have two heads to hit, and it is much better to inflict punishment on two heads than on one. In the ordinary Department you can hit the Under-Secretary and also the Minister as well. In this case, of course, the President of the Board of Trade, as I explained, is ultimately responsible for the action of the Ministry of Mines; but the first front of action, as it were, falls upon the Minister himself, who has to answer questions whether in the House of Commons or in the House of Lords. He is in the first case responsible for the general administration of the office, but he is subordinate for all general directions of policy to the President of the Board of Trade, and therefore there is no question of avoiding responsibility, nor could the President of the Board of Trade in the last resort avoid that responsibility. Therefore I hope your Lordships will not think there is any question either of divided responsibility or of lack of responsibility in this case.
1122
The other point made by Lord Islington also showed, I think, some lack of appreciation of the reasons why the employers and the miners and the Government are anxious for that particular proposition, because he said "Ah, but there are questions connected with mines that ought to be dealt with by the Ministry of Labour." Now, that is one of the reasons specially for setting up this Ministry. It is what the miners and the owners complain of. There is no more wearisome thing in the whole world than going about from Department to Department, and being sent on from Department to Department; it impairs your health and ruins your digestion and your patience.
LORD ISLINGTON: Could not the Ministry of Labour be got rid of first?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will discuss that on a later Amendment. The whole object is to concentrate these duties in one Minister, so that miners and employers may know where to go and place their laments and complaints before him, and not be sent off to a Ministry of Labour, as my noble friend suggests.
Lord Treowen took some exception to my observation about sentiment, and said he thought the fact that there was some sentiment in this thing would determine him to vote against the Government. I do not quite follow his argument. Although the miners are not represented in this House it surely would be unwise for this House to ignore their feelings. They are a very potent body outside, and upon their feelings, and upon the way in which they look on this Bill will depend whether this Bill is a success or not, and whether harmony is introduced into the industry or not. Therefore I submit most respectfully that your Lordships would be wise indeed to attach great importance to their feelings, to remember that they have, from their point of view, had a tremendous disappointment, that the whole policy of the Government has gone against them, that what they advocated—nationalisation—has been refused by the Government; and they are only asking now, as a concession to sentiment, that this Ministry should be called the Ministry of Mines, and should be regarded as wholly and solely devoted to their interests. There are many sources of difficulty and danger in this

1123
country and outside this country. It would be a great thing if in the coal industry at least harmony could be introduced and one source of trouble in this country in the years immediately to come were eliminated by the successful working of this Bill.
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 2:
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have a series of Amendments on the Paper which are all consequential, carrying out the decision which your Lordships have just come to.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Page 2,lines 6 and 7, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Page 2, line 10, leave out("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Page 2, line 16 leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("Minister of Mines and his officers") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Page 2, line 32, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, whether the words proposed to be inserted shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 48.

CONTENTS

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Astor, V.

Ranksborough, L.

Peel, V.

Shandon, L.

Bradford, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Sinha, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Eldon, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Gainford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Onslow, E.

Hylton, L.

Wester Wemyss, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Inverforth, L.

Wigan, L. (E.Crawford)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Erskine, L. [Teller.]

Bedford. D.

Chaplin, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Bath, M.

Chilston, V.

Farrer, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hood, V.

Gisborough, L.

Hutchinson, V.

Harris, L.

Abingdon, M.

(E.Donoughmore.)

Inchcape, L.

Denbign, E.

Knutsford, V.

Islington, L. [Teller.]

Doncaster, E.

Kintore, L. (E.Kintore.)

(D.Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Ampthill, L.

Lambourne, L.

Harewood, E.

Anslow, L.

Leigh, L.

Jersey, E.

Askwith, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Avebury, L.

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Midleton, E.

Chaworth, L. (E.Meath.)

Sandys, L.

Morton, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Sumner, L.

Russell, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Treowen, L.

Selborne, E

Denman, L.

Vernon, L.

Stanhope, E.

Desborough, L.

Wemyss, L. (E.Wemyss)

Verulam, E.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 3:
Powers of regulating export and price of coal.
3.—(1) During a period of one year after the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty, it shall be lawful for the Minister of Mines, subject to the approval of the Board of Trade, from time to time to give directions—

(a) regulating the export of coal and the supply of coal for the bunkering of vessels; and

(b) regulating the pithead price to be charged for coal sold for consumption in the British Islands and for coal sold for the bunkering of vessels trading between ports in the United Kingdom.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The first Amendment to this clause is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, leave out ("Minister of Mines subject to the approval of the").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD INCEHCAPEmoved, in subsection (1) (b) to leave out "trading between ports in the United Kingdom." The noble Lord said: I must apologise for not having been in your Lordships' House on August 4 when this Bill was in Committee. Had I known that these words were to be proposed by Lord Gainford I would have made a point of being here. I do not know why he should want to restrict the powers of the Ministry of Mines or the Board of Trade, as it will be now, from fixing the price of coal for sea-going ships to oversea ships when he allows them to fix it for ships trading between ports of the United Kingdom. The ports of the United Kingdom are open to all the world. There is no restriction upon Japanese, French, German, Scandinavian, or. American ships from trading on the coast of England, and the idea I fancy may be that, if the Board of Trade fixes the price for bunker coal for British ships, they will be obliged to fix it at the same price for foreign ships; otherwise there will be retaliation.
The quantity of bunker coal taken in this country amounts altogether, I think, to 14,000,000 tons, and of that only 14 per cent. is taken by foreign vessels. As things stand at present, the price of bunker coal in London is 100s. a ton, while the price to a factory in London is about 40 s. to 4.5s. a ton. We cannot understand why one of the great industries of the country, the industry on which the salvation of the country practically depended during the war, should be penalised as against other industries. The shipowners suggest that the power given to the Board of Trade should be exercised, if the Board think fit, in regard to bunker coal for oversea ships as well as for coast-wise vessels.
The shipping industry is now on the downward grade; I do not believe that any of your Lordships would be disposed to put a shilling into it at the present moment, and if that industry is to be penalised by having to pay this enormous sum for bunker coal you may depend upon it that in a very short time ships will be laid up and liners and vessels taking passengers to India, Australia, South America, and the West Indies will have to close down. Shipowners cannot possibly afford to run them, and, even if the rates of passage money are put up to compensate for this enormous price of hunker coal, it will stop people travelling. I sincerely hope that this Amendment to the Government Bill will be accepted by your Lordships' House.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("trading between ports in the United Kingdom").—(Lord Inchcape.)
LORD GAINFORD: I have no objection to these words being omitted, but only with a view of inserting other words in their place. By accepting the Amendment which was moved on the Committee Stage your Lordships decided that no new powers of Government control should be given to the Ministry. But it has been pointed out to me that the words which were inserted— "vessels trading between ports in the United Kingdom"—were not sufficiently wide to include the tugs which work in the various ports of our country, nor the fishing vessels which go from and return into English ports. It is with a view of dealing with those kind of ships, in addition to the other ships which are trading between port and port, that I am prepared to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, with a view to inserting the following words, of which I have given notice to the noble Lord on the Woolsack —namely, to insert "other than vessels proceeding to ports outside the British Islands."
May I remind those who were not present that the reason why your Lordships voted with me the other night was that the Government, by their proposal as it originally stood in the Bill, were for the first time taking powers in connection with control which they had never exercised. Moreover, in all previous Bills dealing with the coal trade the shipping interest had advocated that there should be no power to limit the present coal supplied for bunkers to foreign-going ships. It was assumed by the Board of Trade that they might possibly have powers under D.O.R.A., but, as I explained to your Lordships, we have taken the best counsel's opinion we could get, and Sir John Simon is quite positive that under the Defence of the Realm Act the Government have no powers whatsoever to impose any conditions as to the limitation of prices in connection with bunker coal for foreign-going ships. It is because we feel as a coal trade that at this hour no new powers should be given to the Government that I press your Lordships to support me in the same way as you supported me two or three nights ago.
The shipping trade come to us ad misericordiam and say, "We want the price of coal lowered." They already get

1127
coal at a much lower price than it is supplied at to foreign countries. From time to time we have made voluntary arrangements with the shipping interest, and not very long ago we made an arrangement with them to reduce the price of bunkers, and we did that voluntarily. Now they ask us to do it again to-day. I can only speak for myself. I am always quite prepared to see that an article is sold to a consumer in accordance with the condition of his industry. If it can be proved to me that in the world's freight market a reduction of a few shillings on a ton of coal is going to make all the difference to the shipping interest, and that the money is really going into the pockets of the shipowners and going to keep the ships on the seas, every coal owner would, of course, be a fool if he was not prepared to sell coal to the shipping industry at a reduced figure in order to secure that market.
There is one other point. We are hoping that this industry may be rapidly decontrolled and that a scheme may be put forward which will protect the public in regard to the quantity of coal required for home industries and domestic purposes, and also protect the shipping industry by keeping sufficient reserves of coal in this country before any coal is sent for export. If we could put up a scheme of that character for decontrol the prices which are now being obtained, the high prices obtained, would tend to he reduced. It will not be very long before in the natural competition which must take place between coalowners there will be a further drop in the price of bunker coal.
Amendment moved
Clause 3, page 3, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("trading between ports in the United Kingdom") and insert ("other than vessels proceeding to ports outside the British Islands").—(Lord Gainford.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: Lord Inchcape, on behalf of the shipping interest, desires to delete the words "trading between ports in the United Kingdom." The effect will be that the Board of Trade can give directions over coal sold for the bunkering of vessels; it restores to the Government the power of dealing with the price of bunker coal. I pressed this strongly on the Committee stage but the decision was adverse. Obviously, as the proposal has been made again the Government cannot be expected to do otherwise than support their own Bill, and they will, of course, support
1128
my noble friend in the Lobby. It is much more than a question between shipowners and coalowners. The Government think it desirable that they should have this power. If there is less prosperity in the shipping trade they should have power, in the interests of the trade of the whole country, to regulate the price of bunker coal.
LORD GAINFORD: May I make a personal explanation? I had hoped that my noble friend Lord Inchcape would have been present on the Committee stage. He kindly signed a "Whip" urging noble Lords to attend. If among the twenty-eight or so Amendments down in my name there was one to which he could not agree, I apologise to him for having apparently stolen a march upon him.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is no doubt that the words should be struck out because Lord Gainford is not quite satisfied with them and proposes to substitute other words which he has read. Therefore, there will be no division of opinion on the question of striking them out. Substantially we are on the same point as to whether the policy your Lordships pursued in Committee should be maintained. I see no reason for changing the vote I then gave and I shall support Lord Gainford in his Amendment.
On Question, Lord Gainford's Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 9, leave out ("when") and insert ("whilst") and leave out ("given") and insert ("operative").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 10, leave out ("Minister of Mines subject to the like approval") and insert ("Board of Trade").
Page 4, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("Minister of Mines subject to the like approval") and insert ("Board of Trade").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4:
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: All my Amendments on this clause are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 26, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").
Page 4, line 27, leave out ("to him") and insert ("the Board").
Page 4, line 28, leave out ("his") and insert ("their").
Page 4, line 31, leave out ("him") and insert ("the Board").
Page 4, line 32, leave out ("his") and insert ("their").
Page 4, line 34, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert. ("Board of Trade").
Page 4, line 36, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").
Page 4, line 37, leave out ("their") and leave out ("his") and insert ("the").
Page 4, line 38, after ("duties") insert ("of the Board under this Act"), and leave out ("him") and insert ("the Board").
Page 4, line 40, leave out ("him") and insert ("the Board").— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5:
Staff remuneration and expenses.
5.—(1)The Minister of Mines may appoint such secretaries, assistant secretaries, officers, and servants as the Minister of Mines may, subject to the consent of the Treasury as to number, determine.
(2) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to the Minister of Mines an annual salary not exceeding two thousand pounds, and to the secretaries, assistant. secretaries, officers, and servants of the Ministry of Mines such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may from time to time determine.
(3) The expenses of Orr Ministry of Mines, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be paid out of moneys provided
by Parliament:
Provided that the total amount of such salaries and expenses shall not in any year exceed two hundred and fifty thousand pounds.
(4) There shall be transferred and attached to the Ministry of Mines such of the persons employed under any other Government. department in or about the execution of the powers and duties transferred by or under this Act to the Minister of Mines, as the Minister of Mines and the other Government department, with the sanction of the Treasury, may determine.
(5) The Minister of Mines may from time to time distribute the business of the department amongst the several persons transferred and attached thereto in pursuance of this Act, in such manner as he may think right, and those officers shall perform such duties in relation to that business as may be directed by the Minister of Mines:
Provided that such persons shall be in no worse position as respects the tenure of office, salary, or superannuation allowances than they would have
been if this Act had not been passed.
THE EARL OF MIDLETONmoved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Earl
1130
said: After the decision your Lordships have arrived at there will be no serious division of opinion on my Amendments to this clause.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not want to interrupt the noble Earl but I understood his Amendments were consequential, and therefore is it worth while to discuss them?
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I only want to make it clear that the point raised by Lord Gainford is met—namely, that there will be a Department, under a Secretary, of individuals and persons employed for the sole purpose of dealing with mines. There will be no question, if we leave the Amendments as I propose, of the work being done in general by the Board of Trade, but there will be a distinct number of persons attached to the Beard of Trade for this particular work. What there will not be will be the appointment of a large number of secretaries and others and the whole paraphernalia of a new and exceedingly costly Ministry.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not wish to detain the House on these consequential Amendments, but I do wish to point out that under the Bill there was a limitation on the expenditure of the Board of Trade. Under the proposals of the noble Earl there will be no limits at all.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, Page 5, lilies 20 to 23, leave out subsection (1).
Page 5, line 25, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Parliamentary Secretary appointed under this Act").
Page 5, lines 25 to 34, leave out from ("salary") to end of subsection(3).
Page 5, lines 35 and 36, leave out ("Ministry of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").
Page 5, line 39, leave out ("Minister of Mines, as the Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade, as the Board of Trade").
Page 6, line 3, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").
Page 6, line 6, leave out ("he") and insert ("they").
Page 6, line 8, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").—(The Earl of Midleton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6:
Seal, style, and acts of Minister of Mines.
6—(1) The Minister. of Mines may sue and be sued as, and may for all purposes be described by the name of, the Minister of Mines.
(2) The Minister of Mines shall have an official seal, which shall be officially and judicially noticed, and shall be authenticated by the signature of the Minister of Mines, or of a secretary, or any person authorised by the Minister of Mines to act in that behalf.
(3) Upon and by virtue of the appointment of any person to be Minister of Mines, all property of whatever description, and 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 by virtue of this Act be deemed to have been transferred to and to vest in and enure for the benefit of the person so appointed, in the same manner as respects such deeds, contracts, bonds, and securities, as if he had been contracted with instead of his predecessor, and as if his name had been inserted therein instead of the name of his predecessor.
(4) Subsections (2) to (4) of section eleven, and subsections (2) and (3) of section twelve, of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916, shall apply to the Minister of Mines and to the Ministry of Mines and to the office of Minister of Mines in like manner as they apply to the Ministers and Ministries mentioned in those sections.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, leave out clause 6.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: These are both consequential Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 37, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert. ("a Parliamentary Secretary appointed under this Act").
Page 7, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("a Parliamentary Secretary under this Act").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 8:
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: These Amendments also are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 7, leave out ("The Minister of Mines shall subject to the approval of").
Page 7,line 8, after ("Trade") insert ("shall").
Page 7,line 31, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 10:
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Amendments to this and the next four clauses are also consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 21, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").
Page 9, line 28, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 11:
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 4, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").
Page 10, line 12, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").
Page 10, line 20, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").
Page 10, line 28, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").
Page 10, line 29, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Board of Trade").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 12:
Amendments moved—
Page 10, lines 36 and 37, leave out ("the Minister of Mines may subject to the approval of").
Page 10, line 37, after ("Trade") insert ("may").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 13:
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 24, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").
Page 11, lines 28 and 29, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").
Page 11, line 31, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 14:
Amendments moved—
Page 11, Page 11, line 39, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").
Page 11, line 40, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Board of Trade").
Page 11, Page 12, line 1, leave out ("he thinks") and insert ("they think").
Page 11, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("and subject so the approval of the Board of Trade").
Page 11, line 10, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 16:
Fees to members and expenses of committees and boards.
16. There shall be paid to the members of pit committees, district committees and area boards and of the National Board such fees for attendance at meetings thereof as may be prescribed by the regulations, and such payments, together with any expenses incurred in accordance with the regulations by such committees and boards in the discharge of their functions, including the remuneration of the secretary and other officers of such committees and boards, shall—

(a) in the case of pit committees as to the fees of the representatives of the owners and management of the mine, together with one-half of the expenses incurred by the committee, be payable by the owner of the mine, and as to the fees of the representatives of the workers employed in or about the mine, together with one-half of the expenses incurred by the committee, be payable by the workers employed in or about the mine; and

(b) in the case of district committees and area boards and the National Board as to the fees of the representatives of the owners and management, together with one-half of the expenses incurred by the respective committees and boards and the National Board, be payable by the owners of mines, and as to the fees of the representatives of the workers, together with one-half of the said expenses, be payable by the workers employed in and about the mines and shall be apportioned amongst the owners of and the workers in and about the various mines in the district or area or throughout the United Kingdom, as the case may be, in accordance with the regulations;

and the sums so payable by or apportioned to the owner of any mine shall be defrayed as part of the working expenses of the mine, and all sums payable under this section shall be recoverable summarily as a civil debt at the instance of the secretary or other officer of the committee or board concerned.
VISCOUNT PEELhad on the Paper an Amendment to omit from paragraph (a) the words "as to the fees of the representatives of the owners and management of the mine, together with one-half of the expenses incurred by the committee."
The noble Viscount said: The effect of this Amendment is again to ask your Lordships to restore the Bill to the position in which it stood before your Lordships amended it on the Committee Stage. The original proposal was that the whole of the expenses of the district committees, area boards, and National Board should be paid by the owners. After the decision of your Lordships I do not desire to press for the restoration of this clause, especially
1134
as I know that although I had the support of the coal owners in the previous Division I am not going to get it in the present. I was, however, going to make a suggestion in the way of a compromise, and it is that the original arrangement should stand as regards the pit committees—that is to say, in the case of the pit committees the charge for their meetings and committees and so on should fall upon the industry, but in the case of the district committees, area hoards and National Board the expenses should be divided. I understand that there is really a good deal of difficulty in the case of the pit committees in collecting their share of the fees from the men in particular pits, and any excessive expenditure is of course safeguarded under the Regulations, by which the number of the meetings of these pit committees is regulated, defined, and limited. Therefore if such a proposal as I have suggested would meet with your Lordships' assent, I would move the Amendment in such a form that the expenditure only falls upon the industry in the case of the pit committees, and in the case of the larger committees is to be divided between the owners and the men. I suppose I must move formally to put myself in order, but if my suggestion is accepted I will move the Amendment in a limited form.
Amendment movtd—
Page 12, line 27, leave out from ("Committees") to ("be") in line 30.—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD CAINFORD: I am in rather a difficult position, in making a compromise on behalf of those whom I represent, in not being able to see them. This question of the payment of fees of the men attending the pit committees and district committees and the fees of the men attending the area boards and National Board is one upon which the coal owners take a very strong view. They think that it is desirable that each party to an arrangement should pay its own expenses and its own fees. In the coal trade we have had conciliation boards, pit committees, and a large number of the men representing the miners interests have seats on the county councils. We have also had arrangements by which the price of coal should be ascertained. The men have never taken any exception to the principle that each side in connection with all these matters should bear its own expenses. The trade union funds can very well do it.

1135
If the expense is borne exclusively by one side it puts not merely a premium on a larger number of meetings being held than is required, but it is also a premium upon the trade unionists asking for as large fees as they possibly can exact out of the funds of the coal owners. Eventually, of course, that would react upon the price of coal. It is a good plan for individuals to contribute to the expenses connected with proceedings of this kind; and when the noble Viscount argued the other day that he hoped that if coalowners paid for both it would promote harmony between trade unionists and the owners, and that trade unionists might forget they were trade unionists, it seemed to me to be an argument which was rather thin. I do suggest that at any rate both sides should pay the fees for the attendance whether at pit committees, district committees, area or national boards, but I would be prepared, speaking only for myself, to meet the noble Viscount if he thought it was desirable that the expenses in connection with the staffs which will be created—expenses other than the fees and personal expenses—should be borne out of the funds of the owners. I am prepared to meet the noble Lord to that extent.
The proposals of the Amendment which the House carried last week were these—that each party should bear their own fees, but that the staff expenses should be divided between the coal owners and the trade union funds respectively, and if the noble Lord would agree that that latter portion should come out of the coal trade but that the fees for the men attending these various meetings should come out of the respective pockets of the two parties, we may come to an agreement. I would point out further that if it is any advantage to the men for us as coal owners to make a deduction at their request from their wages in order that their fees shall be collected out of their wages by us, we shall be very glad to do so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My suggestion went rather further than that of the noble Lord. I suggested that the decision of the House should stand as regards the district and area committees and the National Board. In those cases the expenses should be shared by each side paying one half. That is exactly in accordance with the decision of your Lordships. All I was going to suggest was that an exception should be made in the case of the pit committees, and I should be glad if I might
1136
move an amendment in that form. That is to say I will move only the Amendments in page 12, line 27, page 12, line 31, and page 13, line 10. I will move it in that form. It is in the case of pit committees only that the expenses will be borne by the industry. I understand there is a good deal of difficulty in collecting the money in these cases.
There is no danger of what the noble Lord suggests of unnecessary and exceptional meetings, because the meetings do not depend upon the men or upon the owners. They depend on the Regulations which are laid down. There is no fear of excessive sums being borne, and I am advised that, at any rate in the case of the pit committees, it would be eminently desirable that they should be paid in this way, in order that both the owners and the men, coming together in these discussions, should feel that they are in support of a common industry which bears their expenses, and that they do not come there as representatives of different and hostile camps. I strongly urge upon your Lordships that very small compromise—that the whole of your decision should stand except in regard to the pit committees, in which case the charges should fall on the industry.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I feel very much the force of the argument addressed to us by my noble friend Lord Gainford. It is true that these labour corporations are very rich and, upon the face of it, there seems no reason why they should not pay their share. At the same time, it is perhaps unwise to push the argument to its logical conclusion, and I must say that the noble Viscount has come forward with a very reasonable compromise. My noble friend will not get all he asks for, but he will get a good deal, and no doubt the case for paying the miners' side in the case of the pit committees is stronger than it is in regard to the other committees. They are not likely to be so expensive and they are more immediately attached to the industry than the larger committees which deal with wider considerations. I should be inclined to suggest to my noble friend that, having gained so much, he might be willing to accept the compromise.
LORD GAINFORD: I will accept the suggestion of the noble Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 31, leave out from ("mine") to ("and") in line 35.—
(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD: My Amendment here is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 3, leave out the first ("and") and insert ("or").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Linty GAINFORD: The next. is another drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 5, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Amendment comes next.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 10, leave out ("all sums payable under this section").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17
Provisions as to regulations under Part II.
17. The provisions of sections eighty-six and one hundred and seventeen of, and Part I of the Second Schedule to, the Coal Mines Act, 1911, which relate to general regulations shall apply with the necessary modifications to regulations under this Part of this Act:
Provided that, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice. to the validity of anything previously done there-under
LORD GAINFORD: I have a manuscript Amendment to omit the proviso in Clause 17.
Amendment moved—
Clause 17, page 13, line 18, leave out from ("Provided") to the end of the clause.— (Lord Gainford.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I agree.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18:
Cessation of Part II in certain eventualities.
18. If at the expiration of one year from the passing of this Act it appears to the Board of Trade, on the recommendation of the Minister of Mines, that the scheme of this Part of the Act has been rendered abortive by reason of the failure on the part of those entitled to appoint representatives as members of the pit and district committees. area boards, and the National Board to avail themselves of such right, the Board of Trade shall issue and publish in the London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Gazettes a certificate to that effect, and thereupon all the provisions of this Part of the Act shall cease to have effect.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved, at the commencement of the clause, to leave out "at the expiration of one year from the passing of this Act," and to insert "on the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-one."
The noble Marquess said: This is a substantial Amendment. which I hope the Government will see fit to accept. 1 can explain it; in a few words. There is a danger—I will not put it higher—that the miners may refuse to work Part II of the Bill. I think it would be a most unfortunate and deplorable thing if they did, as Part II, although certain criticisms have been made against. it—I myself have ventured to make criticisms—does, on the whole, embody the principle of partnership in the management of the mines. That is a principle to which we all, including, I believe, noble Lords of every shade of opinion, look for the solution of the industrial difficulties of this country. Therefore, I think it would be deplorable if the miners refused to work this scheme. At the same time, it is possible it may happen, and the Government, therefore, provide in the Bill as it stands that in that case the Minister himself is to have the right practically to strike out of the Bill the whole of Part II.
I submitted in Committee, and I submit again, that that is much too great a power to entrust to a Minister. It is a matter which ought to be done by Parliament itself, and I suggest in this Amendment that in this deplorable event there should be substituted for the spontaneous action of the Minister the action of the two Houses of Parliament. I will only add one observation. Those of your Lordships who were in Committee are aware of the point, which I repeat in one form. It is not going to be necessarily a very simple issue to determine, because the case may arise where a

1139
certain number of committees are made operative by the miners while other committees are rendered nugatory by their refusal. Then the very difficult question will have to be decided as to whether that constitutes a sufficient amount of refusal to warrant the striking out of the whole of Part II. Every degree of difficulty may arise and it seems to me that it is very important indeed as to who is to decide whether Part II is to be repealed. It is not merely that certain parts of the country may operate the Bill while other parts refuse, but it may very well happen that the pit committees might be made operative and the superior committees not operative.
That is not merely theory on my part. The miners object to these committees because of the authority which is given to them over wages and that wages point applies very much more to the larger committees than to the smaller committees. Therefore, it might easily be that the miners may say, "We are willing to have pit committees, but we will not have any share or part in operating the bigger committees." That is a difficult question. What is to be done in those circumstances? I say that it is not fair to trust an issue of that kind to a Minister who will be subject to all sorts of irregular and unofficial pressure. All sorts of visits to Downing-street will be going on perpetually. We are quite familiar with that kind of thing. That is what I am sure the country and the Government themselves would desire to avoid. Place the authority where it ought to be placed—namely, on both Houses of Parliament—and I am sure that we shall then do the best thing.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 25, leave out from ("If") to ("it") in line 26, and insert ("on the thirty-first day of duly, nineteen hundred and twenty-one"). —(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was rather surprised to see the Amendment of the noble Marquess on the Paper, because I undertook on behalf of the Government to look into this question myself, and it was in deference to the arguments used to your Lordships that I placed on the Paper an Amendment in slightly different words from those of the noble Marquess. Though I was very much interested to hear the admirable argument that the noble Marquess addressed to your Lordships upon it, I was also surprised to
1140
some extent, because what he desires is already given effect to in the Amendment that I myself have put down.
I agree with the noble Marquess that this matter should not be decided merely by the. Minister of Mines—or shall I say by the Under-Secretary for Mines—but shall be decided by Parliament. I will, however, urge the noble Marquess to accept the form in which I have put down the Amendment— namely, that "a Report of the circumstances, and that Report shall be laid before Parliament, and at the expiration of one month from the date when it is so laid all the provisions of this Part of this Act shall cease to have effect unless in the meantime a Resolution to the contrary is passed by both Houses of Parliament."
The reason for putting it down in this form is that the President of the Board of Trade does not himself report under this Bill unless he wants to put an end to Part II on the ground that it has failed to work. If he reports so strongly on a matter of that kind which so much affects his own Department, the probability is that there will be a prima facie case in its favour. My words suggest that the provisions of Part II shall cease to have effect unless during those days when the Report lies upon the Table both Houses say that the scheme ought to go on. If they differ from the view of the President of the Board of Trade and say it ought to go on, they should say so. I suggest that my form is the preferable one.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I agree that there is very little difference between us, and we are much obliged to my noble friend for having accepted the weight of the arguments of my noble friend Lord Salisbury, and, in the interval between Committee and report, put down an Amendment. I would only put this forward for his consideration—Is not the positive resolution better in the circumstances? The President of the Board of Trade goes down to the House of Commons and lays a Report on the Table of that House, and says "I deeply regret that after the experience of the year we find that the miners as a class will not work this Bill, either in the pit, committees, in the districts, or in the areas; therefore I am bound with great regret to advise Parliament to put Part II of this Act out of operation." Would it not be better if we concluded that such a Report—which we all

1141
from the bottom of our hearts hope may be so—will never be made, and ask that Parliamentary sanction should be given directly for putting Part II out of operation rather than leave it in the air on the chance that no private member will take the matter up.
VISCOUNT PEEL: There is not a great deal in it, but the noble Marquess's form of Amendment, it will be seen, forces a debate on both Houses, because unless they pass this Resolution Part II cannot come to an end. The advantage of the form that I have put down is that if the Report is generally accepted no debate is raised upon the matter, but if the Houses or Parliament object to it then a debate is raised. I think there is some slight advantage in my form of words, and I hope the noble Marquess will see his way to accept them.
The MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very anxious to meet the noble Viscount. I do not agree with him, of course, but it is a minor point of difference, and on the whole I think I must give way and allow the Government to put it in the form they suggest.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 32, leave out from ("issue") to the end of the clause and insert ("a report of the circumstances, and that report shall be laid before Parliament, and at the expiration of one month from the date when it is so laid all the provisions of this Part of this Act shall cease to have effect unless in the meantime a resolution to the contrary is passed by both Houses of Parliament"). —(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19:
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 37, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").
Page 14, line 1, leave out ("and subject to the approval of the Board of Trade").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is an Amendment which ought to have been put down on the Paper. It is page 14, line 8, to leave out in subsection (2) "Minister" and insert "Board of Trade." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 8, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Board of Trade").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 10, leave out the first ("or") and insert ("of").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREhad an Amendment on the Paper to insert at the end of Clause 19: "Provided as follows: 'Before any scheme comes into force it shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during which that House is sitting, and if either House before the expiration presents an address to His Majesty against the scheme or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the snaking of any new scheme.'" The noble Earl said: I have discussed this matter with the Government, and they are willing to accept the Amendment in the amended form in which I now submit it to the House.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 15, after ("section") insert ("Provided as follows: 'Before any scheme involving the amendment or repeal of any local Act of Parliament comes into force, it shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than fourteen days during which that House is sitting, and if either House before the expiration presents an address to His Majesty against the scheme or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new scheme'")—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21:
Establishment of fund for improvement of social conditions of colliery workers,
21.—(1) There shall be constituted a fund to be applied for such purposes connected with the social well-being, recreation, and conditions of living of workers in or about coal mines and with mining education and research as the Minister of Mines, after consultation with any Government Department concerned, and subject to the consent of the Board of Trade, may approve.
(2) The owners of every coal mine shall before the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and twenty-one, and before the same day in each of the subsequent five years, pay into the said fund a suns equal to one penny a ton of the output of the mine during the previous calendar year, and the sums so payable in respect of any mine shall be defrayed as part of the working expenses

1143
of the mine and shall be recoverable either as a debt due to the Crown or by the Minister of Mines summarily as a civil debt:
Provided that in the case of the first payment the amount shall be calculated with reference to the output during the six calendar months ending the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and twenty.
(3) The duty of allocating the money from time to time standing to the credit of the said fund to the several purposes aforesaid shall be vested in a committee consisting of five persons, appointed by the Minister of Mines, of whom one shall be appointed by him after consultation with the Mining Association of Great Britain, and another after consultation with the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. The committee shall have the assistance of three assessors appointed by the Minister of Health, the Board of Education and the Secretary for Scotland respectively; the assessors shall have the right of attending meetings of the committee and of taking part in the deliberations thereof, but not of voting; and different persons may be appointed by the above-mentioned departments to act as assessors in relation to different matters:
Provided that the Committee shall take into consideration any scheme submitted by a district committee, and that before allocating any money for a local purpose they shall consult with the district committee concerned.
(4) The committee may invite a local authority to submit a scheme for any of the purposes to which the fund may be applied, and if such scheme be approved by the committee they may make such grants in aid to the said local authority out of the fund and upon such conditions as may seem to them desirable:
Provided that in no case shall any grant be made out of the fund for building or repairing of dwelling-houses.
(5) Where money is allocated for the purpose of meeting the cost in whole or in part of providing accommodation and facilities at a coal mine for the workmen taking baths and drying clothes, and such accommodation and facilities are so provided, section seventy-seven of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, shall apply as if such accommodation and facilities had been provided under that section, provided that (a) cost of maintenance shall not be deemed to include any interest on capital expenditure so far as that expenditure was met out of money allocated from this fund, and (b) the contribution of the workmen to the cost of maintenance shall be reduced by the proportion which the money so allocated from the fund bears to the total capital expenditure.
(6) Payments out of and into the fund, and all other matters relating to the fund, and moneys standing to the credit of the fund (including temporary investments thereof) shall be made and regulated in such manner as the Minister of Mines, subject to the approval of the Treasury, may direct.
(7) The Minister of Mines shall in each year cause an account to be prepared and transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for examination showing the receipts into and issues out of the said fund in the financial year ended the thirty-first day of March preceding, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General shall certify and report upon the same, and such account and report shall be laid before Parliament.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEmoved, in subsection (1), after "There shall be constituted," to insert "in each of the districts mentioned in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Act." The noble Earl said: My noble friend will recollect that it was clearly understood that this matter would be brought forward again on Report.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Are you on the district committees?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, Clause 21. The point of my Amendments, which all stand or fall together, is this. By the scheme of the Bill a large fund is created to be devoted to purposes of social improvement, recreation, research, and education, but the expenditure of this fund is in the hands of a specially appointed central committee, and so far as the words of the Bill go it looks as if this money would he spent wholly or mainly on big central objects. The purport of my Amendments is to divide this fund up so that there should be a fund in each district, and the fund of each district should be used for the scheduled purposes in respect of that district. But I further suggest that on the recommendation of the National Board to the Central Committee one-tenth of the fund in each district may be taken for some general purpose affecting the miners as a class, and not affecting them in any one locality. The nation has great reason to resent the attitude to it of Mr. Smillie and of those who act with him in making representations to the Government on behalf of the miners; but although the nation resents Mr. Smillie's attitude, it never associates with that attitude the miners themselves. It puts down Mr. Smillie's action to the faulty constitution of the Miners' Federation, and it never will forget the splendid part the miners played in the war.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: They, in a greater degree perhaps than almost any other class of the community, rallied to the Colours in the hour of danger. Therefore I think we all rejoice to see that this fund is to be established. It is a very large fund. It appears to be a fund that will eventually reach five and a-half millions sterling, which will then I understand be the capital of the fund, the interest on which will be administered for the purposes of

1145
social improvement, recreation, education, and research.
What some of us fear is that this will become a general fund and, though used for purposes no doubt excellent in themselves, that it will lose all association with the men who have worked in the districts from which the fund has been derived. If you look at the Schedule you will see that the districts are all large districts. You have Fife and Clackmannan, the Lothians, and Lanarkshire. The vast majority of these are whole counties. Or you may have the South Wales coalfields. I suggest that the county area is a very real area for all purposes of English life, and that the miners who belong to a given county, such as Cumberland, ought not to have the benefit of the money contributed from the Cornish mines for the purposes of social improvement, recreation, and education.
It is very important that the miners should associate this fund with their own locality and with the work they have done in the mines from which the fund is drawn. They should not come to regard it, as surely they will otherwise, as a central Lind taken from, heaven knows where, which comes to them like manna from heaven and has no connection with them or their work, and is administered by a Central Committee in London without any reference to the individual requirements of Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Cumberland, Warwickshire, Kent, and so on.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
TEE EARL OF SELEORNE: We think, in fact, that there is the greatest possible advantage in identifying the fund with the district, and making it the exception and not the rule that the fund should contribute to a central fund to be administered for the whole of the mining industry throughout England, Wales, and Scotland. That is the object of my Amendments. I suggest that we take the discussion of this first Amendment, because if that is carried everything else becomes consequential. If that is lost, it will indicate that the House does not approve of the suggestion I have made.
Amendment, moved—
Page 14, line 33, after ("constituted") insert ("in each of the districts mentioned in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Act").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was rebuked at an earlier stage of the proceedings because I asked your Lordships to reverse a decision at which you had arrived on the Committee stage—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This was by arrangement.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not object to it at all, because I think anybody is perjectly justified in asking the House to reconsider its decision. I am only pointing out that there is some inconsistency in the action of gentlemen opposite, and that I feel perfectly justified in the action I took. I ask the House in this case to adhere to a decision which was arrived at in Committee, and to adhere to a decision reached not only after a long discussion but after a definite compromise had been arrived at as well.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No, no.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Earl was not here. I will state what I mean by compromise. There was a special Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Joicey that in the spending of the money by this central committee there should be consultation with the districts, and he withdrew his Amendment on that under-standing—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I really must protest against the attitude of the noble Viscount, because, it I may venture to say so, I think he is misleading your Lordships. It was never accepted. The Amendment, was undoubtedly put in, but I rose in my place immediately and said that the compromise m as unsatisfactory. It was the old compromise of the oyster and the shell. The Government got the oyster and we got the shell. There was nothing in it. I protested against it and said we should raise the matter again at the next stage.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not understand that the noble Lord was to raise it again at the next stage. Of course, all compromises are unsatisfactory; neither side likes them. At all events no further action was taken upon it. I will deal with the case on its merits. All I am asking your Lordships to do is to say that this fund, so raised, should be spent, after consultation with the districts, under the general directions of

1147
this committee of five persons who are set up under the Bill, and who, I understand, the noble Earl wishes to retain under the Bill.
Before I deal with the question of principle, may I say that I do not quite understand what this committee of five are going to do, because it is only under certain circumstances that they may spend on general objects one-tenth of the fund so raised. If that is all they are going to do it would obviously be hardly worth while to go to the trouble and expense of setting up this particular committee. At all events, the point is that this fund which is raised from 1d. per ton on coal is raised upon the industry all over the country and should be administered by a central committee. That is the proposal of the Government. The proposal of the noble Earl is that the money coming out of particular districts should be spent in those districts: that for this purpose the coal industry should be treated as split up into a number of units, instead of being treated as one industry.
He said, first of all, that the miners would not pay much attention to this money if it came from a central unit, but would be much more interested in it if it came from their own district. I do not know whether the noble Earl is familiar with miners, but I do not think they would make much trouble as to where the money came from so long as it was going to be spent on objects of which they approved. If you isolate the expenditure in the different districts you split up the whole industry into certain specific districts; whereas the object of rasing this money was that it should be spent generally in the interest of the industry as a whole.
Moreover there are a good many objects, as the noble Lord knows, for which this money can be spent. A great many of these objects are rather apt to, or certainly may, overlap or interfere with or affect schemes made by other authorities, such as the Ministry of Health, the education authority, and so on, because the money can be spent on recreation, on matters of health, and on matters of education. Therefore for good administration it is very important that you should have some central board that can be in touch with these great central organisations, and which will be able to decide whether or not the expenditure of this money does or does not
1148
overlap, or does or does not conflict with an object that has been otherwise carried out. If you do not do that, if you split up into districts what will happen, I suppose, will be this, that instead of the Board deciding it on general and, let us hope, impartial principles, you will have all these matters brought back to the Ministry itself, who will have to decide, with the natural consequence that you will get politics introduced into the expenditure of this money. I respectfully suggest that that would be a great misfortune, and it would be better to allow this money to be spent by this independent body of five persons who will have a general knowledge of the whole situation, who will be able to expend the money in the best interests of the trade, and who will not be exposed, as a Minister must necessarily be exposed, to
the pressure of political interests, which inevitably must affect a Minister when he is spending public money.
I urge on my noble friend that the suggestion which was repudiated by the noble Marquess is not really so bad a corn-promise, because you place the general responsibility for the spending of the fund on the central body, but they are bound to consult these local or district bodies and to ascertain from them therefore the general wishes of the locality. That is a middle way between entire centralisation and total decentralisation, and I submit that it is a fair compromise.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My noble friend quite unintentionally has misrepresented the affect of my Amendment. I leave the central committee exactly as it is to administer the whole fund, only the instruction is that it is to administer in each district money raised in that district, to the extent of one-tenth, on the request of the National Board.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That, I think, would be very much confining the usefulness of the fund, if only one-tenth can be spent.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is £500,000.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes, but that is quite different from £5,000,000, and it is not much use. You must either have centralisation or decentralisation. It is very little use setting up this central board and telling them they must spend in the locality the money raised in the locality.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not the whole of the money.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Well, nine-tenths of the money; that is, the great bulk of the money.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The rest of the Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 14, line 35, after ("mines") insert ("the district").
Page 14, line 36, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").
Page 14, line 38, leave out ("and subject to the consent of the Board of Trade ").
Page 14, line 39, after ("mine") insert ("in each district").
Page 14, Page 15, line 2, after ("fund") insert (" for the district ").
Page 14, line 7, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").
Page 14, line 12, after ("allocating") insert ("in each district").
Page 14, line 13, after ("fund") insert ("in the district").
Page 14, line 15, leave out ("Ministry of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").
Page 14, line 16, leave out ("him") and insert ("the Board of Trade").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have a drafting Amendment here.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 29, after ("Committee") insert ("if any").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have other consequential Amendments here.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 29, at end insert:
("Provided further that upon a recommendation in that behalf made from time to time by the National Board the said fund to an amount not exceeding one tenth of the aggregate annual total thereof for all the districts may, if the Committee think fit, be applied in any year to purposes authorised by this section being of benefit to the interests of workers in or about coal mines either generally or in more than one district").
Page 15, line 31, after ("fund") insert ("in a district").
Page 15, line 34, after ("fund") insert ("in the said district").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD VERNONmoved to omit the proviso at the end of subsection (4), and to insert "grants may be made out of this fund for building or improving the dwelling houses of workers in or about any coal mine, provided that any such grant shall not exceed the amount contributed to the fund by that coal mine."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I would ask permission to read one paragraph from the Report on which this clause is based, the Interim Report of the Sankey Commission, and I would draw attention to the fact that it was signed not by the miners but by Mr. Justice Sankey himself, and the other three independent members—namely, Mr. Arthur Balfour, Sir Arthur Duckham and Sir Thomas Roy-den, and it is therefore not prejudiced. Paragraph 21 says—
"Evidence has been placed before the Commission as to the housing accommodation of the colliery workers in various districts. Although it is true that there is good housing accommodation in certain districts—and to some extent —there are houses in some districts which are a reproach to our civilisation. No judicial language is sufficiently strong or sufficiently severe to apply to their condemnation."
Paragraph 22 goes on to say that this fund shall be raised at a rate of 1d. per ton to include the housing and amenities of each particular coliery district.
As a coal owner myself I entirely agree with what Lord Joicey said during the Committee stage, that there are many collieries where things have been done properly in the past, but I cannot see that this is any reason why the provision which was recommended in the Report should not be carried out with reference to those collieries where the conditions are bad. I would even go further. I think it is a pity, when the Government get a Report of this kind, that they can devise no means of penalising the owners who have very bad conditions indeed. However that may be, a year after this Report the Government brings in this Bill, in which they set up the fund recommended by the Commission, and the one thing which is definitely excluded as being the only thing the money cannot be spent on is housing. About nine-tenths of the evidence, filling many pages of the Blue Book which contained the Report of the Commission was on this very subject of housing. It was the one point with regard to social well-being, as laid down in the Bill, to which great attention was devoted. It

1151
therefore does seem a most extraordinary procedure to bring in a clause which establishes this fund, and then exclude the one object for which those who originated the fund first thought of it.
Furthermore, the creation of this very large fund of £5,000,000 to be spent on somewhat vague objects, is a very different matter when you have the recommendation of a Commission which has gone into the whole matter in the greatest possible detail and heard many witnesses. It might be said, "Well, on the strength of all that the Commission have done in the way of investigation we can go in for these vague objects." The way it has been done is quite different, because these vague objects to which the money is to be devoted were never considered at all by the Coal Commission, and have never been investigated by anybody. Housing is the first condition of social well-being, and much has been said upon it by many members of the Cabinet.
I understand that the reason why this provision was inserted in another place was that it was stated that there would be overlapping with the other housing schemes of the Government. Personally, I fail to see why the money in this fund cannot be available without in any way interfering with the administration of a housing scheme by another Department. It is purely a question of money, and one has only got to walk round the country or. for that matter, quite close to your Lordships' House, to see placards inviting the public to subscribe to Housing Bonds. I cannot personally see why this money should not be usefully devoted to the same purpose. Furthermore, if the money is diverted from housing to these schemes of recreation and social well-being, which are so ill-defined, it only means that the £1,000,000 which would otherwise be available for housing next spring, would have to come out of the taxpayer's pocket. I would further point out to the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, that there is nothing compulsory about this Amendment. It merely says that the money may be used for housing; it does not in any way force the Central Committee so to use it.
The second part of the Amendment, which limits the amount subscribed by the mine in question, is necessary because the Government have decided that the coal industry is to be decontrolled as soon as possible, and it would obviously be bad
1152
if, when that time came, the owner of bad houses was being subsidised by the men who had spent money on good ones. I would urge upon your Lordships the importance of this matter, because we are dealing with no less than £1,000,000 of public money, which, for the first year at any rate, comes out of the taxpayers' pockets. It is definitely laid down in the Bill that it is to be treated as working expenses, and so long as control goes on it does not come out of the owner's pocket because he is guaranteed his fixed profit, and it conies out of the pool. if it did not come out of the pool it would conic out of the Exchequer. Therefore that £1,000,000 is quite definitely to come out of the Exchequer. For that reason, my Lords, I hope that you will pass this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, lines 35 to 37, leave out from ("desirable") to the end of subsection (4), and insert ("grants may be made out of this fund for building or improving the dwelling houses of workers in or about any coal mine, provided that any such grant shall not exceed the amount contributed to the fund by that coal mine").—(Lord Vernon.)
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Before the noble Viscount replies, I would appeal to him to accept this Amendment after the excellent case which has been made for it by my noble friend Lord Vernon. I do not want to go into the larger subject, but I have the strongest possible opinion that in the future it will be found absolutely necessary to force public companies to deal with their own housing when they require additional accommodation. The objection that might be made to giving the whole of this money to housing, if it could be done as a national question as is proposed by the Government, would be not merely the objection put up in another place, to which my noble friend alluded, but the objection that those who had been behindhand in housing would profit under the Bill, while collieries which had been more considerate would lose. That is entirely prevented by the Amendment, because my noble friend particularly suggests that any such grant shall not exceed the amount contributed to the fund by the coal mine in question.
If the noble Viscount rejects the Amendment it really means that the Government propose to say that while there shall be a fund for luxuries in a particular locality, the luxuries may be provided while the

1153
necessaries have to wait until, perhaps, the distant future when the localities can deal with it. That is really why I hope the noble Viscount will accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think your Lordships will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, made a vigorous and well-argued speech in favour of allowing this fund to be used for the building of houses. He was supported by my noble friend Lord Midleton, who, when the Housing Bill was before this House, expressed the desire that the building of houses should be made an incident of a particular industry. The effect of the Amendment moved by Lord Vernon is, of course, that the whole or part of this fund which has been collected for the purpose of research, recreation, education, and other matters, may be spent upon housing.
My noble friend asks why it should not be spent upon housing. There are three grave reasons against it. First of all, very large sums are being spent by the taxpayer and smaller sums by the ratepayer, as noble Lords well know, on this matter of housing. Local authorities are, as we all know, in a grave difficulty about building houses. They are looking about them in all directions to try and limit their liabilities in this regard, and I think it is quite clear that if it once gets about that here is a large sum of money which may be spent on housing, not one shilling will be spent by local authorities, these houses will not be built for the miners, and you will be starving that immense industry of its houses. That alone Seems to me to be absolutely conclusive against accepting my noble friend's suggestion.
Again, his Amendment renders it completely abortive. It says, "provided that any such grant shall not exceed the amount contributed to the fund by that coal mine." This is a fund for the whole of the industry of the country, and there is £1,000,000 a year to be drawn. The amount provided by each coal mine would produce how many houses?
LORD VERNON: Six.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It might in some cases produce half a house a year or, possibly, one house in about five years. What would be the effect of it? You would, in those cases, draw out the whole of the fund provided for the recreation of the men. Your Lordships have already made
1154
your decision that the sum shall be spent locally and not generally. There would be indignation in the coal mines because the men would find they were getting nothing for education or recreation, but it was all being spent on houses which ought to be built by the local authorities, and which the men know ought to be built by the local authorities. With all respect to the noble Lord who so vigorously advocated this Amendment, I cannot imagine any suggestion which would produce such desperation and such trouble in the mining industry. The men would say, "There is money put up on the one hand to build houses which the local authority have the duty of spending. The local authority are spending this other money in building our houses; we have one or two houses built out of this fund, and all the hopes we had as to recreation, education, and so on, from this fund are going to be absolutely destroyed." I hope that your Lordships will not support this Amendment, which I consider would be most damaging to the harmony of the industry and to the way in which this fund will be spent.
LORD GAINFORD: I can only speak for my own district in this matter, but I am quite sure that the money which is raised in the coal industry of Northumberland and Durham ought not to be diverted to housing. The miners are very well represented on our various local authorities, which are thoroughly qualified to look after housing schemes. I have just been making a calculation that in the five years at a comparatively fair colliery, raising say five thousand tons a week, which is a quarter of a million tons a year, if the fund was only raised in fivepences, it would realise something like £5,200.
VISCOUNT PEEL: In five years,
LORD GAINFORD: In the five years. That would mean that half-a-dozen houses would be put up in five years in connexion with improved housing accommodation at the colliery. The thing really would not work on the lines suggested by Lord Vernon, and I suggest that it should not be pressed to a division.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The speech made by Lord Gainford introduces an element of difficulty, for it is no use

1155
enacting what may not be operative. It is a most astonishing thing when you read the clause. Here we have a clause raising a fund for the social well-being, recreation, and improved conditions of living of the workers. The subject which most constitutes their well-being and improves their conditions of life is excluded expressly by the Bill. That really is the proposal as the Government have presented it. The thing which every social reformer considers most important for the social well-being of the people is housing, and it is expressly barred by the terms of the Bill. It is a most astonishing proposal. I admit the argument of Lord Gainford, who speaks with experience, that there may be minor improvements in housing which might be extremely valuable and which will only absorb part of the fund; but these are absolutely barred by the Government. It is really most astonishing that we should have a clause which admits cinemas and excludes improvements in housing. Gardens, I suppose, would be excluded. It is surely a most astonishing proposal.
LORD TREOWEN: I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. On first reading the Bill this provision was one upon which I fixed as one I should like to have amended, but on going more closely into the matter I realised the great difficulty there would be of dealing with it or effecting Anything substantial by an alteration. With regard to the latter part of the Amendment, which limits the amount that can be taken from certain districts, I can say from my own knowledge of South Wales that it would be absolutely impossible. There are certain collieries there which are very poor, and not a great distance away there are rich collieries. It depends on the character of the coal they have to work, and the need for improvement in houses is invariably in the neighbourhood of poor pits. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Marquess says it is a most astonishing thing that housing should be excluded. That seems to me a most astonishing argument coming from the noble Marquess. Only a few months ago we passed a tremendous Bill dealing with the whole housing of the country, and when you have placed the duty of dealing with this problem on a particular Department it is not necessary to bring in another Bill dealing with
1156
housing. For Heaven's sake let one authority deal with it and one authority alone— I commend that advice to the noble Marquess.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: But the one Department to whom we have entrusted the work has not done it, and as far as we can see is incapable of doing it. I hope, however, the Amendment will not be pressed. At the same time I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether he would be prepared to agree to a compromise that the words "Provided that in no case shall any grant be made out of the fund for building or repairing of dwelling-houses," should be taken out. They were not in the Bill as originally drafted. They were put in in the House of Commons, and they do seem to me to fetter unnecessarily the discretion of the Central Committee. It is quite easy to imagine cases in which a contribution might be made but which would be debarred by these words.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I hope the noble Earl will not press any such Amendment because the effect of leaving out those two lines would be to allow the money to be used to housing. They were put in in order to prevent it.
LORD VERNON: I understand that a large proportion of the money for housing is to be provided by the Exchequer, and therefore it is purely an Exchequer question. It appeared to me that by my Amendment the tax-payer might be saved at least half-a-million pounds, but in view of what has been said I will not, of course, press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MIDLETONmoved to omit the proviso at the end of subsection (4), which read—.
Provided that in no case shall any grant be made out of the fund for building or repairing of dwelling-houses.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I submit that this Amendment is out of order, because it is the subject we have been discussing. If your Lordships leave out these two lines it would mean that this money could be spent on housing.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not at all. The noble Lord proposed to leave

1157
out words and insert other words. I suggest that he should persist in moving his Amendment so far as leaving out the words are concerned, and then he would be wiser not to move the insertion of the other words
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has withdrawn his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then I move to omit the proviso at the end of subsection (4).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Has not a decision been reached on that point?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I submit that the withdrawal of an Amendment is not a decision. If it had been negatived it would have been a decision. That is a well-established Parliamentary Practice.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The next are all consequential Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 10, after ("fund") insert ("in each district")
Amendment moved—
Clause 21, page 15, lines 35 to 37, leave out from ("desirable") to the end of subsection(4). —(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not want to speak again but this is exactly the same subject over again. The noble Lord has withdrawn his Amendment and now the noble Marquess wants to insert language which would allow of this money being spent on housing. I do not wish to state again the arguments against it. We must oppose it if it is pressed.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am well acquainted with many colliery districts in the country and I hope your Lordships will not accept the Amendment. I look upon it as a serious blow to the erection of new houses for our colliers.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 25.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Peel, V.

Ranksborough, L.

Bath, M.

Roe, L.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Rotherham, L.

Bradford, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Sinha, L.

Eldon, E.

Clwyd, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Astor, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Sudeley, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Gainford, L.

Swaythling, L.

Chilston, V.

Harris, L.

Treowen, L.

Goschen, V.

Hylton, L.

Wavertree, L.

Hood, V.

Islington, L.

Wester Wemyss, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

O'Hagan, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Queenborough, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Morton, E.

Ebury, L.

Bedford, D.

Selborne, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Stanhope, E.

Salisbury, M.

Erskine, L. [Teller.]

Chaplin, V.

Hindlip, L.

Abingdon, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore. [Teller.]

Denbigh, E.

Ampthill, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Askwith, L.

Leigh, L.

Avebury, L.

Sumner, L.

Jersey, E.

Denman, L.

Vernon, L.

Midleton, E.

Desborough, L.

Page 16, line 13, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Page 16,line 15, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Page 16,line 18, after ("fund") insert "in the several districts").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 22:
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: These are all consequential Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 24, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Page 16, line 25, leave out ("he") and insert ("the Board").
Page 16, Page 16, line 26, leave out ("he") and insert ("the Board")
Page 16, line 27, leave out ("his") and insert ("their")
Page 16, line 33, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 23:
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 39, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Page 16, line 40, leave out ("he considers") and insert ("they consider").
Page 16, Page 17, line 1, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Page 16, line 2, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Page 16, lines 15 and 16, leave out ('Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade'")
Page 16, line 17, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Page 16, line 19, leave out ("him") and insert ("the Board").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 24:
Amendments moved—
Page 17, line 21, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Page 17, lines 23 and 24, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Page 17, line 24, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Page 17, line 28, leave out ("Minister of Mines and his") and insert ("Board of Trade and their").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 26:
LORD GAINFORD: I desire to ask whether the definition of "mines" ought to be amended with a view to excluding stratified iron-stone mines. The Cleveland iron-stone mines, by an arrangement with the Government, I believe, are not to be included at any rate in Part II of the Bill and in certain provisions of Part III of the Bill, but they are not satisfied, as they
1160
are advised by their legal adviser, that there are words sufficient in the Bill to exclude them from the operations of Part II and of part of Part III; and I should rather like to know whether, in the opinion of the Government, they are excluded, or whether this definition of mines ought to be so altered as to exclude them.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I understand that Part II and Section 21 of Part III do not apply. They apply to coal mines only, and the rest of the Bill applies to mines generally.
Clause 27:
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 10, leave out ("Ministry of Mines") and insert ("Mining Industry").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule:
Amendments moved—
Page 19, line 7, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Page 19, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("including the Board of Trade")
Page 19, line 10, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Page 19, line 15, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Page 19, line 18, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Page 19, lines 22 and 23, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Title:
Amendment moved—
Page 1, leave out ("establish a Ministry") and insert ("provide for the better administration ").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) that the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am only desirous of meeting the convenience of your Lordships, and of the Government, but I understand there is a desire on the part of those who advise the Government to have a few moments in which to consider

1161
the Bill between Report and Third Reading. I think, if the Government agree, it would be easier to take the other Orders on the Paper first, and then come back to the Third Reading of this Bill afterwards. It seems to me that it might be right to postpone the Third Reading till to-morrow, for drafting purposes, but in any event we have been moving at such an immense pace that the draftsmen cannot be certain unless there is a little interval between the Report and the Third Reading.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In any case perhaps a little interval would be desirable, whether it be followed by the Third Reading or not. I should like to point out that there is very little of substance on the Order Paper now, because I believe that Lord Sumner is prepared to accept a proposal which I shall make to him in regard to the point he raised in connection with the Ministry of Food Bill. I see very little to provoke discussion until we come to Lord Salisbury's Question, on which I shall have a long statement to make. I suggest, therefore, that we postpone the Third Reading of the Mines Bill until a later stage in the evening.
Motion postponed accordingly.

PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to a Bill to authorise the increase of certain pensions. It is quite unnecessary for me to labour the point that, owing to the great cost of living during the last few years, the pensions granted previous to the outbreak of war, which might at that time have afforded more or less adequate means of livelihood to the pensioners, now entirely fail to meet that object. This matter was brought before the Cabinet, a Committee was appointed to consider it, evidence was taken, and the Bill was introduced into the House of Common authorising the increase of pensions. That Bill passed through another place and is now before your Lordships.
If your Lordships will look at the Bill you will see that in Clause 1 subsection (2) the pensioners to whom the clause applies are pensioners who, at the date of the passing of the measure, are in
1162
receipt of pensions granted before the outbreak of war—the words are "before the fourth day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen"—and, subject to the limitations laid down in Part II of the Schedule, pensions granted on and after that date. In the first place the clause applies to pensions granted, under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1914, to civil servants; secondly, under the Elementary School Teachers' (Superannuation) Acts, 1898 to 1912, or under the Code of Regulations for public elementary schools or under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, to English and Scottish teachers; thirdly, under the National School Teachers' (Ireland) Act, 1879, to Irish school teachers; and, fourthly, under the enactments relating to the pay and pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police, to members of those two forces. The Bill provides that the increases shall have effect as from April 1, 1920.
Clause 2 sets out the statutory conditions for the increase of pensions under this Bill, because it is not the intention of its framers that the increases of pensions shall apply to all pensioners, but only to those who, in the opinion of the framers, are at this moment suffering, or are liable to be suffering, from real hardships. In the first place, the pensioner must reside in the British Islands. In the second place, the pensioner must have attained the age of sixty years, or have retired on account of physical or mental infirmity, or, in the case of a pensioner who is a widow and is in receipt of a pension payable in respect of the services of her deceased husband, must have attained the age of forty years. In the third place, the pension authorities must be satisfied that the pensioner's means, including pension, are less than £150 a year, if unmarried, or £200 a year, if married.
Clause 3 deals with the cases of police pensioners. It is proposed to grant an increase of pension to those who do not come within the four classes I have mentioned as being comprised in Clause 1. Your Lordships will see in this clause that the Treasury, after consultation with the appropriate Government Department, may by Order authorise the application of the foregoing provisions, including the Schedule, to pensioners in receipt of pensions granted by any police, local, or other public authority, and thereupon such police, local, or other public authority shall apply

1163
such provision to pensions granted by them. Roughly speaking, I think the clause applies only to the English and Scottish police. As I have already mentioned, the Irish police are included under the provisions of Clause 1. Your Lordships will, no doubt, note, with regard to pensioners in Clause 3, that half the cost will fall on the Treasury and half on the rates.
I do not think I need say anything about the other clauses which appear to be mostly of a definition character. Part I of the Schedule gives the limitation to the amount of the increase of pensions, and Part II provides an additional limitation on pensions granted after August 4, 1914. Your Lordships will, no doubt, be interested to know that if this Bill is passed the total cost to the Exchequer of the increase of pensions is estimated at not more than £850,000 in the first year. The Bill does not provide for the increase of Naval and Military pensions, but additions to those pensions, corresponding to those provided in the Bill, will, I am informed, be made in the ordinary constitutional manner by Order in Council and Royal Warrant. With regard to the cost of these pensions and the number of persons affected I need not trouble your Lordships now.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a and passed.

TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, this Bill follows the normal custom where capital outlay is required for the improvement and development of the telephone system. The last Bill of this character was passed in 1913. This corresponds to that Bill in method and in the amount of money involved. It authorises the Treasury to raise a further sum of £10,000,000 for telephone development and the actual expenditure year by year is, of course, subject to Treasury control.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a and passed.

INDEMNITY BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Right to compensation for acts done in pursuance of prerogative and other powers.
(6) A person may be compelled to attend and give evidence or produce documents in proceedings before the said Board of Arbitration or War Compensation Court in like manner as in proceedings before an arbitrator, and the Board or War Compensation Court shall have power to require any person appearing before them to give evidence on oath and to authorise any person to administer an oath for that purpose.
THE LORD CHANCELLORhad an Amendment on the Paper, after subsection (6) to insert the following words: "and the Board or Court shall have power to award and assess such sums by way of costs as they in their discretion may think just." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment gives effect to a suggestion made by my noble and learned friend Lord Sumner in the early stages of this discussion, and I think on the balance of the argument that justice will be met by inserting this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 6, line 5, after ("purpose") insert. ("and the Board or Court shall have power to award and assess such sums by way of costs as they in their discretion may think just").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MINISTRY OF FOOD (CONTINUANCE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (The Earl of Cranford.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I desire to submit an Amendment dealing with the

1165
point raised by Lord Sumner yesterday. The terms of the Amendment are as follow: In the Schedule at the end of paragraph (2), insert "And the arbitrator shall not be bound by any provisions contained in any of the said Regulations as to the principles on which compensation or price is to be determined." At the instance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has gone into this matter, and he agrees that the points raised by Lord Sumner yesterday are adequately met by the words I propose. In point of fact I think they meet the contention that paragraph (2) of the Schedule was a direction to the arbitrator to act in a reasonable manner. It did not exclude the principles as to assessment of compensation under the Regulations continued by the Bill, some of which, as Lord Sumner did not fail to remind us, have been recently declared by the Courts of Justice to be illegal. I hope that this Amendment will meet the point, and that the noble and learned Lord will be satisfied with the alteration proposed.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 20, at the end insert ("and the arbitrator shall not be bound by any provisions contained in any of the said regulations as to the principles on which compensation or price is to be determined").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

BLIND PERSONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF DONOLIGFIMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (VISCOUNT AST0R): My Lords, owing to a misunderstanding there are one or two small Amendments to this Bill which were not circulated to your Lordships. The first Amendment that I have to move is in subsection (1) of Clause 2, to leave out the words "within six months of this Act coming into operation" and to insert "within twelve months after the passing of this Act prepare and submit to the Minister of Health any scheme for the exercise of their powers under this section." Your Lordships will remember that a duty has been imposed upon county councils to make provision for the blind, and the Bill has provided that they are to be given six months in which they are to prepare schemes. My right hon. friend the Minister for Health had intended to accept an Amendment on the Report stage in the House of Commons increasing that period to twelve months, but unfortunately the Member who had put the proposal down on the Paper was not present. I am therefore asking your Lordships to insert it in the Bill now. I may say that this has the support of the County Councils Association.
Amendment moved—
Page". 1, lines 20 and 21, leave out ("within six months of this Act coming into operation") and insert ("within twelve months after the passing of this Act prepare and submit to the Minister of Health a scheme for the exercise of their powers under this section").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I have to move a certain number of Amendments to this clause which are purely drafting—they have been sent to me by the Scottish Office—in order to make the Bill applicable to Scotland.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, lines 19 to 21, leave out ("the section relating to the power of local authorities to promote welfare of blind persons") and insert ("Section 2")
Page 4, line 21, leave out ("paragraph (c)") and insert ("paragraphs (d) and (e)")
Page 4, lines 21 and 22, leave out ("the section relating to charities for the blind") and insect ("Section 3")
Page 4, after line 23 insert the following new paragraph:
("(b) the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (6) of Section 2:
(6) Education authorities under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, shall make or otherwise secure adequate and suitable provision for the technical education of blind persons ordinarily resident in their areas who are capable of receiving and being benefited by such education").(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, leave out ("sixth day of August") and insert ("tenth day of September").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendments reported; Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SCOTTISH FISHING BOATS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.
POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH BILL.
Committee negatived: Bill read 3a and passed.
CENSUS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendments.
CENSUS BILL. [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  [The references are to the Bill as amended in Committee.]
  Clause 1, page 2, line 7, after ("order") insert:
  ("Provided that if by part of any such order it is proposed to prescribe any particulars with respect to any of the matters mentioned in paragraph 8 of the Schedule to this Act, that part of the order shall not have effect unless both Houses by resolution approve that part of the draft, or, if any modifications in that part are agreed to by both Houses, except as so modified.")
  Clause 2, page 2, line 21, at end insert:
  ("(3) Any expenses incurred with the sanction of the Treasury by the Minister of Health or the Registrar-General in connection with the taking of a census or otherwise in connection with the exercise of his powers or the performance of his
  1168
  duties under this Act shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament."
  Clause 4, page 3, line 33, after ("request") insert ("and cost").
  Clause 6, page 4, line 7, leave out ("by a local authority").
  Clause 6, line 8, after ("Health") insert ("by a local authority to which this section applies").
  Clause 6, line 30, leave out from ("an beginning, to") in line 37, and insert:
  ("(3) The local authorities to which this section applies are the common council of the City of London, Metropolitan borough councils, the councils of counties, the councils of boroughs, and urban district councils.
  "Provided that, without prejudice to the power of any other authority being a local authority to which this sect ion applies to make an application under this section.")
  After Clause 6, insert new clause A:
  Expenses of local authorities.
  A. Any expenses incurred in connection with the taking of a census under this Act in pursuance of an application made by a local authority, including the publication of any reports or returns relating to the census, shall be paid by the local authority by which the application for the census was made, and any expenses so incurred, and any other expenses incurred by a local authority under this Act, shall be defrayed in the case of the common council of the City of London and a metropolitan borough out of the general rate, in the case of a county council as expenses for general county purposes, and in the case of other councils as expenses incurred in the administration of the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1908.
  Clause 7, page 5, line 23, after ("person") insert ("otherwise than in the ordinary course of such employment").
  Clause 8, page 5, line 38, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 40 and insert:
  ("(2) The local authorities to which the section of this Act relating to the taking of a local census applies shall be the councils of counties and burghs, and any expenses incurred by such councils under this Act shall be defrayed in the case of a county council out of the general purposes rate, and in the case of a town council out of the burgh general improvement assessment or any other assessment leviable in equal proportions on owners and occupiers, provided that the ratepayers of a police burgh shall not be assessed by the county council for any such expenses").
  In the Schedule, page 7, leave out lines 7 and 8\
  In the Schedule, page 7, line 9, leave out ("parentage")
  In the Schedule, page 7, line 10, after ("issue") insert ("born in marriage").
  VISCOUNT ASTOR: I beg to move that the said Amendments be now considered. I hope that your Lordships will agree to all the Amendments which have been made in another place. They are mostly drafting, and those which are not drafting are to strengthen the control of Parliament over the Ministry. I do not know if your Lord-

  1169
  ships desire to ask any questions on any particular Amendment. I suggest that the Amendments should be agreed to.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— (Viscount Astor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  KARACHI TROOP TRAIN INCIDENT.
  LORD AMPTHILLrose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are willing to publish the official correspondence relating to the "Karachi Troop Train Incident," including the proceedings and findings of the Court of Inquiry held on the incident, the memorial submitted by Major-General D. Shaw to the Secretary of State and the correspondence between him and the India Office, and, if not, why not; and to move for Papers.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question and to make the Motion which stand in my name on the Notice Paper. It may be that some of your Lordships share the opinion which is held in some quarters to the effect that I am unduly persistent in this matter. If that is so I would only ask, Which of your Lordships, being convinced that any person or persons had been unjustly treated in a matter in which redress could only be obtained in Parliament, and having regard to your Lordships' duties and responsibilities as Members of one of the Houses of Legislature, would leave a single stone unturned to obtain redress of that injustice?
  Injustice to an individual in respect of official conduct is a matter of serious public importance, as the contentment, good order, and loyalty of a community depend first and foremost upon faith in the justice and impartiality of those in authority. When a large number of persons is convinced that those in the highest authority have treated an individual —particularly an official—unfairly, the fertile seeds of discontent are sown, and the result is that the credit of government and of those in authority is impaired. Most particularly is this the case when the man who has been made to suffer unfairly is an officer of one of those great public services upon whose loyalty and confidence in authority we depend for the security and the stability of the State.
  1170
  Public servants look to Parliament for an impartial umpire when officialdom has given a mistaken decision, and it would be indeed a bad lookout if their confidence in this supreme court of appeal were ever to be seriously impaired. I am not going to recapitulate the whole of this story. It is already recorded in the proceedings of your Lordships' House, and the facts are established so far as this House is concerned. Nothing that the friends of General Shaw and Colonel Macnamara have said in speech or writing as to the essential facts has been denied or controverted. It is therefore unnecessary to recapitulate those facts. On the contrary, so far from their having been controverted or denied, the spokesman of the India Office—my noble friend Lord Sinha—has made some important, though, if he will allow me to say so unnecessarily grudging, admissions. It is with these admissions and with them alone that I propose to deal this evening.
  If the Government will publish the Papers I shall be well content to leave the rest to public opinion, for those Papers contain absolute proof of the truth of all that has been said on behalf of General Shaw and Colonel Macnamara. But even this publication of the Papers would be unnecessary if only the Secretary of State would admit fully and frankly the fact that the statement upon which General Shaw was condemned and punished was entirely unfounded and inaccurate. That is all I ask the Secretary of State to do; and quite frankly I cannot understand why he is unwilling to do it, seeing that he himself has in express terms dissociated himself from that condemnatory statement. I do not ask him to declare General Shaw blameless. General Shaw does not ask for that himself. I only ask him to remove a condemnation which is not only unjust but irregular. As soon as that is done, General Shaw can easily prove his own blamelessness if a fair opportunity is given to him and if it is considered necessary that the case should be tried again.
  The Secretary of State has offered a fresh Inquiry. No doubt we shall be told this again, and no doubt the Under-Secretary will lay great stress upon it. But let me remind your Lordships of what I have said on former occasions. That offer was made upon conditions which General Shaw could not be expected to accept. It is one thing to go before a Court as an innocent person and to have your case

  1171
  tried ab initio, but it is quite another thing to go as one who has been condemned, and condemned by the highest authorities, particularly if the Court is subordinate to, and dependent upon, those very authorities whose decision is impugned.
  The Secretary of State, feeling as he does that the condemnation was too sweeping, that it was in many respects inaccurate and required much modification, should have ordered a fresh Inquiry. He should have done so long ago, when he first looked into the case and formed an opinion. I have tried by private negotiation to get this matter cleared up in the very simple way that I have suggested—namely, that the condemnation should be withdrawn in as public and as full a manner as it was made. I have written not only to the present Secretary of State, but I have written to his predecessor, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, and I have written to his representative in this House. I have also asked them privately to fall in with my suggestion so as to avoid the necessity of troubling either this House or the other House of Parliament. with Questions and Motions. I hope that my noble friend Lord Sinha will allow me to refer to the private correspondence which I have recently had with him, as if I may do so it will bring me most quickly to the point.
  The point, is this. The statement on which General Shaw was condemned was contained in a telegram from the Government of India dated July 30, 1916. That telegram was read out in the House of Commons by the then Secretary of State, Mr. Austen Chamberlain. He stated that he concurred in the finding and in the decision of the Government of India. But he had at that time not seen the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry, in which there was evidence entirely inconsistent with this statement. The statement was that General Shaw knew that the responsible members of his staff were, with one exception, inexperienced, and that he took no steps and gave no orders to see that the safety or comfort of the troops was provided for.
  I and some of my friends have elicited in this House that this statement was entirely inaccurate, and the India Office have not even attempted to prove that it was accurate. I have the statement made by my noble friend on July 21, which was as follows
  1172
  "The Secretary of State.… considers and has always considered that the censure passed on Major-General Shaw and Colonel Macnamara was not in all respects accurate."
  Then the Under-Secretary went on to say that the Secretary of State, while disassociating himself from the censure "which requires much modification" (I hope your Lordships will bear these words in mind) was advised that General Shaw and his Assistant-Director of Medical Services did not act up to "the full scope of their responsibilities." It is on this phrase that I want, to press the Under-Secretary. It is a very vague and unsatisfactory phrase. I do not think anyone will maintain for a moment that it is sufficient to satisfy an ordinary person that punishment amounting to the utter ruin and discredit of an officer with nearly forty years' service, against whom there had never been an adverse report, was justified.
  In writing to my noble friend some days ago I asked him to explain clearly in what respect General Shaw failed to act up to the full scope of his responsibilities. I hope he will be able to do so, because I am not springing this question upon him. I gave him full and fair notice that that was what I was going to ask him to-day. But if he cannot do this, will he say where these responsibilities, which the Secretary of State has in mind, are defined. They are certainly not defined in the Regulations. I am fairly well acquainted with the Regulations for the Army, both in this country and in India, and I can find nothing to answer to a definition of those responsibilities. I have also asked the Under-Secretary to specify and definite the modification of the censure which the Secretary of States admits to be necessary. I quoted just now the words of the Secretary of State in which he said that the censure from which he dissociated himself required much modification. What is the modification that is required? It would be an immense advantage to know exactly how far the Secretary of State admits that it was inaccurate and unfounded.
  I want to add two other questions. The first is—Is Mr. Montagu's opinion as to General Shaw's responsibility based upon ex parte and unofficial statements which have never been communicated to General Shaw? I have very good reasons for putting that question, and I hope that I shall receive an answer to it. Secondly,

  1173
  seeing that the Secretary of State at once, when he had to look into the case, dissociated himself from the censure, why did he not take steps to get it withdrawn? Why does he not take such steps now? He has the power to do so, and I submit he has the responsibility of doing so. He cannot wash his hands of the whole affair. It is an affair of his Department, and he cannot say "It is no affair of mine; I merely dissociate myself from it." I will ask my noble friend whether the Secretary himself is, in this matter, acting up to the full scope of his responsibilities, seeing that he cannot dissociate himself from anything that appertains to his Department.
  The Secretary of State himself has invalidated the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry so far as General Shaw was concerned by stating, as he did, through the mouth of Lord Sinha, that the Court which investigated the incident was not constituted, and did not deal with General Shaw's conduct in regard to the incident, in the manner prescribed by the Regulations. If anything invalidates a finding that statement does. There remains therefore (it is a logical consequence, from which you cannot escape) no authority whatever for the public statements in regard to General Shaw made so cruelly to the detriment and discredit of that officer by Mr. Austen Chamberlain in the House of Commons on information supplied to him by the Government of India. That is why I am asking that the unjust condemnation should be withdrawn as publicly and in as clear and explicit terms as those in which it was made.
  The noble Lord the Under-Secretary, speaking on July 21, said one of the things that the Court of Inquiry was asked to do was to indicate the persons liable for blame for the occurrence. "Liable to blame" is not synonymous with guilty. No man can be declared guilty until a charge has been brought against him, and proved before a competent tribunal. A mere statement that So-and-so is liable to blame does not in any way impair the innocence which we must attribute to every man, whatever charge may be brought against him, until he has been charged and condemned. Incidentally, I should like to say that the Under-Secretary has been misinformed by his Department in regard to several matters which were the subject of questions in this House—in regard to the Transport Regulations, and in regard to the assertions that General
  1174
  Shaw exceeded the Regulations on his own responsibility. I have here the Transport Regulations which were in force at that time, but I do not want to confuse the issue with any minor point. The only thing is, I do not want to pass over this opportunity without saying that I cannot accept the statements which the noble Lord was put up to make on these several points.
  The issue which I am putting to your Lordships is as simple as anything can be, and I shall state in terms of extreme moderation. General Shaw and Colonel Macnamara have been condemned and held up to odium in a manner which constituted the severest punishment, upon a statement which the Secretary of State himself admits to be inaccurate. The Secretary of State can, if he likes, declare that they were wrongly condemned. It is also open to him, if he thinks that they are liable to blame, to order—not to ask, but to order—that they shall be charged and tried—for those things have not yet been done. If he will not do this, will he let the public judge of the matter themselves by publishing the Papers. I beg to move.
  Moved, That there be laid on the Table of this House the official correspondence relating to the Karachi Troop Train Incident, including the proceedings and findings of the Court of Inquiry held on the incident, the memorial submitted by Major-General D. Shaw, to the Secretary of State and the correspondence between him and the India Office.—(Lord Ampthill.)
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD SINHA): My Lords, before I deal with the specific question which the noble Lord put at the end of his speech, I ought perhaps to say that, having regard to the time that has elapsed—the Karachi troop train incident took place in June, 1916, that is, more than four years ago, the Court of Inquiry submitted their Report in July of the same year, and the action taken by the Government of India with reference to General Shaw was also more than four years ago—it is impossible for the Secretary of State, who has more than once carefully considered the matter, to reopen the case, which was decided more than four years ago by his predecessor in office, and with regard to which he offered General Shaw the only possible alternative in his power—namely, a fresh Inquiry. Having regard to these facts the Secretary of State has come to the conclusion that

  1175
  there would be no justification for the presentation of Papers. In fact, he said that more than a year ago, when he was questioned on the subject and asked to lay Papers in the House of Commons in July last year.
  Coming to the merits of the question, I am not quite sure what exactly it is that the noble Lord wants the Secretary of State to do. I understood him to say—in fact he wrote me, as he said, to the same effect—that he does not ask the Secretary of State to declare that General Shaw is not liable to blame.
  LORD AMPTHILL: To declare that General Shaw is blameless, which is a rather different thing.
  LORD SINHA: He was held to be liable to blame by the Report upon which the Government of India took action. The Secretary of State, therefore, could not cancel the finding of that Report and declare that General Shaw was not liable to blame, except as the result of another Inquiry which he offered General Shaw more than three years ago, which he kept open for 2½ years, but which General Shaw refused some little time ago to accept because he said it was impossible for him to go out to India, or something of that kind. He was offered all his expenses, including legal expenses and the expense of staying there, and every facility for getting out every witness he wanted to be examined before the fresh Court of Inquiry.
  LORD AMPTHILL: My noble friend will misquote me. It is a very important point. I did not say that I do not ask the Secretary of State to declare General Shaw not liable to blame, but that I do not ask the Secretary of State to declare General Shaw blameless. That is a very different thing; there is all the difference in the world between being liable to blame and being blameless. I have admitted that the Court of Inquiry found General Shaw liable to blame, but that does not mean that he is blameworthy until it has been tried and proved.
  LORD SINHA: The Secretary of State, on the advice of the Military Committee at the India Office found it impossible to do anything more than offer General Shaw a fresh Inquiry on the ground that there were irregularities in the first Court of Inquiry
  1176
  that was held because there was no definite charge made against him, and that he had no opportunity of cross-examining witnesses and was not present throughout the Inquiry. That is the only thing the Secretary of State was advised he could do, and it was because he felt that some of the statements upon which Mr. Chamberlain based the statement that he made in the House of Commons were not strictly accurate and because of the irregularities in the procedure under the Regulations that he offered General Shaw the Inquiry I have mentioned. In those circumstances I venture to submit that it was not possible for the Secretary of State to do more than he did. After all, General Shaw is not complaining of the action that was taken either by the Commander-in-Chief or the Government of India in removing him from his command. That is not the point of complaint.
  LORD AMPTHILL: No.
  LORD SINHA: They had the right to do that without any Inquiry at all.
  LORD AMPTHILL: That is right.
  LORD SINHA: What General Shaw complains of, as I understand my noble friend, is the statement made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Chamberlain) in the House of Commons based upon the telegram from the Government of India, which, again, purported to be based upon the findings of the Court of Inquiry. With regard to that, the Secretary of State said more than two years ago that some of the statements in that telegram from the Government of India were not quite accurate. For example, it is not correct to say that General Shaw took no steps whatsoever to ensure the safety and comfort of the troops. He did take certain steps, but those steps were not sufficient. The Secretary of State and his advisers, both then and now, think that if General Shaw had acted up to the full scope of his responsibilities he would have taken further steps which, if they had not prevented the deplorable incidents that happened, would certainly have made them less probable.
  The noble Lord asked me to specify to what extent the Secretary of State had modified the condemnation which was pronounced by Mr. Chamberlain in the House of Commons. I was under the impression that I had already done so. I have to-day again endeavoured to make it

  1177
  clear to my noble friend as well as to this House that nobody ever intended to charge General Shaw with callous indifference either to the comfort or safety of the troops which were put into that train. Nobody has ever charged him with that. But what appeared from the evidence given before the Court of Inquiry, upon which the Government of India took action, was that General Shaw as officer commanding at Karachi did not personally see the troop-train nor view the conditions under which the journey across the desert was to be undertaken at the hottest time of the year; that the unsuitability of the normal conditions of train accommodation and scheduled times for unacclimatised British troops ought to have suggested itself to him; that it was open to him to make, on receipt of instructions regarding the diversion of the "Ballarat" to Karachi—and he received that information days before the steamer arrived—and in view of his local knowledge ought to have made, representations to Army headquarters of the danger of sending those troops across the desert at that time of the year. Even if he did not consider that such a representation was advisable, the Secretary of State was advised that he ought to have considered it advisable. And even though it might have meant some displeasure, so far as he himself was concerned, at Army Headquarters he might have issued better instructions to promote the comfort of the troops, which would have been advantageous, and the omission to take special measures to meet the abnormal conditions suggested a want of forethought on the part of an officer in his position, by reason of which the Government of India and the Commander-in-Chief were entitled to take and did take the action that they took—namely, to remove him from his command.
  I want to make it clear again that the present Secretary of State as well as Mr. Austen Chamberlain never intended to suggest that, in being blameworthy with respect to the omissions I have mentioned, General Shaw had been in any way guilty of callous indifference to the welfare, the comfort, and the safety of the troops concerned. The incident is four years old, action was taken four years ago, the matter has been twice considered by the Government of India and by two successive Secretaries of State on the advice of their military advisers, and it is impossible, the Secretary of State is advised, to do
  1178
  away altogether with the Report and findings of the Court of Inquiry. In those circumstances I venture to submit to your Lordships that it would serve no useful purpose to publish, and the Secretary of State does not consider he would be justified in publishing, the Papers in question.
  LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I cannot say that I am satisfied with the reply I have received, and I am perfectly certain that those of your Lordships who have done me the honour of attending to the matter cannot feel that it is in any way convincing. The reason given for saying that the presentation of Papers is not justified is that more than four years have elapsed since the incident took place, and that a fresh Court of Inquiry has been offered. If the Secretary of State would only lay these Papers your Lordships would see at once why General Shaw could not possibly accept the conditions on which the fresh Inquiry was offered. He has not refused a fresh Inquiry. What he has done is to say that he cannot accept the Inquiry on the particular conditions which were offered. The noble Lord has tried to palliate the matter by saying that no one has charged General Shaw with "callous indifference." I ask your Lordships whether the words in the telegram from the Government of India that General Shaw "knowing his staff was inexperienced"—an untruth— "took no steps and gave no orders," is not as direct a charge of callous indifference as could be made. That statement was not only inaccurate; it was deliberately and entirely untrue.
  The noble Lord has not satisfied me about this "defining the scope of General Shaw's responsibility." All that he has said is that General Shaw ought to have represented the danger of the journey. The noble Lord knows nothing about the Army or the responsibilities of a military officer. But let me say this. It was by, no means unusual to send troops that very journey at that time of the year. It had been done again and again, and there had been no previous trouble except in the case of the Connaught Rangers. Therefore he was not confronted with any unusual situation, and had every reason to think that these troops were sent that way because there was some urgent military necessity; and the officer who questions an order given to him, when he has reason

  1179
  to presume that it is given on account of military necessity, is simply asking to be dismissed from his post as unfit to hold it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  THE BENGALI REGIMENT.
  LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Bengali Regiment has been disbanded and whether the Government of India were satisfied with its military efficiency.
  LORD SINHA: My Lords, the 49th Bengali are being disbanded in the same way as other units raised during the war which are now surplus to requirements, but a part of the unit is being retained for the present. The unit was not well reported on whilst on field service in Mesopotamia.

  CHAPLAINS FOR MILITARY PATIENTS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYrose to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many military patients there are who have been transferred from the War Office to the Ministry of Pensions, and are still under treatment; what arrangements have been made for their spiritual care; how many hospitals devoted to the treatment of these patients require a full-time chaplain; whether these chaplains have been provided and what previous experience they have of hospital work; how many chaplains have been appointed to look after two or more hospitals; in how many cases officiating clergy have been appointed; what arrangements have been made in the Pensions Department in London for the supervision of these chaplains and officiating clergy; and what system of inspection has been set up.
  The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for having put this Question down at so late a period, but the truth is that I have been in communication with the Ministry of Pensions on this subject for many months past, and it was at the request of the Minister himself that I postponed it. The circumstances to which this Question alludes have arisen in this way. When the war was over the military patients under treatment were transferred from the care of the War Office to the care of the Ministry of Pensions. Every sort of precaution was taken with regard to their medical
  1180
  and nursing treatment, but one element was overlooked. It was quite forgotten what was to be done in respect of their spiritual care, and no chaplains were provided under the Ministry of Pensions to correspond with the military chaplains under the War Office.
  I need not tell your Lordships how very important the chaplain services are in connection with hospitals. It is more and more certain, according to modern medical and scientific experience, that the sort of help which chaplains can give is of tremendous importance in the cure of military patients, especially in all cases of shell-shock, in which there is a psychological side; the action of a minister of religion is of the greatest importance in the cure of patients suffering in this way. It is true in a lesser degree of patients who are not suffering from shell-shock, but especially true of those who are so suffering. It was, therefore, of vital importance to make this provision, and it was in consequence of a kind communication from the then Minister of Pensions that I ventured to interest myself in this subject. I may say that I have been connected for many years with the Chaplains Department of the War Office, and I therefore understood something of the subject.
  When these patients were transferred from military hospitals to the Ministry of Pensions the whole hospital was transferred, and they are still treated in hospitals devoted to them alone. In other cases these patients were in hospitals which were not specially military hospitals, but still under the care of the Government. It is necessary to provide for the spiritual ministrations of the patients in both kinds of hospitals. For that purpose you require a certain number of whole-time chaplains, and I am very anxious to know how many patients there are in these hospitals entirely devoted to military patients, and how many whole-time chaplains have been appointed. In some cases the hospitals are small, and whole-time chaplains can look after more than one such hospital. I want to know how many of these there are.
  There are three divisions—the large hospitals which occupy the whole time of a chaplain; small hospitals (more than one of which can be looked after by a whole-time chaplain); and then there are those patients in special hospitals who are looked after by officiating clergymen. I

  1181
  may say that "officiating clergymen," in the technical language of the War Office, is a minister of one denomination or another who is a civilian minister of religion, but who, in consideration of a certain remuneration, looks after military patients. I presume that a similar system is pursued under the Ministry of Pensions. They are all part of the Chaplains Department, and I ask the Government how many of each kind there are?
  I want to ask, in addition, what arrangements have been made at Headquarters for the supervision of this Chaplains Department? It is, of course, a very much smaller Department than that which existed under the War Office, but it is and must be a special Department, and there ought to be some central organisation at the Ministry of Pensions for the purpose of running it. Lastly, there ought to be a system of inspection. Your Lordships will realise that in the course of the war a great amount of experience was acquired, I am glad to say, of the proper action of chaplains in cases of this kind, of their duties and of the best method of treatment. An immense amount of knowledge was thus acquired of the particular methods of approaching a very sick man, and the sort of equipment and provision which you require in a large hospital. For instance, you require some small place corresponding to a chapel where the Sacrament can be administered, and among other things you require this special expert treatment of the sick. Therefore a system of inspection is of the greatest value. You want some first-rate expert chaplains at headquarters, whose business it shall be to inspect the chaplains in various parts of the country who are looking after these sick people, both in the hospitals where none but military patients are treated and in the civilian hospitals where only a few beds are occupied by military patients; that is to say, cases where whole-time chaplain's are used, and cases where the officiating clergy are used.
  I hope that a regular system of this kind has been set up, and that not only in the inspecting chaplains but in the whole-time chaplains themselves full use has been made of the great experience which has been gained in the war. It would be a thousand pities if this wonderful store of knowledge and experience were wasted. I urge this very much upon your Lordships. I am extremely sorry
  1182
  that it is so late in the session and that the natural fatigue which pursues us all makes it difficult to impress the House, but I am sure for any one who, like myself, has had the great privilege of being connected with these services the vital importance of them cannot be exaggerated.
  There is another aspect, and a pathetic aspect, which I would venture to urge upon the Government. After the Armistice was signed there was a curious change in public feeling and practies. Up to that date there was nothing that was not done for the Army, for the soldiers and for the military patients, but the moment the Armistice was signed people's minds were entirely changed, and were turned away, and nobody paid any more attention to this subject. It was a most lamentable result that all these sick people, who had had all sorts of visits and pleasures provided for them, were left to shift for themselves. Nobody went near them or endeavoured to make their lot happier. The whole thing closed down in a moment. Public attention was diverted elsewhere, and these patients were left deserted. At any rate, if a proper system of chaplains is created there will be some mitigation of that state of things, because you would have, wherever military patients are to be found, a minister of religion specially interested in seeing not only after their strictly spiritual care but after the little amenities and recreations which can be afforded them. He could also mobilise local public opinion to help them.
  This is not a matter of the Church of England only. I am speaking on behalf of patients of all denominations, and I am urging what I am sure the Government would desire to second, that ministers of all denominations should be provided for this service, whether Roman Catholic, Nonconformist, or Church of England. I hope that the Government. will not think I have said too much, and I confidently rely upon the answer of my noble friend to show that the Minister of Pensions is fully alive to the importance of this subject.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, it was quite unnecessary for Lord Salisbury to assure the House that the case which he has made out this afternoon was a case irrespective of the Anglican Church. For many months past Lord Salisbury has been in very close communication with the

  1183
  present Minister of Pensions, and indeed with his predecessor as well, with the desire of securing an improved administration of the chaplains branch as regards this remanent of wounded soldiers. As long ago as May of last year it was necessary to inform Lord Salisbury that in view of the small number of institutions concerned it was not considered necessary to set up a chaplains branch as such, but at the same time that the Chaplain-General of the War Office had consented to nominate any full-time chaplain who might be employed, and that in the meantime work would be allotted to officiating clergy.
  Let me now deal with the specific question put upon the Paper by Lord Salisbury. In the first place it should be clear that the majority of ex-Service men receiving treatment under the provisions of the Warrants administered by the Ministry of Pensions are accommodated in civil hospitals over which the Ministry of Pensions as such has and can have no control; but I understand that the ex-Service patients participate fully in the arrangements made for the spiritual welfare of the civil patients.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Which is not always very efficient.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Perhaps. But I will give the figures. There are at present 12,186 patients, including 1,159 serving soldiers, distributed amongst 90 hospitals and institutions under the direct or indirect control of the Ministry, of which over 60 have less than 100 occupied beds. Therefore it will be seen that some of the institutions where sick and wounded men are cared for are extremely small. Mr. Macpherson thoroughly appreciates the necessity of meeting in full the spiritual requirements of the patients; and recognises the wide influence, apart from his purely religious functions, of an efficient chaplain towards the physical recovery of patients, especially those suffering from neurasthenia and kindred complaints.
  The spiritual services of ministry hospitals are at present carried out by officiating clergy who are nominated by the superintendent of the hospital from members of the local clergy, and sanction has been obtained for their remuneration on a capitation basis where the number of patients of the particular denomination is fifty or over. Where the number is less
  1184
  than fifty arrangements are made by the superintendent for clergy of the denominations concerned to act in this capacity, though the Ministry has no power to remunerate such officers. The number of appointments up to date is as follows. Twenty -six appointments have been made of paid officiating clergy and twenty of these are clergy of the Church of England. In addition, a large number—upwards of fifty—have agreed to officiate without remuneration. Therefore, at the present moment we have got seventy-five or more chaplains or one chaplain to 165 patients. Assuming the distribution to be tolerably equal, this percentage would be by no means unsatisfactory. As regards the question about supervision, the immediate supervision of the officiating clergy rests with the superintendents of the hospitals concerned.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Who is the superintendent? Is he a civilian or not?
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: He may be a civilian or he may be a soldier, but he is under the Ministry of Pensions.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: An official of the Ministry of Pensions?
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am not clear that he is an official of the Ministry of Pensions, but he is certainly under the Ministry. If he is an acting soldier he probably would not be called an official of the Ministry of Pensions, though he is under the Ministry. I think that is the case, but I can make quite sure. The immediate supervision of the officiating clergy rests with the superintendents of the hospitals concerned, and these superintendents are responsible to the Commissioner of Medical Services, who is an official of the Ministry of Pensions, and the Regional Director of the region—one of the areas, that is to say, into which the Ministry of Pensions has recently divided the country. The arrangement is part of the general scheme of decentralisation which has been recently set up by the Ministry of Pensions.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: These are purely medical officers?
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No. The superintendent need not be a medical

  1185
  officer, I think. But perhaps Lord Salisbury will allow me to read my brief. There may be in it something more comforting. The arrangement in the regions is part of the general scheme of decentralisation under which the work of the Ministry has been delegated to the Regional Directors of the eleven regions into which the country has been divided. It gives every opportunity for those responsible to be in close touch with local circumstances and requirements. So far, no other system of inspection has been found to be necessary. The superintendents of the various institutions are fully alive to the need of securing the best available opportunities for those clergy, both as regards the spiritual welfare of the patients and the organisation of their recreation.
  As to the question of appointing full-time chaplains it is a difficult one and for some time it has been engaging the close attention of the Minister. Mr. Macpherson is of opinion that such a course would be desirable in the case of the very largest hospitals, of which there are fewer than twenty, and possibly also in the case of hospitals which are situated in such remote districts that resident clergy are not readily available. On this matter the Minister of Pensions is now in communication with the Treasury to obtain the necessary financial authority to appoint full-time chaplains in such hospitals as I have indicated. Let me add, in conclusion, that the reports received from the superintendents of hospitals indicate that every effort is being made, and with success, to provide efficient ministration. It is, however, realised that it may be possible to secure improvement in some cases and, as I have just mentioned, the Minister hopes that the present facilities will shortly be supplemented by the appointment of whole-time chaplains.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Marquess for having raised this matter. I need hardly say to any of your Lordships who have followed the history of this subject that we owe a great debt to the noble Marquess for the pains and trouble he has taken in regard to it, not only during the war but since. On behalf both of the Church of England and, I am sure I may say; of many thousands of men in the Army, I want to thank him for the unfailing care and attention he has given to the whole complicated and difficult
  1186
  matter of Army chaplains, and not merely to this particular point, though this is one to which his energy has been most wholesomely directed. I am grateful to the noble Earl for the account he has given for the Government of what is being done, and I agree it is a most difficult question.
  It is not merely that, somehow or other, you have got to make arrangements in places where there are a few patients who need somebody who is not a "chance" man, who happens to be an incumbent in the neighbourhood with not too much to do, but that you want the very best type of man you can get. In some of the large hospitals with orthopædic and other departments which bring in a considerable number of these men, because the ordinary work of the hospital lies outside this particular sphere, they have fallen back, for the military part of it, upon—I do not like to say "chance help" in the sense that it is necessarily inefficient or unsuitable, but it is very liable to be so. It is not everywhere that you find the man who has the peculiar gifts wanted in this particular matter. So far as I have been able to follow the rather troublesome transactions and correspondence about it there has been this difficulty—that the Army chaplain, who would naturally be the man most competent to do it, cannot be put in a position in which he is to receive his pay from a source which is not an Army source, and, because of that difficulty about pay, you are in great danger of having the wrong men working in the hospitals.
  I am interested to learn that the matter is now under the further consideration of the Treasury and the Ministry of Pensions. I cannot help hoping that the financial matter will be put straight and that the difficulties will be solved by some arrangement in which the War Office will also be concerned. Once you arrange that proper pay is to be given, and that a War Office man may be applied to the work—a man who has served under the War Office and who has the kind of experience required—the difficulty will be largely removed. I do not mean that it is chiefly a matter of pay, but if you employ a local man who has to give some time to this extraordinarily difficult and delicate work, he must be able to find somebody else to do his own work. It is not that he is unwilling to do it, but that he cannot be in two places at once. It may be largely Sunday work and his Sunday work is elsewhere. I am quite

  1187
  sure that the subject is well worth the careful consideration of the Ministry of Pensions, the Treasury and the War Office. It really is important and the consequences are more far-reaching than people suppose. I am grateful to the noble Marquess for bringing the matter up and for the work he has done in connection with it and I am glad it is still receiving the attention of the Treasury, the Ministry of Pensions and, I hope, the War Office.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, we propose that the Third Reading of the Ministry of Mines Bill shall be taken early to-morrow afternoon.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: At what time?
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The House will meet at a quarter past three. I cannot say that the Bill will be taken then. There are short Amendments from the Commons dealing with several Bills, and it is possible that there will be a statement about Poland—I do not know whether Lord Treowen is likely to raise that matter early. But we hope to take the Mines Bill as soon as possible in order that the House of Commons may consider the Amendments made by your Lordships.
  House adjourned at half past seven o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past three o'clock.

DUPLICANDS OF FEU-DUTIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 3) BILL.
DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
YEOVIL CORPORATION BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

MAINTENANCE ORDERS (FACILITIES FOR ENFORCEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
OSBORNE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
SHEKLETON'S DIVORCE RILL. [H.L.]
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NEW WINDSOR EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned form the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

MERTHYR TYDFIL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
LLANELLY CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK (FINANCE) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.