Sitting of 11 August 1920

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bristol Corporation Bill,
Southend-on-Sea Gas Bill,
Londonderry Corporation Bill,
Erith Improvement Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 6th August, and agreed to.
Alloa Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Inverness Water and Gas Provisional Order Bill,
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WIDNES EXTENSION) BILL [Lords].
  Read a Second time.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I beg to move, "That the Standing Orders relative to the Committee and Report stages of Private Bills and Standing Orders 217, 223, and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."
  This Motion with regard to this Bill, which stands in my name, is in the usual form. The Bill was considered by a Joint Committee of the two Houses, and, therefore, according to custom, we dispense with the Committee stage and proceed to read the Bill a Third time.
  I take this opportunity of thanking hon. Members of the House for the assiduous work which they have done with regard to Private Bills this Session. I place a very high value on the impartiality and attention which hon. Members give to this work. Perhaps they would like to know that thi3 Session we have disposed of 158 Private Bills and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, and that only four
  372
  Bills remain over for consideration in the Autumn Sitting.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1919 (DRAFT RULES).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for India whether the draft rules under Sections 1, 2, 4 (3), 10 (3), 12, and 33 of the Government of India Act, 1919, will be submitted to this House as were the preceding rules; and, if not, how hon. Members wishing to have these rules modified may bring their views to bear before the rules are enacted?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, except as regards the rule proposed to be made under Section 33, which, I am advised, must, under the terms of the Section, be made and laid upon the Table, and cannot be submitted in draft for approval by Resolution.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: When are these expected to be submitted—in the Autumn Session?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Yes.

    NON-CO-OPERATION MOVEMENT.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has information to the effect that any Government servants have joined in the non-co-operation movement organised by the Hindu agitator, Mr. Gandhi; and, if so, whether such Government servants have been dismissed from their situations?
    Mr. MONTAGU: According to my information there have been a few cases among subordinate Government servants of sympathy with the non-co-operation movement. The form in which these persons expressed their sympathy was to resign Government service. I understand that the theory is that Government servants should show their non-co-operation

    373
    by resigning if they have other means of support.

    GENERAL OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTSasked the Secretary of State for India for what reason general officers of the Indian Army have been deprived of the Indian element in their pensions by the new scale lately sanctioned for British officers of the Indian Army?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The pensions of Indian Army officers before the recent revision were not made up of British and Indian elements, so that they cannot be regarded as having been deprived of any benefit previously enjoyed by them. It was considered that the maximum rates of retired pay approved for British service general officers should apply to general officers of the Indian Army, but the method of calculation adopted ensures that in almost every case the general officer of the Indian Army can obtain this maximum after considerably less service than would be the case in the British Army.
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Is it the case that the increased pensions to Army officers, given in view of the extra cost of living, is not to be based, as formerly, on Army pay in all ranks; whether it is not the case that the Indian element was formerly maintained in the pensions of senior officers up to the rank of lieut.-general and disappeared only at the rank of general—whereas now the Indian element is only partially represented in the pension in the rank of colonel, and disappears entirely at the rank of major-general; whether the effect of the proposed change upon officers of the Indian Army is not seriously to penalise in retirement the ranks of colonel, of major-general and of lieut.-general; and whether the effect of this will not be to discourage officers from entering that service?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Whatever may be the case with regard to pay I am informed that with regard to pensions there was no Indian element before revision. The question the hon. Member asks is a very complicated one, and I should like to see it in print or in writing before I could answer it in detail. Perhaps he will be good enough to forward it to me, and I will let him have an answer by letter.

    ALL-INDIA KHALIFAT COMMITTEE.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for India if he has yet ascertained how many persons actively engaged with Mr. Ghandi in connection with the All-India Khalifat Committee were interned during the War or convicted in connection with the disturbances in 1919, and afterwards released; and, in view of the fact that the Government of India consider Mr. Ghandi was the leading spirit of a movement intended to paralyse government in 1919, will he state what action, if any, has been taken to prevent Mr. Ghandi and his associates from causing further trouble?
    Mr. MONTAGU: No full list of the members of the All-India Khalifat Committee has reached me. But among the persons who joined Mr. Ghandi in a. Khalifat deputation to the Viceroy last January, four had been interned during the War, and two had been convicted in connection with the disturbances of 1919. The actions and speeches of Mr. Ghandi and his associates are being very carefully watched by the Governments in India. I propose to leave to them in full confidence the determination as to what action may be necessary.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Could not Mr. Ghandi be confined in that particular district to which he belongs?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The question of maintaining law and order in India is one entirely for the Government of India and the Local Governments, and I do not propose to interfere.

    PUNJAB DISTURBANCES.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for India what was the total number of persons convicted for offences in connection with the disorders in India in 1919; how many have since been released; and what were the conditions on which they were released?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The total number convicted was 1,925. Of these, 1,061 were released, 111 on conditions. I have no-certain information as to the conditions imposed in each case, but I read to the House on the 7th July in full the conditions imposed in one case, which is probably typical. If the hon. Member wishes, I will inquire as to the conditions in the other cases.
    Mr. GWYNNE: I should be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would. May I ask whether this wholesale clemency which has been shown to those who have taken part in murders and outrages is going to be extended similarly to those officers and men in the Indian Civil Service whom the right hon. Gentleman condemned and proposed to punish?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am not prepared to accept the description of the clemency shown, nor am I prepared to accept the hon. Member's description as to what has "been done to members of the Indian Civil Service.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for India whether any persons convicted for offences in connection with the disorders in India in 1919 have been pardoned; and, if so, how many?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The House will recall that, in replying to the hon. Member last week, I stated that none had been pardoned. Immediately after I had given that reply, which was, I think, a correct inference from the telegram that I circulated, I received another to the effect that before the amnesty the Viceroy had pardoned "about 36" persons convicted of breaches of martial law regulations in the Punjab. Another telegram received from the Government of India on Saturday reports that in the Bombay Presidency out of 123 persons convicted 72 have been released. None of these received a pardon. The 72 are included in the answer I have just given to the hon. Member's second question.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Are we to understand that those persons who were pardoned are now eligible to stand for these new Councils?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer to the Rules as sanctioned by this House, but as I have not them before me I would rather not express an opinion without reference to them.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for India if Lala Harkishen Lal, Lala Duni Chard, Drs. Satyapal and Kitchlew, and other Punjab leaders, have been pardoned as well as released; if so, will they be permitted to stand for election to the new councils; if not, will he furnish the House with a Return showing what leaders have been pardoned; and will he make representa-
    376
    tions for pardoning the leaders who have not been fully amnestied, as without such step being taken the reform scheme has no chance of success in the Punjab, and is likely to he boycotted in other provinces?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am informed that the only persons pardoned in the Punjab were about 36 persons convicted of breaches of martial law regulations. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to Rule 5 (2) of the Electoral Rules. The exercise of the Royal prerogative of pardon is vested in the Viceroy by the warrant of his appointment, and I am not prepared to interfere with his discretion.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask for an answer to my specific question, as to whether the four gentlemen named are eligible, or whether they are to be excluded from participation in the Punjab Legislative Council elections?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I thought I had answered that by referring the hon. and gallant Gentleman to Rule 5.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have they been pardoned or not?
    Mr. MONTAGU: No; I have informed the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the only persons pardoned have been 36 persons convicted of breaches of martial law regulations. The individuals to whom my hon. and gallant Friend refers were convicted of very grave offences.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: This is a very serious matter, as no doubt the right hon. Gentleman understands. Am I to understand that there will be no extension of pardon to these people who are, it is true, extremists, but who would be more safely situated within the legislature than outside? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Does the fact of no extension of pardon to them mean that the Government do contemplate the possibility of no extension of the non-co-operation movements in the Punjab: and is the right hon. Gentle man aware—
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: On a point of Order. May I ask if an argumentative question of this sort is permitted to be addressed to a Minister—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: You are not the judge; sit down!
    Mr. W. THORNE: The Speaker is the judge, not you!
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: This is a matter of great importance to India and to our rule in India.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a specific question, instead of making a statement, he will get an answer.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The question I wish to ask is this: In view of the situation, are we to understand that a pardon will not be extended to any of these leaders, in order to enable them to take part in the government of India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. and gallant Gentleman mentions four names, and there was the phrase "other Punjab leaders." I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend means by "other Punjab leaders"—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: You know!
    Mr. MONTAGU: Therefore I was not prepared categorically to say that none of them has been pardoned. But if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to know whether any of these men to whom he refers will be pardoned, I would reply to him that the prerogative of pardon has been vested by His Majesty, and on his behalf, to the Viceroy, and I do not propose to make any recommendation or to interfere with the discretion that has been reposed in the Viceroy.

  MESOPOTAMIA.

    ADMINISTRATION.
    Mr. SITCHasked the Secretary of State for India the number of officials of British nationality and the number of persons of local origin engaged in the administration of the mandatoy territory of Mesopotamia; whether it is proposed to allow competent persons in the latter category to assist in the government of their native land; and, if so, to what extent?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The only Department for which exact figures are at the moment available is the Judicial Department, in which, out of a total pesonnel of 231, British number 10, persons of local origin 215, the remaining six being Egyptian (1), Indian (4), and Syrian (1). Figures for
    378
    the rest of the administration have been called for, and I will send them, when received, to the hon. Member. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative, and I would refer the hon. Member to the announcement of policy read to the House on 23rd June.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does that include, as apparently it does not, Indian Civil Servants engaged in Mesopotamia? If so, are they engaged at the high rates of pay they draw in India with the extra allowances?
    Mr. MONTAGU: As to the rates of pay, I must have notice, but I imagine that the figures I gave of the Judicial Department would include in the ten British any Indian Civil Servants, if any, in that Department.
    Sir J. D. REES: Has the right hon. Gentleman not the figures of the Revenue officials from British India employed in Mesopotamia, of whom it is believed there are several?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member was asking a specific question; I have not the figures down here.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    POST-WAR PENSIONS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether ho can make any statement before the House rises as to the Order in Council fixing the rates of post-War pensions?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): I am informed that the Inter-Departmental Committee considering this subject hope; to present their Report this week.

    INJURY PENSION.
    Captain KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has been reached with regard to increasing the injury pension of 14s. 3½d. per week to Mr. William Gurling, of Sculthorpe, who, through the loss of both his arms by an accident in a cruiser in 1879, is totally incapable of earning anything, and whose case has been under review by the appropriate Government Departments since May of last year?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Gurling is in receipt of naval and Greenwich Hospital pensions amounting in the aggregate to 17s. 6d. a week, which cannot be increased under existing Naval Regulations. Proposals, however, are now under consideration for increasing, subject to certain conditions, naval pre-War pensions, and Gurling's claim will be dealt with as soon as the details have been finally approved. It is anticipated that an announcement will be made almost immediately.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: When will the Order-in-Council be issued in regard to pre-War pensions?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I believe, although I am not quite certain, that an Order-in-Council for pre-War pensions may get the Royal Assent to-morrow. As to when the Order-in-Council dealing with post-War pensions will be made, I can hardly say.

    RETIRED OFFICERS (WAS SERVICE).
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can make any statement as to those officers who were retained in their employment for the period of the War, though their time for pension had been reached before the War and were given an increase of 15 per cent. on their pay; and if these gentlemen are to receive their pensions from the date the same were due and 25 per cent. on their pay, or what it is proposed to give them for their services?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): Officers who were voluntarily re-employed before the War, and who continued to be employed in the same appointments during the War, receive a bonus of 15 per cent. on their pay in lie of counting the time for increase of pension. Applications have been made for these officers to receive the bonus of 25 per cent. granted to officers called up for service during the War. I have gone into this question personally, and I regret that in view of the very heavy additional expenditure which would be involved in the Navy and in other Services, this concession cannot be granted.
    Sir B. FALLE: Is it proposed to pay these officers their pensions for the period of the War?
    Mr. LONG: I do not think so, but that is quite a different question. I think not.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    NAVY EMPLOYMENT AGENCY.
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether since 1912 the Admiralty have made grants to the Navy Employment Agency as being the recognised permanent channel of employment for ex-naval ratings; whether notice has been given that the Admiralty will discontinue the grant on 1st October; whether, as the expenses have for many causes more than doubled, this will have the effect of closing an institution which for many years has rendered the Admiralty invaluable and expert assistance in finding employment for ex-naval ratings; and, in view of these facts, can the matter now be reconsidered?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    The following is the answer referred to:
    Grants from naval funds have been made to the Navy Employment Agency since 1912 as follows:

    1912

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,000

    1913

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,000

    1914

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,000

    1915

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,000

    1916

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,000

    1917

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,000

    1918

    …

    …

    …

    …

    500

    1919

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2,000

    1920

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,000

    The last grant of £1,000 is for the six months expiring on the 1st October, 1920.
    The Admiralty decided, in April last, that while assistance from public funds at the rate of £2,000 per annum had been justifiable during the period of demobilisation, when large numbers of naval men had to be placed in civil life, present conditions would not warrant such an expenditure of public money now and in future, as alone would have been of value in assisting the Agency.
    The question was considered of a grant from the trading balances at the disposal of the Navy and Army Canteen Board, but this proposal did not meet with the concurrence of the men's representatives on the Canteen Committee, and was consequently dropped.
    The Navy Employment Agency was offered facilities for circulating, through the Admiralty, an appeal for subscriptions from the Fleet, but this offer was not taken advantage of.
    The Admiralty greatly regret that circumstances have necessitated the closing of the Navy Employment Agency, whose work in past years has been highly appreciated; but in view of the facilities provided under the Ministry of Labour they are unable to reconsider the decision arrived at.

    SHIPS IN NOR WEGIAN WATERS.
    Mr. MALONEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what ships are in Norwegian waters, north of latitude 65; and for what purpose?
    Mr. LONG rose—
    HON. MEMBERS: Do not answer!
    Mr. LONG: In present circumstances, it is not in the public interest to give the information asked for.

    POST-WAR FLEET (SURPLUS SHIPS).
    Viscount CURZONasked whether there is any official publication in existence which gives a complete list of the ships which are surplus to the requirements of the post-War Fleet?
    Mr. LONG: There is such a document, prepared for Admiralty use only.

    OFFICERS' PAY COMMITTEE.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will give the names of those officers, and especially their rank, who sat on the Officers' Pay Committee and decided against a marriage allowance as distinct from pay, and the date on which this Committee sat; and if the Committee recommended increased pay in lieu of marriage allowance?
    Mr. LONG: The names and ranks of the members of the Committee, the dates on which it was appointed and made its Report, and a list of its recommendations, are given in Command Paper No. 2Y0 of 1919, to which I beg to refer my hon. and gallant Friend. The Committee added a special note as regards marriage allowance, the substance of which was that they were strongly averse from the introduction of a married allowance, and considered that their proposals as to pay,
    382
    taken as a whole, would obviate the necessity for any differentiation between married and single officers. One member did not entirely agree with the rest of the Committee, and proposed a "Married Quarters" Allowance graduated according to rank and payable to all officers from flag officers downwards. His views were not concurred in by the rest of the Committee, nor by the Board of Admiralty.

    PROVISION MONEY.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if ho can give the date from which the new scale of provision money for the Royal Navy will commence?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Payment of provision and leave allowance at the increased rate of 3s. 6d. a day will take effect as from the 23rd July, 1920.

    ROSYTH DOCKYARD.
    Mr. WALLACEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether a decision has yet been reached regarding the petition of the Rosyth Dockyard Chargemen's Association presented in December last year?
    Sir J. CRAIG: A decision has not yet been reached concerning the questions of status and emoluments raised in the petition referred to by my hon. Friend, but a communication will be made to the petitioners on the subject very shortly.
    Mr. WALLACE: Does my right hon. Friend not think that eight months is too long for a Government Department to come to a decision?
    Sir J. CRAIG: No, I do not think so. The Department has a great deal to do, and we are most anxious to do justice in regard to this most important matter.

    SECOND WELFARE CONFERENCE.
    Viscount CURZON(by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any statement with reference to the dissolution of the second Welfare Conference, and give the reasons why such a course was found to be necessary; and whether this step will prevent the holding of the second Welfare Committee in the autumn, or whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to reassemble the Inter-port Representatives in the autumn with a view to the holding of the Committee?
    Mr. LONG: My Noble and gallant Friend is, no doubt, referring to statements which have appeared to the effect that the meeting of Inter-port Representatives at Devonport to consider requests to be placed before the next Naval Welfare Committee has been dissolved by Admiralty order. So far is this from being the case that the Admiralty letter of the 3rd August, communicating to the Commander-in-Chief, for the information of this Conference, decisions on the previous year's requests, stated:
    "Their Lordships are of opinion that it is desirable that the Welfare Conference should now proceed with the consideration of requests to be placed before the next Committee, in accordance with the approved procedure, and that it is their unmistakable duty to the rest of the Service to do so."
    The conclusion not to proceed with the Conference was come to by the Inter-port Representatives, although not in accordance with the advice in this letter, and was communicated to the Admiralty by telegram from the Commander-in-Chief, Plymouth, last Saturday. The Admiralty regret that this conclusion should have been arrived at. In the opinion of the Board, the benefits secured for the Navy this year are considerable, and the precedent of bringing such a Conference to an end because other requests, after careful consideration, have not been granted is obviously not in accord with the spirit in which the Welfare system was set up, and cannot possibly contribute to the success of that system. For the moment, therefore, I can only say that the working of the Welfare system is suspended by reason of the conclusion of the Inter-port Conference not to continue their deliberations. That this would be the result of such a conclusion was pointed out in the Admiralty letter to which I have already referred, and which stated as follows:
    "Should the members of the Conference come to a different conclusion and renew their request to be allowed to dissolve, it should be clearly pointed out to them that the Admiralty regard the dissolution of the Conference as terminating for the time being the programme laid down for the working of the Welfare scheme this year; the. Welfare system, however, having been set up by the Admiralty, cannot be permanently dissolved except by the Admiralty, and it will, therefore, remain in suspense at their Lordships' discretion."
    The question of taking any special action in the autumn will be considered by the Admiralty with reference to what may appear to be the wishes and the best interests of the Service.

  RUSSIA.

    BRITISH NAVAL FORCES.
    Mr. MALONEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the instructions under which the Government authorities in the Black Sea are acting in their relations with the forces of General Wrangel and towards the Bolsheviks: and whether any new instructions have been issued in the last seven days?
    Mr. LONG: There are no instructions to act in relation with the forces of General Wrangel or towards the Bolsheviks. No new instructions have been issued.
    Mr. MALONEasked what are the instructions to ships in connection with the blockade of Soviet Russia; and whether any fresh instructions have been issued in the past seven days?
    Mr. LONG: There are no instructions. No fresh instructions have been given.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the reason for that the fact that we have kept up surreptitiously a blockade ever since the Armistice with Germany?
    Mr. LONG: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not wish to be offensive, but he appears to ignore the fact that here, speaking as a Minister of the Crown, I have repeatedly stated that the blockade was raised long ago He now suggests that that statement on my part is not true.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the new situation, will any steps be taken by the Department of the right hon. Gentleman to sweep up the mines in the Baltic?
    Mr. LONG: No, Sir; I have told the House repeatedly that the sweeping up of the mines in the Baltic is work for the Russian people and the Russian Government; and it is a work they can very well do, and do with great efficiency if they choose. It is not our business to go into the Gulf of Finland and sweep up mines that were not laid by us.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be possible for the Admiralty now to give the Russians plans as to where the mines are so that they can sweep them up?
    Mr. LONG: I think the answer to that should be reserved till application is made by the Russian Government—I do not

    385
    know whether the hon. Gentlemen opposite are entitled to speak for it or not. Until they make their suggestions the Admiralty cannot act.
    Viscount CURZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that British lives will not be risked in sweeping up Russian mines?
    Mr. LONG: Most certainly, Sir. The Board of Admiralty have no intention whatever of risking valuable British lives in doing work for other people, which they can well do for themselves.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I dot not wish to be offensive to anyone—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but may I ask whether it is not the fact that the restrictions are so vexatious on the merchant shipping of Soviet Russia that it practically amounts to a blockade?
    Mr. LONG: That, really, is pure imagination on the part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. But it is no good my answering, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not accept my answer. There are no restrictions. If he refers to the Gulf of Finland, as he, knows, and as has been disclosed by replies to previous questions, the Gulf of Finland is mined, but these mines were not laid by us. They were laid for the main part by the Germans or by the Russians.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What about the Black Sea?
    Mr. LONG: One thing at a time. This is a different case altogether. I am dealing now with the Baltic. The duty of raising these mines rests with those who laid them, not with the British Admiralty nor the British Government. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there are no restrictions as to trade. It is quite true that there is no trade going on, but that is for a very different reason.

    GENERAL HARPTMANN.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: asked the Prime Minister what is the position of the Russian General Harptmann in this country, and whether the Government have had, or now have, official relationships with this gentleman?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I am informed that the General referred to is at present in England. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that this General claims to represent General Wrangel in this country; and whether, as we are not supporting, but in fact discouraging, General Wrangel, he will not be given his passports before he stirs up more mischief?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already given the answer that the Government have no connection whatever with this gentleman. I can see no reason whatever why he should be turned out of the country.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to the effect that the French Government have definitely decided to recognise General Wrangel, and are sending a High Commissioner to Sebastopol?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should give notice of that question.

  MINIMUM WAGE.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Labour what is now the average wage for unskilled labour in large towns, small towns, and country districts, respectively; and what is the estimated minimum necessary for the subsistence of a family consisting of a man, his wife, and three children in each of these three classes of district, respectively?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): We have, of course, a good deal of information as to the recognised time rates for unskilled labourers in well-organised industries in which wage rates are standardised by agreement. But there remains a considerable field uncovered. To give my hon. Friend the average he asks for would necessitate the calling for a complete census of wages and population.
  As regards the second part of the question, I can, like my hon. Friend, frame a working class maintenance budget, but I do not feel justified in making an official

  387
  pronouncement upon a matter involving so many varying elements.
  Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the recent court of inquiry presided over by Lord Shaw has estimated that the least an English labourer can live upon is £4 5s. per week?
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Labour whether the need for guaranteeing a minimum wage sufficient for subsistence to all workers is as urgent now as when a recommendation to this effect was made by the Joint Industrial Conference representing both employers and employed; and why the Minimum Wage Commission Bill has not been proceeded with?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I am not in a position to say when it will be practicable to proceed with the Minimum Wage Commission Bill. But my hon. Friend will not lose sight of the fact that much of the area of the wage field is now covered, and is being further covered, by the creation of machinery to deal with wages through the medium of mutual agreement. The Joint Industrial Councils alone cover a number of workpeople approximating to three millions. And as regards that part not covered and representing the less well-organised industries, my hon. Friend will be interested to know that as a result of the Amending Trade Boards Act of 1918, 40 Trade Boards, in addition to the 13 existing under the 1909 Act, covering about two million workers, have been established. This means that at the present time 2½ million workers are covered by the Trade Board policy. I may add that by this time next year we hope that the number just given will be increased to something like 4½ or five millions.
  Mr. HOGGE: Does that mean that a minimum wage has been definitely refused?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not say that. I said I could not say when it would be practical. In the meantime, much is being done in other directions.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Labour what is the estimated number of adult women workers in receipt of a weekly wage of less than £2 10s.?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend will have anticipated from the reply to
  388
  Question No. 23 that I have not the statistics necessary to give him a definite reply to the present question. I should, however, say that the number of women earning 50s. a week or over must be comparatively small. On the other hand, as has been already indicated, the number covered by the Trade Board minima ranging from 28s. to 45s. per week is considerable. These figures may be contrasted with the prevalent pre-War average of 12s. to 14s. a week for women industrial workers, outside the cotton and one or two other specially skilled trades.
  Mr. HOGGE: Does that £2 10s. represent the pre-War equivalent of subsistence wage necessary for a family, and, in view of that, will the right hon. Gentleman during the Recess consider the advisability of supplying the information I have been asking for in these questions?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I gave the hon. Member that information in my answer to the first part of his question. With regard to the last part, I will endeavour to obtain the information.

  UNEMPLOYMENT, LIVERPOOL.
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Labour what is the estimated number of unemployed in the city of Liverpool; and what steps he is taking for dealing with the situation which has arisen in that city?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: On the 30th July the number of unemployed registered at the various Exchanges in the Liverpool district were 7,603 adults. Of these, 1,082 were women, 4,676 were ex-Service men drawing out-of-work donation, and 1,845 were either civilian men or ex-Service men whose out-of-work donation was exhausted. The whole question of unemployment is at present engaging the earnest attention of the Government. I may add that recently my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary went down to Liverpool to discuss questions of training and employment with the local authorities, employers and ex-Service men.
  Mr. SEXTON: Do these figures include the number of men daily unemployed as shown by the clearing house returns of casual labour employed at the docks?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No. Our figures are shown in the employment exchanges register. I agree that there is a margin outside, but how much I cannot say.
  Mr. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman get to know the number of men unemployed at the docks through the clearing house, taking into consideration the number of tallies in the right hon. Gentleman's Department and the number of tallies of unemployed as shown by the clearing house?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No doubt I can and I will obtain that information. I have given the number registered at our labour exchanges.
  Major NALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if they are dock workers, and whether any of them are available for house building?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot answer that question, but I should say that a very large number of these men are unskilled labourers, or have been at some time or another.
  Major NALL: Is it not possible to employ these men in house building?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend knows that we are in consultation with the building trade with a view to an extension of building operatives under proper safeguards.

  TRADE BOARDS ACT (PROSECUTIONS).
  Mr. C. WHITEasked the Minister of Labour how many prosecutions have been undertaken under the Trade Boards Act since the Armistice; how many have been successful; and what have been the penalties?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Since the Armistice, 11 prosecutions have been undertaken by the Trade Boards, and a conviction was obtained in every case but one. The penalties imposed varied from £4 to £49 2s. In addition, in a number of cases, orders were made for the payment of arrears, in one case amounting to £45. Apart from actual prosecutions, however, the great majority of arrears is obtained as the result of the visits of inspectors, in cases where failure to pay has been due to genuine ignorance of the law or misunderstanding.

  WAGES INCREASES.
  Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Minister of Labour whether any class or classes of workers have received a total increase of wages of less than 100 per cent. over the pre-War wage; if so, what these classes are; and what has been the total increase in each case?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The information available as to increases over pre-War rates of wages relates mainly to organised industries, in which wages are regulated by agreement between the Employers' Associations and Trade Unions concerned. In these industries the increases over pre-War rates, so far as recorded, are generally over 100 per cent. In industries where the increases have partly taken the form of flat-rate advances, the percentage increase is of course greater for the lower-paid men than for those at higher rates. Among non-manual wage earners and small-salary earners, such as clerks and shop assistants, there are cases where pre-War rates have been raised by less than 100 per cent.; and there are probably similar instances among unorganised groups of manual workers. In these cases, however, the increases granted have varied with individual employers, and statistics are not available to show what proportion have received advances of less than 100 per cent. on their pre-War rates.
  Mr. HAILWOOD: Are Civil Servants included in the list of those who are receiving less than 100 per cent. increase on the pre-War wage? If not, how many should be included?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Civil Servants are not covered by this answer at all. If the hon. Member will write to me or put down a question I will endeavour to give him an answer.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    KING'S NATIONAL ROLL OF HONOUR.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that some Members of this House have written to the employers in their constituencies appealing to them to place their names on the King's Roll under the National Scheme for the employment of disabled men; and will he state what progress has

    391
    been made in assisting ex-service men to obtain employment by these appeals?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir. I have done so myself, and I understand that other Members of this House have don so too. I am certain that it would be of great help to disabled men in finding employment if hon. Members generally would take similar action and write to employers in their constituencies appealing to them to place their names on the King's Roll. I propose, if I may, shortly to send to every hon. Member a statement showing the firms in or about the area which he represents who are on the King's Roll; the number of disabled men whom those firms are employing; the number of firms in the area which, as it appears to me, ought to be on the Roll; and the number of disabled men in the district who are registered as unemployed.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Did not the Members of the House as a whole approach employers with this object, and was there not a very large response to the request?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say offhand. There have been two appeals, and I think the response to the earlier one was very considerable.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: May I, on behalf of numerous ex-service men, thank the right hon. Gentleman for his endeavours in this direction, and may I be allowed to express the hope that during the Recess he will remind hon. Members who may have inadvertently omitted to write to employers, in the interests of their constituents, to reconsider the matter.

    APPOINTMENTS DEPARTMENTS.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Labour if any decision and, if so, what has been come to with regard to the future of the Appointments Department consequent upon the reduction in the work of the Department owing to the maintenance and training grant scheme coming to an end very shortly; from what date will these new arrangements take effect; and will the result of these new arrangements be to place the Appointments Department under the control of the officers now in charge of the Employment Department of the Ministry of Labour?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I welcome the opportunity given me by my Noble Friend of explaining a matter about which misconceptions appear to exist. There is a considerable overlap between the activities of the Employment and Appointments Departments, and it has become increasingly clear that to promote smooth working and secure economy a closer cooperation between them was desirable. It is recognised, however, that it is necessary to preserve the separate entity of the Appointments Department and to maintain its existing machinery. All that is proposed, therefore, is that the Director of that Department in each of the areas should work under the supervision of the Divisional Controller who already is a general representative of the Ministry within his Division, and that the Headquarters Office will be under the Principal Assistant Secretary in charge of the Employment Department. In other respects the organisation with its separate offices and staff will not be disturbed.
    Viscount CURZON: Have these new arrangements been considered by the Committee now dealing with future unemployment?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say that this question has nothing to do with that inquiry.
    Viscount CURZON: Is it proposed to continue this Appointments Branch permanently?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It will continue as long as there are officers for whom we are seeking appointments. The moment they are all employed—I hope it will not be long delayed, although I fear it may—the branch will disappear.
    Brigadier-General COCKERILL: Can we have an assurance that there is no intention of replacing disabled ex-officers, now serving in the Appointments Department, by officials from the Labour Exchanges?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly, there is no such intention. We have, under Government orders, given preference to ex service men, and particularly to disabled men.

  WOMEN AND GIRLS (EMPLOYMENT).
  Mr. HOWARD GRITTENasked the Minister of Labour what means he is

  393
  taking, or proposes to adopt, to remedy the evil of there being great numbers of unemployed women and girls throughout the country, which involves expense to the State by the payment of considerable sums in unemployment insurance and out-of-work benefits, and by tending to the maintenance of unnecessarily large staffs at the Labour Exchanges: and why, as there are many women and girls seeking domestic employment and many householders in urgent need of domestic help, the Labour Exchanges fail to bring the two classes together to their mutual advantage?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There are at present about 48,000 women and 12,000 girls on the live registers of the Employment Exchanges. Of the total 60,000, approximately 22,000, being insured under the Insurance Act, are in receipt of unemployment benefit. About 700 ex-members of the Women's Corps are in receipt of out-of-work donation. The possibility of absorbing women in domestic occupations is being given special consideration, and over 20,000 women and girls are at present being placed each month by the Employment Exchanges in domestic occupations. A considerable proportion of the women who are registered at the Employment Exchanges for domestic work are, on account of their circumstances, only available for part-time and local employment, while others have no previous experience in anything but industrial war work.
  Mr. GRITTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the North, at Tyneside, Darlington, Middlesbrough, and other centres, there is a specially large number of women and girls drawn from the ex-domestic servant class who are still in receipt of the unemployment donation?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have already said that 20,000 women and girls have been placed in domestic service by the Employment Exchange.

  COST OF LIVING.
  Mr. C. WHITEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour what would be the effect on the index figure of the cost of living of a rise of 2½d. in the price of the quartern loaf?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: An increase of 2½d. per 4 lbs. of bread, without a corresponding increase in the price of flour, would raise the index number by four points. With a corresponding increase in the price of flour, the index number would be raised by a further two points, making six points in all.
  Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour what is the range of working-class incomes in respect of which the increase in the cost of living is to be considered to be approximately the average increase for a member of the working class as given in the "Labour Gazette" index figure; whether the increase in the cost of living for the least-skilled and lowest-paid workers is more or less than the said average; and, if so, by approximately what percentage?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The average percentage increase in prices, as given in the "Labour Gazette," is an average applicable to the working classes generally. Statistics are not available to show the present range of working class family incomes, or to enable trustworthy comparisons to be made of the percentage increase in prices for different sections of the working classes. It would appear, however, that at the present time the percentage rise in prices for the lower paid classes, taken as a whole, does not differ greatly from the general average. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of an extract from the "Labour Gazette" of March this year, from which he will see the scope and method of compilation of the index figure.

  HOUSING.

    LUXURY BUILDING.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Minister of Health whether the withdrawal of the land taxes, which caused house building to be diminished, if not abandoned, is to be followed by legislation again interfering with the building trade by way of restraint of what public departments and authorities may designate luxury building; and whether it is desirable that the lesson learnt at such heavy cost should so soon be forgotten?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): Local authorities already have powers under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, for prohibiting building operations which interfere with the erection of houses, and I am of opinion that further powers are necessary, as the present powers in many districts have been found to be insufficient to limit quite unessential buildings which further increase the difficulties arising from the shortage of skilled building labour.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that the remedy he proposes will not aggravate the disease which he wants to cure?
    Dr. ADDISON: If I thought so I should not propose the remedy.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is going to be done about taking empty houses in big towns?
    Dr. ADDISON: The local authorities have very wide and comprehensive powers to deal with them.

    MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL.
    Mr. HAILWOODasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the report approved by the Housing Committee and the City Council of Manchester, which offers certain criticisms against his Department, and accuses them for some of the delays in the erection of houses; whether he admits these complaints to be well founded: and, if not, what answer he purposes to give to the City Council?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have received a copy of the report in question. So far as there was any delay in the placing of contracts, my Department cannot be blamed for refusing to agree to prices which were unreasonably high. The delays, however, are mainly due to the shortage of skilled labour, which is further aggravated by the fact that the powers of the Council in connection with the limitation of unessential buildings have been found to be insufficient. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government are making proposals for dealing with both these matters.
    Mr. HAILWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in December last the Housing Committee decided to place contracts with a number of local builders,
    396
    that this was taken out of their hands by the Ministry of Health, that the scheme was held up until February because the Ministry of Health wished to place the contracts with their Department, and that, when the Committee decided to go on with the matter, they found that the Ministry had altered the plans of the houses, and thus delayed the building by the contractors?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, the action in question was taken by my personal instructions, because, in my opinion, there was sufficient evidence to show that there was a combine against the Ministry to force up prices in Manchester.
    Mr. HAILWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, also, that the Manchester Corporation are held up in consequence of luxury building—that, although they exclude luxury building in Manchester, it is taking place in other parts, and men are being drawn to work on those luxury buildings at a higher rate?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am quite aware of that, and I sympathise with the Manchester Corporation in their difficulties. We propose to alter the law as soon as we can. There has been competition for builders in that district, and the main cause of the delay is that there are not sufficient workmen.

  WORKHOUSE INMATES (WIDOWS).
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Health what proportion of the inmates of the workhouses of Great Britain consists of widows.
  Dr. ADDISON: According to the latest information as to the number of widows in these institutions the proportion for England and Wales was about one-eighth of the total.
  Mr. BRIANT: How many of these widows are infirm or invalids?
  Dr. ADDISON: I can give that information if a question be put down.

  DECEASED SOLDIERS' CHILDREN.
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Health how many children of deceased soldiers are in Poor Law institutions and how many have been boarded out or re-

  397
  moved to other institutions; and if it is the opinion of those responsible for the care of the children that it is almost impossible to find sufficient homes where their condition and care will be at least equal to those obtainable in a Poor Law school?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I have been asked to reply to this question. The number of children of deceased service men at present in the care of the Poor Law is 810. As regards 221 of these, I have decided that it would not be to their best interest to remove them. In the remaining cases inquiries are proceeding, and, wherever it can be done, these children will be placed with private families, or, if for special reasons this is not possible, in institutions not under the Poor Law. 523 children of men who lost their lives in the War have already been so removed and placed. I am not in a position to make a comparison between the care bestowed on children in Poor Law schools and in the private homes and institutions in which the children for whom I am responsible have been placed, but, while the excellence of the arrangements made by boards of guardians for the care of children in their charge is generally admitted, there is, I think, a strong feeling throughout the country that there should be other provision, wherever possible, for the children of men who lost their lives in the War. Every effort is made, through local committees, to ensure that the homes in which children are placed shall be as good as possible, and the principal difficulty that has hitherto been experienced is that of finding suitable homes for boarding out three or four or more brothers and sisters whom it is undesirable to separate.
  Mr. BRIANT: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in several cases the homes to which these children are sent are eminently undesirable, and that, in the opinion of the London Committee, it is extremely difficult to make arrangements which they consider advantageous for the children, such as are usually made with boards of guardians; and will he see that they are cared for in proper Poor Law schools until he is assured that the home is a suitable one, and more advantageous than is at present the case?
  Major TRYON: I think the main object is to get these children out into homes, but it is essential that the homes should be good and suitable for the children. If the hon. Member will give me an example of a case in which children are not suitably placed, I shall be glad to inquire into it.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE SOCIETIES (VALUATION).
  Mr. CAUTLEYasked the Minister of Health when the valuation of the National Health Insurance Societies is likely to be completed?
  Dr. ADDISON: The separate valuation of each of the 12,000 approved societies and branches which administer National Health Insurance is a task of immense magnitude. The work is being proceeded with under the supervision of the Government actuary, and very satisfactory progress is being made, but it will be some months before a general announcement of the results can be made.
  Mr. CAUTLEY: Is it not possible to give some approximate date?
  Dr. ADDISON: I am afraid it will not be before the end of the year at the earliest.

  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  Mr. JAMES BROWNasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that many widows eligible by age for old age pension and who, as a matter of fact, were receiving old age pension at the full rate are now being refused the old age pension either in part or the whole because they have been awarded military pension for the loss of a son or other relative in the War; and whether he will take immediate steps to amend the law to insure that old age pensioners will receive the full military pension without penalising them by the deduction of any part of their old age pension?
  Dr. ADDISON: I am aware that under the Old Age Pensions Acts dependants' pensions must be included in the means, but whether or not they affect old age pensions depends on whether they raise the total means above the statutory limit. Persons in receipt of dependants' pensions share in the wide extension of

  399
  the scheme of old age pensions which came into force in January last, and the Government are not prepared to re-open the matter for the present.
  Mr. BROWN: Does not the right hon Gentleman think that this is a great hardship on widows, who naturally look forward to some relief in the way of pension after the loss of their sons?
  Dr. ADDISON: There are a great many hardships in the world which we should be glad to redress. This particular hardship was looked into with great care both by the House of Commons and by the Departmental Committee, and the Act was framed in accordance with their recommendations. I have to administer it.
  Mr. BROWN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is right to put into the pocket of the Ministry of Health what has been given by the Pensions Ministry?
  Dr. ADDISON: Nothing goes into the pocket of the Ministry of Health. It is purely a question of administering the law which this House has framed. That is all my duty.
  Mr. CLYNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great corporations and public authorities in our large cities have recently passed resolutions asking the Government to introduce legislation to give effect to the demand in question?
  Dr. ADDISON: Yes, Sir; I am aware that there are a large number of requests for additional money from the State; and we are always blamed when they are granted.

  CONDENSED MILK (STANDARD).
  Mr. DOYLEasked the Minister of Health if he can now state what progress has been made by the Committee set up to inquire into the determination of a standard for condensed milk; if he will take immediate steps to prevent the importation or manufacture of condensed milk with low standards of fat, to the great detriment of the consumer; if the Committee has yet reported; and, if not, if he will state the reasons for the delay?
  Dr. ADDISON: I understand that the Committee hope to present their Report to me very shortly. The matter will then have my careful attention.
  Mr. GRITTEN: May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman proposes to proceed with the Milk and Dairies Bill, and whether there is not a good deal of opposition to it in the country?
  Dr. ADDISON: I am aware that there is considerable interested opposition to one Clause. We certainly hope to proceed with the Bill at the first possible opportunity.

  HULL TRAINING COLLEGE.
  Major ENTWISTLEasked the First Lord of the Treasury if he will authorise the exclusion of the accounts of the Hull Training College, amounting to £3,472, from the accounts for higher education on which the deficiency grant is determined, having regard to the fact that the college is provided by the Hull authority at the cost of several thousand pounds per year for the general benefit of the education authorities in the country, and thus the Hull taxpayer is taxing himself to provide benefits for the rest of the country?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) on the 26th ultimo.
  Major ENTWISTLE: Is it not a fact that grants by some local authorities to Universities are excluded from these accounts, and why should not the same thing apply to grants to this training college? Why should there be any differentiation?
  Mr. FISHER: The Board is not prepared to say that the expenditure by a local authority in aid of a training college is not expenditure in aid of which Parliamentary grants could be made; and, unless we can say that, I am not entitled to exclude that expenditure from the calculation of deficiency grants.
  Major ENTWISTLE: Are not grants to Universities excluded, and do not they technically come outside? If I give the right hon. Gentleman a memorandum of the facts, will he see what he can do in the matter?
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Did the right hon. Gentleman say he was considering this question in view of the fact that communities which keep up these training colleges train teachers for the whole country, and others which do not do so simply offer higher wages and take them? Has the right hon. Gentleman made any progress with his consideration?
  Mr. FISHER: I am considering the whole question of training colleges.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    GERMAN ROLLING STOCK.
    Mr. REMERasked the Prime Minister whether he has received an answer from the British delegate on the Reparation Commission as to the German competition with British firms in rolling stock in Belgium and Czechoslovakia; what is the reply given; and whether Germany has delivered all the rolling stock required under the Treaty of Versailles?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that, as no reply has yet been received from the British Delegate, I am not in a position to answer the last part of the question.
    Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate the reply when he receives it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I will send it to my hon. Friend.

  RUSSIA AND POLAND.

    ALLIED INTERVENTION.
    Brigadier - General Sir OWEN THOMASasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the Polish attack on Russia was an unprovoked outrage, it was in accordance with all principles and conventions of European society that Russia, after repelling the unwarrantable attack that was made on her, dealt directly with the aggressors; and will he inform the House what advice the British Government or the Allies gave Poland before the attack was made on Russia?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the statement which my right
    402
    hon. Friend the Prime Minister made on this subject yesterday.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether we shall have a further statement from the Prime Minister as to the progress of negotiations betwen Poland and Russia before the House adjourns?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If anything new arise, yes; but if not, there cannot be a further statement.

  HUNGARY.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Colonel Bauer and Tribitsch Lincoln are in Budapest; and whether he is acquainted with their negotiations and activities in that city?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I am informed that these gentlemen have been in Budapest on more than one occasion lately, but I have no definite information to show that they are there at this moment. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be possible to find out something about the activities of these gentlemen?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, I do not really think it is worth the trouble.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, when I was in Budapest, Lincoln did call upon me, and that I had to send a hotel porter to tell him that if he did not clear out, I would go and kick him out?

  THIRD LONDON GENERAL HOSPITAL, WANDSWORTH.
  Mr. CLYNESasked the Minister of Health whether he can make any statement as to the present position regarding the Third London General Hospital, Wandsworth?
  Dr. ADDISON: I have made every effort to secure the retention of this hospital for the use of the civilian population. But I have ascertained that the site of the hospital is held by the London County Council on trust for the purpose

  403
  of an open space; that it was acquired by them before the War for that purpose from the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation at less than market value in consideration of the use to which it was to be put; and that the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation object to its use for a civilian hospital, and urge that the conditions on which the land was sold must be adhered to. Moreover, I understand that part of the price paid for the land was subscribed locally, and that there is strong opposition to the land being diverted from use by the public as an open space. I am advised that legislation would be necessary in order to secure the retention of the hospital on its present site, and in the circumstances I do not think that Parliament would be willing to give the necessary powers. I have, therefore, regretfully come to the conclusion that I must abandon my efforts to obtain the use of the hospital on its present site for the civilian population.

  TUBERCULOSIS, LEICESTERSHIRE.
  Major Sir K. FRASERasked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to improve the ventilation of the factories and schools in Leicestershire with a view of checking the increase of tuberculosis in this area; and will he consider a better system of ventilating the coal-mining levels than that which exists at present?
  Dr. ADDISON: The number of notifications of tuberculosis in Leicestershire has diminished from 524 in 1914 to 364 in 1919. I am glad to state that this decrease is general throughout the country, the corresponding figures for England and Wales being 95,808 in 1914, and 74,647 in 1919. Questions as to the ventilation of factories and coal-mining levels and of schools should be addressed to my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the President of the Board of Education respectively.

  COUNTY ASYLUMS.
  Lieut.-Commander HILTON YOUNGasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the increase in the cost of maintenance in county asylums and the consequent tendency on the part of boards of guardians to retain lunatics in workhouses, he will consider the advisability
  404
  of an increase in grants to boards of guardians in respect of patients in county asylums?
  Dr. ADDISON: May I refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the similar question asked last Wednesday by the hon. Member for Smethwick?

  PARLIAMENTARY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGISTER.
  Sir A. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Minister of Health what was the useful purpose of publishing a White Paper on the 24th July, 1920, showing the number of parliamentary and local government electors on the register on the 15th October, 1919, when that register had been obsolete for more than two months; and will he state the expenditure incurred in compiling, printing, and circulating the Return?
  Dr. ADDISON: A return of the number of electors for each constituency was issued annually for more than 30 years before the War, and the return to which my hon. Friend refers is in continuation of that series. I think the information which the return gives as to the electorate of the country is of sufficient public interest to warrant its publication. I am unable to state the cost of compiling the return, but I am informed by the Stationery Office that the cost of printing and circulating it was £65.

  POOR LAW REFORM.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Health whether the Government propose to bring in any legislation during the present Parliament dealing with the reform of the Poor Law and in any way altering the composition of the bodies which now administer the existing laws?
  Dr. ADDISON: Yes, Sir.

  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Health whether his Department has considered the Report of the Committee recently issued on the inquiry into the management of the Metropolitan Water Board; and whether they agree with the

  405
  recommendations of the Committee and propose to bring in legislation to carry the same into effect?
  Dr. ADDISON: The Report is under the consideration of the Metropolitan Water Board. It would rest with them to promote a Bill altering the Metropolitan Water Board (Charges) Act, 1907.

  LABOUR BUREAU, POPLAR.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the acquisition by the Office of Works of the licensed seamen's lodging house, 14, West India Dock Road, Poplar, E., now accommodating 130 men, for the purposes of a labour bureau; whether the alternative accommodation acquired by the present occupiers is a common lodging house, licensed for 113 beds and occupied by the British and Foreign Seamen's Society for coloured seamen; whether he is aware that the pressure on accommodation for seamen fluctuates so that even chapels have had to be used for this purpose; and whether, in order to prevent such aggravation of housing difficulties, he will consult the First Commissioner of Works on the subject?
  Dr. ADDISON: I can only refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which was given to him on the 28th July on behalf of the Minister of Labour. I do not think that I can intervene in the matter, but I will make further enquiries.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does that refer to the earlier notice reducing the accommodation so materially?
  Dr. ADDISON: Yes, I should say so, but I have not any power in the matter.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Has the Minister who has power any interest in housing accommodation?
  Dr. ADDISON: Power is vested in the local authorities. We cannot exercise powers we do not possess.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is not the Minister of Health bound to intervene, when it is proposed by other Ministers to abolish lodging for 130 men? A fortnight back I asked the Minister of Labour if this House was being converted
  406
  into a labour bureau. The Commissioner of Works replied, justifying his action by the existence of alternative accommodation, which, in fact, has been in continuous use, and yet he saw no reason for consulting the Minister of Health. Is no Minister responsible for seriously considering the effect of such a lessening of accommodation?
  Dr. ADDISON: I will do what I can. I will make enquiries.

  IMPORTED POTABLE SPIRITS.
  Colonel GRETTONasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that many complaints and allegations have been made of the bad quality and injurious results arising from the consumption of certain imported potable spirits; if the Ministry has taken any steps to test the truth or otherwise of such statements; if the Ministry has powers under the Food and Drugs Act to condemn imported potable spirits of bad quality; and, if so, have such powers ever been used?
  Dr. ADDISON: Enquiries have been instituted into the allegations referred to, and I should be happy to consider any specific information in the hon. and gallant Member's possession. Under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts the vendor of any article of food or drink which is either injurious to health or not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded is liable to prosecution. The Acts are administered by local authorities, and the Ministry of Health have no powers of condemnation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House what Orders he proposes to take to-night, and, in the second place, is it intended to move the Adjournment of the House to-morrow or on Friday, in view of the pressure of business, which, I think, is obvious to all of us?
Mr. BONAR LAW: We hope to get the first eight Orders to-day, and we expect it will be possible to get the Adjournment to-morrow. A notice to that effect will appear on the Paper to-morrow morning. The Adjournment will be from to-morrow until Tuesday, 19th October.
Mr. MILLS: Shall we meet at twelve to-morrow, or two?
Mr. BONAR LAW: At the usual time.
Mr. BRIANT: Is the shops (Early Closing) Bill among those to be taken before the Recess?
Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not in the first eight Orders, and we have given up all hope of getting it before the Adjournment. In any case it could not go through another place.
Sir D. MACLEAN: It is usual to meet at twelve o'clock for the Adjournment Motion, and, in view of the large number of questions which hon. Members wish to debate, will the Leader of the House consider meeting at twelve?
Mr. BONAR LAW: We have met sometimes at twelve, and sometimes at two. My Noble Friend (Lord Edmund Talbot) discussed that with me, and we thought it would be quite possible to get through the business at the usual time, and that it would be more convenient to meet at a quarter to three.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Ministry of Mines Bill (changed to "Mining Industry Bill"), with Amendments,
Resident Magistrates (Ireland) Bill,
Merchant Shipping (Scottish Fishing Boats) Bill,
Post Office and Telegraph Bill,
Telegraph (Money) Bill,
Pensions (Increase) Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—
Census Bill [Lords],
Firearms Bill [Lords],
Census (Ireland) Bill [Lords],
Mayor's and City of London Court Bill [Lords],
Merthyr Tydfil Corporation Bill,
Cardiff Corporation Bill [Lords],
Llanelly Corporation Water Bill [Lords],
Salford Corporation Bill [Lords],
Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords],
Workington Harbour and Dock Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Coatbridge burgh." [Coatbridge Burgh Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

MINING INDUSTRY BILL (CHANGED FROM "MINISTRY OF MINES BILL"),
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 213.]
COATBRIDGE BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
GEORGE EDWARDS, Esq., for County of Norfolk (Southern Division).
Sir ARTHUR CHARLES CHURCHMAN, Bart., for County of East Suffolk (Wood-bridge Division).

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN.

    MONUMENT IN PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I beg to move,
    "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that His Majesty will give directions that a Monument be erected within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster to the memory of the late right hon. Joseph Chamberlain, with an inscription expressive of the high sense entertained by this House of the eminent services rendered by him to the Country and Empire in Parliament and in great Offices of State, and to assure His Majesty that this House Mill make good the expenses attending the same."
    4.0 P.M.
    I have to apologise to the House that owing to the very absorbing character of my occupation during the last few days, I am afraid I shall not be able to do justice to the theme of this Resolution. Fortunately, the record of this distinguished statesman is so fresh in our minds, and the recollection of his great gifts is so vivid, that it needs no words of mine to recommend the Motion to the acceptance of all parties in the House. No man could win, possess, and retain, as he did for a generation, the devotion of multitudes of his countrymen, and at the same time retain the devotion of those who knew him best, without possessing not merely great magnetic qualities, but a fine nature. There are few men in the history of this country who so retained the passionate attachment of many millions of their countrymen for thirty years, and who also retained such an intense hold on the city in which he lived and laboured, on the friends who knew him intimately, and on his family who knew him best of all. This is not the occasion for passing in review the achievements of Mr. Chamberlain as a statesman. The monument which it is proposed shall be set up is a monument to a great Parliamentary figure. Much of his policy still remains in the realm of acute controversy, but there is a large part of it which is now beyond challenge by any section in the House or in the country, and that part in itself is large enough to accord him exalted fame in the
    450
    ranks of British statesmanship. His social programme provoked fierce antagonism, not merely amongst his opponents, but even amongst his political associates, for a long time. Yet it is now acclaimed by all parties as a substantial contribution to the well-being and the strength of the Empire. His vision of the importance of strengthening the partnership of the Empire has already been justified by the sternest and most searching test which you could apply to any problem or proposal, that of a great world war. The legislation for which he was either directly or indirectly responsible has left a permanent mark on the lives of the people. Free education was but one of many beneficent measures for which he was responsible. There were in particular two measures which have had more to do with averting the distress and cruelty of undeserved poverty than probably any measures of modern times in which he was directly concerned and which he promoted. One was the Workmen's Compensation Act and the other was the Old Age Pension Act. The first he, by his great courage, decision, resolution and parliamentary skill was directly responsible for putting on the Statute Book of this realm. The second he had not the privilege of escorting to the Statute Book himself, but without his powerful advocacy I doubt whether it would have been achieved when it was. He more than anyone took a leading part in forcing that question to the forefront and in removing the resistance which might have made it difficult for it to have been carried.
    I think the first interview I ever had the privilege of having with Mr. Chamberlain—it was in his room in this House, when he was Colonial Secretary and I was a private Member—was in reference to old age pensions. He sent for me. I was a Member of the Select Committee which sat on that subject, and I was very much impressed with his intense earnestness and eagerness to see something done to remove the burden of poverty from deserving old people. Of what he accomplished for the Empire perhaps the Dominions are even better judges than we are, and they have but one mind on the subject. He aroused the national spirit and awoke the national intelligence to the value, and, to the imperative need, of strengthening the bonds of fraternity between

    451
    the various parts of the Empire, and the notable part which the Dominions took in the Great War, and especially the alacrity with which they took it, was attributable in no small degree to what he did in arousing that sense of partnership and collaboration between the various parts of the Empire. The future alone will reveal the full extent to which his labours contributed to the fashioning of the destiny of the Empire, and, through the Empire, of the fate of mankind. He was essentially a fighting man. He was a great controversialist. He and Mr. Gladstone, more than almost any men of their time, had the spirit as well as the art of the Parliamentary gladiator. There are men, there have been many, around whom great conflicts have raged in their life-time, but who when they passed away left no trace of the great energy which they expended upon the strife—like a craft driving through a turbulent sea with throbbing power, throwing up a wild fury of waters, but soon after it has passed leaving no trace behind. That was not the case with Mr. Chamberlain. He left many beneficent traces of his endeavours in the laws of his country, in the humble lives of the people, in the story of the Empire, and, through the Empire, in the history of the world.
    This is a Parliamentary memorial to a great Parliamentarian. I think I am one of the few Members of this House who witnessed what I regard as the greatest Parliamentary duel which even this House has seen—the struggle of 1893 in which Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Chamberlain were the chief protagonists, an intense, concentrated struggle which went on night by night, week after week, month after month. It is only those who heard and saw Mr. Gladstone in debate who can fully appreciate what a redoubtable Parliamentary debater he was—in my humble opinion, perhaps, the most formidable Parliamentary debater that has ever appeared even in this House. It was no mean challenge to face Mr. Gladstone. He was, it is true, a very old man, but all those who heard him then know that his powers were quite undimmed and that age had only added a few more wiles to the fencing skill of the old warrior. Mr. Chamberlain fought that great fencer, and Mr. Gladstone was the first to acknowledge that the skill, the courage, the resolution, and the dexterity
    452
    which Mr. Chamberlain displayed on that occasion made him a foeman worthy of his steel. I remember an old Member of this House, a very distinguished Member, telling me that he saw Mr. Gladstone a year or two after his retirement, I think it was in 1894 or 1895, and the first thing he said to him was, "You will hardly guess who has just left me." Mr. Chamberlain had just paid a call on his old Chief and his old opponent, and Mr. Gladstone added, "He is the most remarkable man that British politics has produced within the last forty years." That was the testimony of the greatest judge of his day, and one felt that if Mr. Gladstone had realised that in time the history of this country might have been different. Mr. Gladstone knew him as a supporter; he knew him as a critic.
    Mr. Chamberlain possessed all the qualities of a great parliamentarian. He initiated and established a new parliamentary standard of style, different from the old, but more adapted to the temper and the needs of the time. This is essentially a parliamentary country. The Debates of Parliament, its decrees, its struggles, are an essential part of the life of the country. Other lands have achieved liberty often through violence. All our struggles for freedom are associated with the career of this Parliament. Even when force was resorted to on occasions in the fight for freedom against either internal or external foes, Parliament initiated and directed the conflict. A great parliamentarian means more to this land than to any country under the sun. I say, therefore, that when we honour a great parliamentarian we observe the highest traditions of our native land, and we strengthen the whole of its free institutions. For that reason I move with confidence a Motion that, we should do honour to the memory of one of the most striking parliamentary figures we have produced in this country.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I am very glad to have the opportunity of associating myself with this tribute from the House of Commons to a great man, who, if the choice had been offered to him of all the possible forms of posthumous honour, would, I am convinced, have deliberately preferred to be commemorated here. There are many avenues to Parliamentary

    453
    renown. In the old days there was, for those who knew how to take advantage of it, the conventional road, mapped out and measured by family connection, by the opportunities which come from academic distinction or personal patronage. Those who did not share these favours of fortune were at a permanent disadvantage. Burke and Sheridan—the one the most profound thinker, the other perhaps the most many-sided genius of their time, both of them Parliamentary orators of the first rank—were never allowed to enter the Cabinet. Mr. Chamberlain's Parliamentary career may, I think, be said to have marked, and marked definitely, the advent of a new era. His years of apprenticeship to public life were spent, as the Prime Minister has reminded us, among the activities of a great provincial city. He had already reached his fortieth year when, with a distinguished municipal record, but, so far as the world knew, with no other credentials, he took his seat upon these Benches. The House of Commons is habitually generous to new Members, but it is apt to be, I do not say jealous, but fastidious, or, at any rate, critical, of reputations acquired outside. Macaulay, Mill, Morley—the list might easily be extended—are familiar examples. All the more remarkable is it that Mr. Chamberlain had not been here, I think, four years, when, without any intermediate stage, he was advanced to Cabinet rank. Thenceforward for the lifetime of a generation—I can speak as an eye-witness for the greater part of that time—he never ceased to be a conspicuous, and before long he became a dominant, figure in this House.
    It is well for us, and for those who are to succeed us, to try on an occasion like this to realise and to appreciate the qualities which, without any of the adventitious aids which other great Parliamentarians have enjoyed, gave him what was in many ways a unique position. I may claim, perhaps, to speak with freedom and even with detachment, for, though I am glad to remember that no cloud ever for a moment overshadowed our personal friendship and goodwill, yet it was my lot, particularly during the later phases of his career, to be a resolute and even a vehement antagonist of his policy. What were his qualities? Alike in character and in intellect, Mr.
    454
    Chamberlain had a clear-cut personality. He had, if I may say so, no blurred edges. Endowed with a strong and masterful will, no man in our time surpassed him in directness of purpose and in the power of concentrated effort. He had an almost unrivalled faculty of appeal to people outside, and a dexterity rarely, if ever, exceeded in the arts of party organisation and management. Indeed, at one time, as I well remember, it was a fashion among the hoary quid nuncs of politics—a tribe which still survives—to dismiss him with what in their vocabulary was the most damnatory of all epithets; they used to call him a "demagogue." There are, and always have been in history demagogues and demagogues.
    This acknowledged master of all the resources of the platform acquired with ease, and exercised with consummate versatility and address, the gifts of a supreme parliamentarian. What were those gifts? If I might try to summarise them in a sentence, I should say this: In cool, clear, incisive statement; in adroitness and flexibility in debate; in ready command of humour and sarcasm; easy, unstudied yet bitingly effective; and, as far as my judgment goes, beyond all and above all in the development, step by step, and stage by stage, of a cumulative argument, he had few equals, and I believe no superior in the annals of Parliament. I am speaking of him to-day entirely and exclusively as a House of Commons man. It is for that reason, not because I have forgotten, and not because I disparage them, that I do not follow what has been so well said by the Prime Minister in regard to his achievements in the legislative and administrative spheres. It was as a House of Commons man that we, and those who love and revere his memory, most desire that he should be held in regard. Let me add this. These rare parliamentary accomplishments were fed and sustained and inspired by unselfish ideals, by dauntless courage, by unswerving loyalty to colleagues and friends, and, above all, by a pervading and dominating sense of imperial and patriotic duty. His example is, and, I believe, will remain, one of our treasured memories. It is, I think, fitting—I hope by our unanimous voice to-day—that his effigy should take its place among the famous figures which in their long and

    455
    honoured succession impersonate and keep alive for posterity the great traditions of this House.
    Mr. CLYNES: Perhaps the Committee will allow me just in a sentence to associate those on this side of the House for whom I can speak, with the terms of deserved praise which have been uttered by the Prime Minister and by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I am uttering what I know to be in the minds of Labour men on this side of the House when I say that there is no more honoured name in the political activities of our country than the name of Chamberlain. It was not my fortune to enter this House until towards the close of his career, but I know something of his activities in civic life, and of the great example which he set to large communities in the reform and improvement of the amenities of those great centres. Our life in many of the great communities owes much in its development and improvement to the example and pioneer work of Joseph Chamberlain, even before he entered the House of Commons. I only want to add that he became a pioneer in the sphere of social legislation and industrial effort when industrial legislation had few friends in this country, and I know, if only because of the passing of the Employers' Liability Act and what followed as the result of his efforts, that many an injured workman and many a stricken family have had cause to bless the name of Joseph Chamberlain. For these reasons, if for no other, we gladly associate ourselves with this perhaps belated and perhaps unworthy effort to perpetuate his memory. I think his memory will be better perpetuated by his own good deeds, but let us not so far neglect our duty as not to erect some monument even more frequently to remind us of his good work than we might be reminded if we took no action as a House of Commons. I therefore associate my hon. Friends on this side of the House with what has been said by the Prime Minister, and I trust that this Motion will be unanimously carried.
    Mr. HOGGE: I have an Amendment on the paper—to leave out the words "and to assure His Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same "—which I put down,
    456
    as the House will observe, to the last line of the Motion, in order to make it quite clear that one did not want to dissociate oneself from the recognition of the late Mr. Chamberlain, but wished to raise a new point, and an entirely novel point, so far as these recognitions are concerned. I recognise, however, that on an occasion like this the House would desire that the Resolution should be unanimous, and, therefore, I do not propose to move my Amendment. The mere fact that this afternoon the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friends the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) and the Member for the Platting Division of Manchester (Mr. Clynes), all of whom were political opponents of Mr. Chamberlain, are the vehicles and channels through which we express our appreciation of him shows the real generosity of the House of Commons, and I do not want to interfere with it. I do not propose to move my Amendment, but I do desire to say that to-morrow, on the Adjournment Motion, I shall raise the financial point, not in connection with this particular Resolution, but in connection with the future policy of this Government, or of any other Government, with regard to the erection of statues in this House.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, nemine contradicente,
    "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that His Majesty will give directions that a Monument be erected within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster to the memory of the late right hon. Joseph Chamberlain, with an inscription expressive of the high sense entertained by this House of the eminent services rendered by him to the Country and Empire in Parliament and in great Offices of State, and to assure His Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same."
    Resolution to be reported on Monday, 16th August.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

  COLONIAL AFFAIRS.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Before this Bill be read the Third time, I desire to

  457
  call the attention of the House to the way in which some of this money is being spent in connection with the Colonial Office. We have to-day to discuss the question of the constitution which has been granted to Ceylon. Unfortunately, Ceylon is not part of the Indian Empire, and consequently the reform schemes which have been so wisely, as I think, introduced in connection with India do not affect Ceylon, and the Cingalese are deprived of that measure of advancement which the bulk of our Indian subjects now enjoy. This question of Ceylon is, unfortunately, not under the India Office, but under the Colonial Office, and it is because of the extraordinary difference of treatment of an exactly similar subject by the India Office and by the Colonial Office that we on these Benches feel bound to take this opportunity of bringing the matter forward, so that the public at large may appreciate the difference between the two Departments in dealing with an analogous subject. The Colonial Office, in the old days, used to be perhaps the most autocratic Department in the Government. The Viceroy of India is in a way autocratic, but he is under the Secretary of State for India. But the Secretary of State for the Colonies has practically no one above him. Criticism in this House must always confine itself to points of detail, and so vast and so wide spread are the activities of the Colonial Office that any criticism must have been largely ill-founded and not based upon sufficient evidence to really affect the conduct of that Department. But in the old days we had a series of Secretaries of State for the Colonies, belonging, after all, to the old governing families of England, and those statesmen looked at Colonial problems and the varying interests in the colonies from a periscope, from a position of complete isolation from the interests represented. I remember Mr. Harcourt, now Lord Harcourt, telling me that when he went to the Colonial Office he told his secretary to hand over to the permanent Secretary of State a complete list of his investments, and he told the permanent Secretary of State to tick those off which he would sell so that he might have no interests in any of those colonies with which he was going to concern himself.
  That is the right attitude, and I expect it is the attitude still adopted. That
  458
  illustrates perfectly the position of the true Secretary of State for the Colonies that he should be able to judge perfectly unbiassed between the interests of the natives and the settlers and permanent officials in the great Crown Colonies of the British Empire. So we had the old governing families, the Harcourts, the Longs, even the Churchills and the Chamberlains, all running the colonies of the Empire from a position of great superiority and authority. Even if they were not criticised, they did their duty irrespective of the interests concerned. We are a little doubtful whether those traditions are being preserved. I am not going to criticise Lord Milner in any way. Lord Milner, although nominally Secretary of State for the Colonies, has been out of this country for a great part of last year doing work elsewhere, admirably I have no doubt. But the Under-Secretary for the Colonies is with us today, and the Under-Secretary is a man of intense energy, great assiduity and, I almost think unfortunately, a lover of hard work for its own sake. It is no secret to say that the Under-Secretary of State is the Colonial Office at the present time. It is against the Under-Secretary of State that my criticism this afternoon will be devoted. The Under-Secretary of State is not on the pedestal any longer. The Under-Secretary is one of the vested interests that he has to control. I do not mean that he has any financial interest or investment, but he is in mind and soul one of the settlers. He is one with them, he shares their views, and he is no longer in that complete position of independence which the old Secretaries of State used to occupy. We on these Benches who look closely into Colonial matters are afraid that he takes every question that comes up not with the unbiassed attitude of weighing and balancing between the natives and settlers and permanent officials, but that he is naturally biassed in favour of the settler class, and that he is naturally biassed in favour of the exploitation of these countries rather than in the position of blind justice taken up by the old administrators of the past.
  We have had one case after another. Nauru Island is a great case of exploitation into which I will not go now. If you turn to East Africa you find there the adoption by the Government of the extreme irredentist point of view of the settlers. The Indians are to be put in

  459
  ghettos, the Indians are to be segregated from the settlers, not only in the interests of sanitation, but really because the settler point of view is the point of view taken by the Colonial Office. We find in West Africa complete new innovations. There is the export duty on palm kernels, a duty which cannot by any possible stretch of logic be held to be in the interests of the inhabitants of the West Coast of Africa. It is obviously the development of a new policy of Imperial exploitation in the interests of big finance. In Nyassaland the same principle has been adopted. We hear very little of these things, and we should hear nothing were it not for the admirable work done by the Anti-Slavery Aborigines Protection Society. It is only recently that the policy has been changed. The most serious part of all is that in the last year and a half since the War there has been occasion to grant to three of our great Crown Colonies new constitutions. It is in the framing of those constitutions that the cloven hoof, if I may so describe it without offence, is most visible. Those three Crown Colonies are, British East Africa, Rhodesia, and Ceylon. In British East Africa I do not think the constitution has actually been completed yet. There the whole question, so far as the good government of the British Commonwealth is concerned, depends upon the granting of some form of franchise to educated Indians and educated natives in that country. Nothing else really matters in regard to the future government of East Africa, because it will soon obviously be one of the self-governing Dominions with which we cannot possibly interfere. But it depends on the franchise given in the new constitution, whether the future Government of East Africa is to be a Government in the interests of the whole of that country, and of all the inhabitants of that country, or merely in the interests of the settlers.
  I am very much afraid, more afraid now than I was two months ago, whatever we may say in this House, the present Coalition Government, which means of course the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, will see that in that new constitution for East Africa the Indians, even a few selected educated Indians, and the natives, either Arab, Masai, or the others, will not be given
  460
  representation, and will not be given votes on the general electoral list. I am quite aware that they will be given special representation, but that does not develop into general representation. If you once start on the line of communal representation, as it is called in India, giving special representation to the Indians or the natives, then farewell to any real co-operation between the whole inhabitants of that country, and that colony which is to become one of the self-governing Dominions. If the white representatives on the Nairobi Legislative Assembly are to have no coloured voters, no Indian voters, then they cannot be expected to look after the interests of the coloured people, of the Indian people, of that Dependency. In the same way, if there are special Indian representatives on that Legislative Assembly they will be elected only by the Indians, and therefore they will look after the interests of the Indians only, and have no common interests with the rest of the inhabitants of the country. This, then, is what we on these Benches protest against. The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies takes purely the settler view and tries to establish the domination of the white settlers in that country—they must necessarily have influence there in any case from financial and national reasons—because he wants to make it an even greater domination by those special representatives, of the so-called inferior race. It is because of that that we protest against that form of constitution.
  I pass from East Africa; that is merely symptomatic of what is being done elsewhere. Take Rhodesia. Rhodesia has been promised self-government provided that the majority in the present legislative assembly were in favour of responsible government. The other day a general election was held in Rhodesia. Every single seat was carried by the Responsible Government party, every single seat turned down the representatives of the chartered companies and elected men pledged to responsible government. The condition has been fulfilled; the constitution has not been granted. It may be granted at any minute, and we on these Benches are in favour of the granting of that constitution, but there, too, if you are going to grant responsible government solely to the settler class and exclude from the

  461
  general franchise all the native population of Rhodesia you are going to lay the foundation of a gross injustice. You are going to bolster up the domination of the settler class, a domination which must necessarily, by the permanent relations of master and man, be a class government of the very worst sort. In Cape Colony we have got, by the mercy of Providence, a few black voters. I do beg the right hon. Gentleman not to found his new constitution in Rhodesia upon either an exclusively white electorate or upon a communal system. I do not want many black voters to start with, but it is necessary to have some black voters. Do let us say that the Members of Parliament in that country may aim at meeting the wishes of all their constituents, black and white, and not of the class interest of the farming settlers in that country.
  What has happened in East Africa, may happen in Rhodesia, is also happening in Ceylon. The problems are exactly the same in Ceylon. We know definitely what the Colonial Office proposes. There, pushed forward by the example of India, the Colonial Office have decided that some sort of constitutional government must be given to the people of Ceylon. There is hardly any compunction in admitting that they are pushed into that position, that they have no desire to see Ceylon, as we on these Benches ultimately wish to see it, a self-governing Dominion within the British Commonwealth. They have to grant something, and they do it grudgingly. As a proof of how grudgingly this constitution to Ceylon has been granted I need only refer to one fact, that throughout the consideration of this fresh constitution in Ceylon there has been no reference whatever of the matter to the India Office, which has just been through the whole question of constitutional government. The India Office, 50 yards away from the Colonial Office, has not been consulted as to this constitution or as to any detail of it, although they have in the India Office the experience of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report, of a Bill which has gone through a Joint Committee of both Houses, and of the Morley-Minto Reforms, and the experience of the India Office in dealing with people, not only similar in character, but very largely identical. All this experience has been neglected entirely by the right hon. Gentleman.
  462
  The Secretary of State for India, in answering a question which I put to him the other day in this House, said that he had not been consulted on these Reports, That shows that the Colonial Office did not want to go so far as India had gone, but wished to accentuate the cleavage between India and Ceylon so that the problem might be looked at entirely from a different point of view. They promised a free constitution. They gave to Ceylon something that the India Government—even the worst bureaucrats in the Indian Government—would never dream of foisting off upon Madras or Bombay.
  In the Indian provincial Governments—and one of the Indian provinces, Madras, is very similar in character to Ceylon—the people are given first of all a substantial elected majority in the Legislature—70 per cent., sometimes more, are given to the different provincial Governments—but then, in addition to that, they give these Legislative Assemblies some control over the Executive. They have what they call dyarchy. Certain of the Ministers who sit, metaphorically speaking, on the Front Bench are responsible to the Legislative Assembly. They can be turned out if that Assembly disapprove of them. In the case of Ceylon nothing of the sort is done. The Executive are wholly irresponsible—it is true that they are responsible to this House through the Colonial Office—but they are wholly irresponsible so far as the people of Ceylon are concerned. The Legislative Assembly there has, as a matter of fact, 38 members including the Governor, and of these 38 members in that Assembly only 11 are elected by the people of Ceylon on a territorial basis. It is true that, in addition to those 11, there are, I think, two elected by the inhabitants of Ceylon, by the Europeans, one elected by the burghers or Eurasians, and one elected by the planters, but those are elected by close corporations, by a small number of electors and a small population. If you compare that with the Indian Provincial Councils you have to compare 11 territorially elected representatives with 60, 70, or 75 per cent. in the Provincial Legislatures. In addition to those 11 there is again introduced, and introduced, not this time against the wish of the Secretary of State as was the case in India, but at the instigation of the Under-Secretary of State, the communal

  463
  system, a system which gives special representation to anybody who can be induced to take it. The population of Ceylon are largely Cingalese, and, in the hill country, which was not conquered by us, but which was supposed to be under our Protectorate and came under our rule, those people are exactly the same in race and in religion as the rest of the inhabitants of the island of Ceylon. But communal representation is so popular with the right hon. Gentleman that he insists on having those people specially represented. The Mohammedans, of course, are specially represented, the Tamils, the Indians living in Ceylon, are specially represented. There is no evidence whatever, so far as I have heard, that the latter want communal representation at all.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): My hon. Friend is mistaken. The Tamils are not settlers.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. By the Tamils, I meant the Indians living in Ceylon. They are compelled to have communal representation. There is no evidence whatever that they want that representation. In Burma, the Indians living there were offered communal representation and refused to have it. They said they preferred, for their own interests, to be on the general list. Had it not been for the fact that the Colonial Office seeks to develop this system of communal representation, there would be no talk of that system in Ceylon except in certain cases. The fact is that, through representative Government in each of our Colonies, it is sought to divide the people of the Colonies so as to play off one interest against the other and govern through the disorder of the people governed. That is the ultra-fashionable method of governing a subordinate race. So far as you can, you must keep the Moslem against the Hindu, or any of these rival interests. So long as you can keep rival interests going, then you may retain in the saddle and govern through setting one class against the other. That is not a policy which any British Government, based upon the traditions of this country, ought to continue.
  464
  5.0 P.M.
  If you are really looking forward to making Ceylon, or East Africa, or Rhodesia, great self-governing Dominions of the Empire, so that when trouble comes they may back us up, but otherwise they will be self-governing and independent of bureaucracy, if that is your ultimate aim, then we have got to see that we start off on lines similar to those that we enjoy here. Every one of these bureaucrats wants permanently to remain in the saddle, they want to retain their present jobs and power and to surrender nothing to the people of the country, and it is because of this that they devise these schemes of communal representation, of setting class against class, race against race, religion against religion, doing any harm to the future of the British people and to the people of that country to preserve their own jobs. Now, that is not a policy that can be right for the people of this country, and if we had the old Secretaries of State, if we had Mr. Chamberlain, if we had, above all, Lord Harcourt, with us now, they would have seen that these blunders were not committed, but that a firm hand was kept over the interests of the settler and, above all, over the interests of the bureaucracy, and that they were not allowed to spoil the plan of the British Commonwealth by looking after their own little interests of a purely temporary character. At least, if we on these Benches ever assume power in this country, we want to give notice now that the whole of this system of communal representation will be swept away, that in every case we desire to see our Colonies self-governing as quickly as possible, and that we realise the best way in which we can look after the interests of all subordinate people, of all minorities—the only way in which it can be done on really satisfactory lines—is by giving them the franchise and enabling them to control their own destinies. It is no good our trying to govern other people from 5,000 miles away. Even the best Colonial Office cannot do it. All we can hope to do is to start these countries on a fair basis, giving them the beginnings of responsibility and giving them a fair franchise, which can be extended as time goes on. On those lines we are going to work. If necessary, we will upset all these constitutions that are being cast at the present time. This constitution

  465
  for Ceylon is particularly unfortunate. Just across the water Cingalese see the Indians getting—I will not say what they want, but getting, at any rate, to the first milestone on the road they want to travel.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is that not after three or four instalments of reform, and is not this the first instalment in Ceylon?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: No, this is not the first reform. I believe they got their first in 1834, long before the Morley-Minto Report, and really does the hon. Baronet wish to suggest to me that the Cingalese are not so fitted for self-government as the Indians? He really cannot know much about the Cingalese, because the standard of education is far higher in Ceylon, and there you have, fortunately, none of those silly rival religions or castes which separate people and make for intolerance and difficulty. You have higher education, no intolerance, and a people who have had some sort of constitution since 1834. To return to what I was saying. I was pointing out that the Cingalese see just across the water a people who, according to the ideas of the Cingalese, are not so far developed in education and civic virtues as themselves, get a constitution. They see that they have got that constitution through agitation of a character of which we in this House know very little, but which we can imagine—violent agitation. They see the results of this agitation in the granting of some semblance of freedom, and because the Cingalese have been quiet and done nothing, because they have had patience and faith in the Colonial Office and this House, they see they are being foisted with a very inferior constitution. What sort of effect is that going to have upon the Cingalese? Is not that obviously going to stimulate them to borrow the worst vices of the agitators of the Continent alongside them? Are they not going to say, "We have got this sham constitution given to us. We will boycott this constitution. We will not stand for election, or, if we do, we will merely use it as a platform for denouncing the Europeans." Up to now, there has been no gulf between the races in Ceylon, which have all got along well together. Very different is the case of India. There the cleavage between the European and the Indian grows daily. Are we really, through the ignorance of the Colonial
  466
  Office, hot only of the facts of Ceylon, but through their ignorance of the natural result of cause and effect, going to see grow in Ceylon exactly what we deplore in India? That is why I take this opportunity, even in the last days of the Session, to protest to this House against the granting of this sham constitution to Ceylon. There is no elective authority in the elected Assembly, and, if there were, they have no control over the Executive. These are frauds against which we protest, and we ask the House, before voting this large sum of money in the Consolidated Fund, to remember that we in this country are being let down by the Colonial Office.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: This discussion on the Consolidated Fund is really rather an important occasion. I do not suggest that the question of reforming the constitution in Ceylon can be regarded as equal in importance to the great Bill which we passed last year for reforming the constitution of India. Ceylon, of course, is not anything like the size of India, and the reforms which are put forward by the Government, and which we are discussing now in this indirect way, do not go anything like so far as the reforms contained in the Government of India Bill. Still, it is an important occasion, because it is an example of the development of the same policy which was put in force in India, and which is affecting the whole of our Dominions, and the whole future system of Government throughout the Empire. I will say, in passing, it is a somewhat strange thing that the Colonial Office, which is so directly associated with the great self-governing Dominions as pioneers in the development of the Empire, should be one of the most reactionary Offices in the State, so far as those parts of the Empire are concerned which are not self-governing, that it should lag a long way behind an Office such as the India Office, and that the reforms which are now proposed by the Government should go such a small distance in the same way as the India Office has gone in recent years.
  Let me make one remark before I proceed to offer any criticism with regard to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down. While I associate myself with some of his criticisms, I do not desire to associate myself with his criticisms so far as they were directed against the personal prejudices and in-

  467
  terests of my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. I desire to dissociate myself with these entirely. I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary has any interest or has any prejudice in favour of any interest in Ceylon, commercially, financially, planters or resident population. I do not think he approaches it with any bias, with any prejudice, or with any interest. I think his attitude is a detached one. If he has any prejudice at all, it is in favour of some intellectual dogma of his own. He has played, not the part of an interested party, but the part of an intellectual despot—a benevolent despot. He is trying to carry out in Ceylon the policy of Lenin. My first criticism of this new constitution which is proposed for Ceylon is that it imposes upon Ceylon the principles of Soviet Government. The proposals are altogether alien from the principles of democracy, as we understand them, and they are derived directly from, and are cognate to, that system of government which is now being imposed upon Russia. Let us look at the electoral con-situation of the new Council which is proposed for Ceylon. It consists, we are told, of 14 official members and 23 unofficial members. I want to direct attention to those 23 who are said to be the unofficial members. Out of the 23 there are 11 who are directly elected on a territorial basis, that is to say, who are elected on the same principle of representative government as prevails in this country. That leaves 12 to be accounted for—a clear majority. These 12 are elected or nominated on the Soviet principle. What is the Soviet principle?
  Mr. MILLS: What is it?
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: It is the election of citizens, not as citizens with a general interest in some geographical area, but separated in classes, trades and professions. That, I think, my hon. Friend will agree, is the distinguishing characteristic of Soviet representation, so far as that part of the Soviet constitution is concerned. That is exactly the principle which it is proposed to adopt in Ceylon for more than half of the unofficial members of the new constitution. Two of them are to represent the European community,
  468
  not on a geographical basis, but the European community of Ceylon as a whole, and, of course, that European community has almost entirely a direct commercial interest. There is to be one member of the Burgher community elected on the same principle. There is to be one member representing the Chamber of Commerce—purely a Soviet basis. There is to be one member representing the Low Country Products Association; that is to say, chiefly native planters, I understand. I see opposite me one hon. Member who has a very full knowledge of what appertains to Ceylon, and I speak with some hesitation in his presence, but I think I am speaking correctly in this case. We have, then, one Indian representative for the Indians to whom my hon. and gallant Friend opposite referred as Tamils. This Indian representation is also on a Soviet basis. The Indians generally come there for temporary purposes—trading or work. There are eight members elected on the communal system, not on the territorial system. There are four who are nominated by the Government to represent various interests—one to represent Mohammedan interests, and three to represent other special interests which do not happen to be represented otherwise. It lies in the hands of the Governor to decide what these special interests may be. So there we have out of twenty-three unofficial Members, eleven elected on a geographical basis, and we have twelve elected or appointed on a purely Soviet basis.
  I think my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary, is unduly prejudiced in favour of the Soviet basis, and there he differs from the Secretary for India. My hon. Friend desires to introduce this system experimentally, and then to extend it, possibly. I think he is making a mistake, and that it will have a bad effect in Ceylon. It will aggravate the problems of government and the difficulty of bringing the people together as a whole in the future, and it will lead to sectional antagonism. I should like to welcome one sentence which dropped from my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I do not know how far he can speak for the party to which he now belongs. He professes to speak for them, because he adopted the pronoun "we," and he spoke with great authority as to what "we"

  469
  should do when "we" came into power, but I welcome this statement for what it is worth, that when "we" come into power, take notice that the communal system of representation will be abolished. I take that as an intimation that the Labour party is going to oppose the efforts of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies to adopt the Soviet system in Ceylon or anywhere else. Some reference has been made to the Kandyan community, which has a special communal representation in this scheme. I would like to refer to it also as an illustration of the difficulties of the scheme. The Kandyans are to be given two members, elected on a communal and not a geographical basis, and the Kandyans themselves are divided on this subject. I have not the personal familiarity with the subject to be able to say which side has a majority. A large number of them wish to elect their representatives on a territorial basis, but a number of them desire the communal system, and I think those are in a minority, but I cannot offer a conclusive opinion on that point. How is my hon. Friend going to draw up his register for these Kandyans? There is no clear dividing line, I am informed, between the Kandyans and the ordinary native of Ceylon. They merge into one another, they have the same language, the same religion, very largely the same social customs, and they inter-marry. I can conceive of no more difficult problem than to try to draw up a register cutting off a special community under these conditions. Suppose my hon. Friend were to extend the system to this country and were to propose that my compatriots from Scotland living in London or throughout England should be represented on a communal basis. How would he draw up his register? There is no clear dividing line, they inter-marry with the English, they have the same language, and how is he to frame his register? It will give rise to interminable disputes and feuds. Fancy the objections that might be alleged as to whether this man or that man was a Kandyan or not. I think he has landed himself here into a problem, the difficulties of which he has not considered. So far as ease and efficiency in working are concerned, there is nothing to rival the system of representation, developed by centuries in this country, on a geographical basis with a residential
  470
  or other qualification of a simple and easy nature.
  So much for the electoral system proposed in these reforms. Now let me say a few words with reference to the constitution of the Council itself, and here I think we come to the real crux of the matter. How far will this Council be really representative and how far will it have any real power? It is alleged that there are only fourteen official members, whereas there are twenty-three unofficial members, a clear majority of nine unofficial members, and that is put forward as an argument in favour of this constitution. What is the real position? There are these fourteen official members. You must add to them the Governor, who has a vote, and in addition he has a casting vote, but I will only count now his original vote. That makes fifteen. Then you have the two Europeans, then you have the Burgher community, and then you have the Chamber of Commerce representation, or four altogether, which makes nineteen. There we have nineteen members, and the whole experience of India under the Morley-Minto scheme shows that these together will form one block of nineteen, leaving out of the thirty-eight another nineteen, equally balanced, and the Governor holding the easting vote. But that is not all. Out of these nineteen there are four who are not elected, but who are nominated by the Governor. It is possible that some of these four may vote with the elected representatives, but it is much more possible that they will vote with the Government which nominated and appointed them. It is true that they are to be left free to follow their own conscience and that they are not to be subject to reprimand if they vote as the Government does not wish, but if you gave me the freedom to nominate all the Members of this House, I could easily get a House that would pass any measure that I desired, while leaving the House perfectly free to act on its own conscience. If you choose the right kind of man you can secure, in all human probability, men who will follow the policy you desire, although you exercise no pressure or restraint upon them. Therefore I say that this constitution does not give any real responsibility to the new Council. It does not give any really representative character to it. It falls infinitely short of anything that has been done in

  471
  India, and seeing that that is so, why should there be the most drastic power of veto reserved to the Governor? Under the scheme the Governor has power to pass any Bill that he desires, and that he certifies to be necessary, over the heads of the Council, and he has power, in addition, to veto any Bill that he objects to, over the heads of the Council. You have got a Council that is the creature of the Governor, and yet you reserve to the Governor power to pass any Bill over the heads of this creature and to veto any Bill that is passed by this creature. I submit that to put forward a proposal of this kind and to suggest that it constitutes any real advance upon the present situation is to practise a delusion upon the people, to excite resentment, and to create and foster a growing agitation for a system of government that will, at least, equal that of India and give some real responsibility, some real influence in the government of the country, to the permanent resident population of that country. I will not say that this Council does not give real self-government; no one expects that it would give real, effective self-government at the present stage; but I will say that it does not make any advance towards self-government, and it does not give any share or participation in the work of self-government.
  My last reference will be to the Executive Council. The only proposal in regard to this, I think, is that His Majesty shall instruct the Governor to appoint three unofficial members of the Executive Council. I should like to ask some questions on that, because that is very little information to give us. Can my hon. Friend in his reply give us any further information about the three unofficial members? Of what character are they to be, are they to be all natives of Ceylon, are they to be all representatives of the local resident population, or are they to be Europeans? That is a very important aspect, and it will be of some value if Ceylon will follow the example of India and give to native Cingalese with native instincts a real and effective share in the government of the country, even though they be nominated and not elected. I ask, first of all, who are they to be? In the second place, I ask, are they to hold portfolios, are they to be members of the Government, having administrative
  472
  duties, holding administrative office? In the third place, are they to be free to vote as they like, or are they supposed to represent the Government? Are they to have a position of independence such as is alleged to be given, but, I think, somewhat illusively alleged, to the nominated members of the Legislative Council?
  Lastly, what is to be the relation of the Executive Council to the Legislative Council—the greater body? We have been given no information here as to the relation in which they will stand to one another, what check the Legislative Council will have upon the Executive Council. There will be no machinery whereby the element of representative opinion in the Legislative Council shall be brought into direct contact with the administrative department, so that they may be able to encourage or criticise the department, or to make suggestions to it. I think some information on these points would be valuable. I have no desire to hamper my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in any criticism which I make. I have confined myself almost entirely to details of the scheme. It is very difficult to talk about these, because we have only got them in a very brief and summarised form. In a matter of this importance the whole of the details in the draft Order in Council should be before the House, and we ought to have an opportunity of discussing them in full, directly, and not merely by a side issue of the Consolidated Fund Debate. I would urge upon the hon. Gentleman before the House meets in the Autumn that full details of the scheme should be prepared, in draft, laid upon the Table and so submitted to Members, who should have the opportunity of giving the matter some discussion such as would be on any other occasion.
  Mr. G. A. TALBOT: I would first of all give due credit to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who sits beside me (Colonel Wedgwood) for his zeal on behalf of the native races. Nobody will deny that he has their welfare and their prosperity at heart, but this matter of Ceylon cannot be settled by these abstract principles of general representation, or by what has been called by my hon. and gallant Friend the principle of democracy. This matter has been influenced by the Indian settlement. I can speak for Ceylon, and I say that Ceylon is a great deal in front of India. It has been governed by a sound

  473
  policy in the past, and it has been very successful. In respect to Ceylon we have now to settle and determine one great principle, and that is whether we shall govern it on the paternal system or whether by a system of general representation. Perhaps I may give some account of what so far the Government has been. The Government of Ceylon is by a nominated Legislative Council. The Civil Service is open to public examination. It is open to the natives, and there are great many Indian Civil Servants who do very careful work. So far as the Civil Service are concerned, the natives of Ceylon have an equal chance with the English or any other nationality. Under its form of government Ceylon has been supremely successful. Her industries have developed, irrigation has been provided for, the revenues have increased, and altogether the prosperity of the country is undeniable. I see by the returns that the revenue which in 1893 was £1,800,000 twenty years later was £5,117,000. That shows what enormous prosperity the country has enjoyed under the existing Government. The natives of the country who are the chief element, work on the tea and rubber plantations. Good wages are paid to them, and they enjoy extreme prosperity.
  We come now to the new constitution about which it is said that it will give a new opportunity for the natives to take a share in the government. This new constitution, as described by my hon. Friend, gives a Legislative Council of 37 members, 14 officials, and 23 unofficial members, 19 of whom will be elected. I think he was rather inaccurate in saying that there are only 12. When the system eventually is in full working order, there will be 19 elected. My hon. Friend said a good deal about the communist system, and the evils of it. The people elected are people of different races; by the territorial system they would not be represented at all. It is only carrying out the principle of the old Legislative Council that there should be representatives of the different races and different classes. It is only just that they should have representation, and it is so accepted by the natives of Ceylon. It is contended that this new constitution does not give sufficient power, but it gives a very greatly increased power to what the people of the country ever had before. They have the control of finance. They have generally
  474
  a majority of the Council to manage the affairs of the country. Something has been said about the powers of the Governor. I will read the reference, which deals with the occurrence of a deadlock in any essential matter:
  "It will be provided that the Governor may declare that the passing of any measure is of paramount importance to the public interest, and that in such a case the measure may be carried by the votes of the official members. In every such case the Governor will be required to report his action to the Secretary of State, and to explain his reasons. The Governor will also have power to stop the proceedings of the Council in relation to any measure which he certifies to affect the safety or tranquillity of Ceylon."
  This power of veto is given to the Governor. I may say from the experience we have had of Ceylon and of the natives of Ceylon that this form of Government is most necessary to avoid deadlock and ill-feeling that may arise between the different races. It has been contended to-night that the best constitution for Ceylon would be one of general representation. I may say that such a form of Government has never been desired by the natives of Ceylon. They know the different races that are there, and the risks run of any ill-feeling between those different races. Consequently, there has never been any general desire by the people of Ceylon that another form of Government should be instituted, nor, as it shows, has there been any drag on the development of the country, or the opportunities of the natives to hold any post they may desire and for which they may be fitted.
  I and those associated with me, however, welcome this change, which will give a greater opportunity to the natives to share in the government. We hope it will succeed, and if it does we shall be quite ready to help forward any scheme for the development of popular representation that the people of the country wish. I would ask the House, however, to consider the principle involved, namely, whether we in our Oriental colonies should not consider the principle of paternal government as against the principle of popular representative government. It has been argued that as India has the latter, so Ceylon must have it. No doubt if popular representation is given to Ceylon, it will be worked with justice; and other Crown Colonies should have it too. But how would it answer, for

  475
  instance, at Singapore for the Malays to have popular representation? How would it answer at Hong Kong for the Chinamen to have popular representation? Or at Wei-hi-wei? To analyse it at all leaves the conclusion that the whole thing is absurd; that it cannot be done. If we are the British Empire we must have something to keep us together—a forged link which I am sure is the interests of the Empire and the countries affected. People who agitate for this general representation and self-government have no doubt in their minds the success of this House of Commons. But it cannot be imagined for a moment that if we gave to various races an elective assembly it would be of the same character or the same strength as this House.
  What strikes a person coming into this House for the first time? Is it not the strength of the conventions and of precedent? We know there is perfect freedom of speech. Sometimes there is so much freedom as to be embarrassing. Yet with all that freedom everybody has eventually a chance, and we all know that the power of the Chair in all these difficulties is supreme. Can you imagine that if you had an assembly of that sort in these different colonies they would have the character of this House of Commons, governed as it is by the instincts of the English people, by their principles of fair play and give and take? Looked at from the practical point of view, one can hardly imagine that such assemblies would be anything like as successful as this. So in this matter of general representation I say these are things to take into consideration. Another thing I should like to ask the House to consider most seriously is the unity of the British Empire. There is no doubt that the fact and character of the unity of the British Empire is of very great advantage to the native races belonging to it. Anything that impairs that unity would be a very great misfortune to them, as to all people engaged in business or in communication with these colonies. So if we have to continue the principle of governing our Colonies within the British Empire, I submit that this principle of paternal government, modified to suit the requirements of the different races, should be the ruling principle of our government.
  476
  There is another point to be brought to the notice of the House: that is the question of the Civil Servants. There is no doubt that if popular representation was put into force, and the government handed over to the predominant races in all these various countries, the status of the Civil Service would be very much altered. The Civil Servants in the British Colonies are a body of men of whom we are all very proud. They live away from their own countries, very often in solitary posts, they undertake great responsibilities: they are uncorrupt and unapproachable. In the interest of the native races, I must say it would be a very great misfortune if their power and influence were detracted from. I am sorry the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) is not here. I understood him to speak for the Labour party. I feel sure that the labourers in Ceylon who hear that this form of government and unpopular representation have been agitated for will not thank their friends here for what they have done.
  One of the chief duties of the Civil Servants in Ceylon is to protect the labouring classes from the minor officials and the extortions of people in a better position than they are. That is one of the duties of the Civil Servants, and it is one which they perform with great benefit to the people amongst whom they reside. The hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division (Mr. MacCallum Scott) spoke about the communal system and suggested that the Government should adopt the territorial basis as a means of bringing the races together. There are various races in Ceylon. There are the low country Cingalese, numbering about 1,750,000, the Kandyans, numbering about 1,000,000, and there are about 300,000 Mohammedans; and if you institute a system of territorial representation without communal representation the power will be placed entirely with the low country Cingalese, and all the representations in the villages or distant towns would probably be absorbed by this class. I do not say anything against them, but I wish to point out that fact. Speaking with some knowledge of the country, and knowing the great importance of preserving unity amongst the different classes, I urge upon the Government the serious consideration of the fact that, if the Crown Colonies are to be governed efficiently, the parental form of government should be

  477
  continued until the people show a disposition and capacity to undertake the duties of government in a modified form themselves.
  Mr. BENNETT: I am sure I shall not be misunderstood if I say that to-day this House represents our Parliamentary system in its most unfavourable aspect as a means of governing a, great and widespread Empire. Here we are dealing in the most perfunctory way with problems of the greatest Imperial interest. We feel to-day that we have had brought home to us more than ever before the necessity of some means of more fully co-ordinating the interests of the various races in our Empire, as represented by various Departments. We have the interests of the Indians in East Africa to consider. This question has been referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I want to point out that the Government of India have made a very definite declaration that they will not allow an inferiority of status to be given to Indian residents in East Africa as compared with the status allowed to the people of other races. That is a principle which has been laid down by the Government of India. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Colonial Office say what note the Colonial Office have taken of that solemn declaration of the rights of Indians in East Africa? Will he explain how that principle which has been laid down by the Government of India is to be taken note of by the Colonial Office in its dealings with the people of India, who may happen to be living in Crown Colonies or Protectorates?
  I pass from that question to the subject of constitutional reform in Ceylon. This has naturally been brought before us as a matter in which India is especially interested. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme made a special reference to the want of any indication in the Ceylon scheme of reform of any acquaintance with what has been done with regard to India. Here again you get an illustration of the want of touch between the India Office and the Colonial Office. It would not have been a difficult matter to have had the Colonial Office represented at the Joint Committee, because a responsible and capable representative of the Colonial Office might have gathered a good deal of wisdom, guidance, and light in regard to the work which it
  478
  is about to undertake in dealing with constitutional problems in Ceylon. The Colonial Office clings to the old idea of the Governor being present in its Legislative Council. Indian wisdom has pointed in the other direction, and so has experience. We see the great inconvenience of having a Governor presiding over his Legislature, and members of the Legislature will have far more confidence in an elected President at the head of their Council than they would have in the Governor himself, no matter how much respect they might attach to him.
  I do not think it is too late for the Colonial Office to take this scheme and recast it. We have not got it in the form of a Bill, and we have only got a summary, but I hope it is not too late for the Colonial Office to recast this measure and bring it somewhat nearer to the ideal of the Ceylon National Congress than it actually is now. The Colonial Office, in drawing up their statement of the scheme, say that the franchise and qualifications will follow the proposals of the Ceylon National Congress. That may be so, but I very much doubt whether the main principles of the scheme in any way carry out the ideal of the Ceylon National Congress. I should like the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Colonial Office to tell us in his reply if he, in his heart of hearts, believes that this scheme will conform to the ideal of the Ceylon National Congress, or that they look forward to it as a step towards the realisation of responsible government in Ceylon as an integral part of the British Empire. If there are in this scheme any provisions which point to this ideal as a means of guiding the people of Ceylon to the establishment of responsible Government I should like to know what they are.
  In order to understand fully that side of the question we must understand what is proposed in regard to the executive councils. I would also like to know who the three non-official members of the executive council are to be? Are they to be members of the legislative council, and what are the functions which it is proposed to bestow upon them? One hesitates to use that horrible word "diarchy" in any discussion, but there are ideas in the diarchy which might well have been considered by the Colonial Office when they were framing this scheme. Do they

  479
  propose to give to any member of the executive council, I mean any unofficial member, anything like responsibility for the department which is to be entrusted to him? If we get an absolute "no" as the answer to that question, then I see in this scheme very little hope of advancement in the direction of responsible government for the people of Ceylon. You may say that they are not fit for it. I am not sufficiently acquainted with Ceylon to be dogmatic upon that point, but I feel sure that when the people of Ceylon see in operation across the narrow strait which divides that island from the mainland a system of government in which the principle of responsibility is deeply rooted and has been fully adopted, they will be more than envious and more than dissatisfied with the position in which the Bill leaves them.
  6.0 P.M.
  Furthermore, I should like to hear from the hon. and gallant Gentleman on what ground he justifies the inauguration, and the definite incorporation in this scheme, of the principle of communal representation. I am not going so far as the hon. and gallant Member opposite, who said that when his party came into power they would advise the people of India, or rather I think he said that they would undertake to smash the communal principle as embodied in the electoral system. I hate the communal principle, and I am opposed to it tooth and nail, but it is there and you have to deal very delicately with it. You may think a particular stone in the wall is rather ugly, but if you pull it out the whole wall may come down, and this principle plays such a great part in the constitution of India to-day that whatever we do in regard to it, I think we should be ill-advised if we suddenly took it away. It was incorporated for the protection of the Mohammedans of India, who managed to convince that pure-blooded democrat, Lord Morley, that this proposal was necessary and essential. There may be some justification for the communal principle in India, but I say that there is no need for it in Ceylon. There is no great race in Ceylon with special and exclusive religious claims to command special representation. There are no struggling minorities there who want protection against dominant castes or
  480
  dominant majorities. Therefore, I fail to see any reason whatever why the principle of communal representation should be introduced. We are told that conditions in Ceylon differ so fundamentally from those of India that we are not obliged to follow the Indian example in such a matter as this. The classes intermarry, you have not the much maligned Brahmin domineering over the rest of the country, and, in fact, for political purposes Ceylon may fairly be described as a homogeneous community. I do not, consequently, understand why these distinctions are to be observed. I do not like to use the word "camouflage" unnecessarily. It is a fashionable word often foolishly used, but is it not a mere piece of camouflage to tell the people of Ceylon that they are going to have an unofficial majority, and that a real advance towards self-government is thus given them? It is throwing dust in their eyes. It would have been better to have been honest with them and to have said, "We are going to take you a real step forward in the path of self-government, and will therefore trust you with a small majority of your own." It must be an elected majority and not a nominated majority. I willingly admit there are some points in the Indian scheme which should be avoided, but we have found it safe and desirable to give an elected majority for Provincial Councils in India and also to the Imperial Legislative Assembly, and we should have had the courage to apply the same principle to Ceylon and to give them an elected majority, even if of one member only.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Although they have no responsibility.
  Mr. BENNETT: We have an easier people to deal with in Ceylon than in India. At any rate, that is the view I have arrived at from my study of the facts. It seems to me we should do no harm if we were at least as courageous in Ceylon as we have been in India. The Government offer a majority of unofficial Members, and they endeavour to guarantee the quality of the membership by saying it shall be definitely laid down by the Secretary of State that nominated unofficial Members are not in any event to be required to vote according to the directions of the Governor. I suppose the object of that is to satisfy the people of Ceylon that a nominated Assembly is just as good for

  481
  public purposes as an elected Assembly. I do not think that the people of Ceylon, of whom 40 per cent. are educated, are likely to be taken in by an argument of that kind. In India I know it was, until recently at all events, held that a nominated Member of the Legislative Assembly was bound to vote with the Governor. Sometimes the Governors have tried to disabuse the public mind of that idea, but, at any rate, up to a recent date it was felt there was a sort of noblesse oblige, which bound them to support the Governor. I shall be afraid that the operation of a nominated majority in the Council in Ceylon will have very much the same effect as it has had in India. I am not going to say that the people of Ceylon should reject this scheme. It is the best they can get, and they had better work it in the best way they can, but I would appeal to the Colonial Office to say if it cannot go a little further. My hon. Friend spoke of the Colonial Office as the most reactionary Department in the Government. I would not go so far as to say that, but I say I would be careful not to go to the Office with any exaggerated hopes. I have, however, sufficient confidence in the statesmanship of the Noble Lord at the head of the Department, and in the desire of my hon. and gallant Friend who represents it here, to do justice by the people of Ceylon, to make me hope that the points I have put forward will be carefully weighed.
  Mr. ROYCE: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for some remarks that fell from the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). In the first place, I would like to dissociate myself from his remarks in relation to the Colonial Office, and especially his references to Colonial Secretaries, because I feel that in the gentleman at the head of the Colonial Office we have a very wise administrator who has had very large experience of the countries for which he is at present responsible, and I think the same remark would apply in a more or less measure to the Under-Secretary of State who also has had personal opportunities of making himself acquainted with the requirements of those countries. I want to draw special attention to the observation of my hon. and gallant Friend that the Labour party, if and when it came into power, would do certain things, would upset the whole of
  482
  the present arrangements, and would introduce, as I understood, general principles to be applied alike to all countries—so far separate and apart as East and West and South Africa and Ceylon.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The policy of the Labour party with regard to the Colonies in Africa has been clearly laid down in a circular sent to hon. Members, including, I assume, to the hon. Member who is in possession of the House. The policy is a long one, and I cannot go through it now, but it does draw a distinction as between one colony and another, and it states what exactly would be done in each case.
  Mr. ROYCE: I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he has said, but I would draw his attention to this fact, that he proposes to apply general principles to all these countries. He is going to apply a general principle of representation. If he is going to do that, if that is the policy of the Labour party that this principle should be so applied, then I must dissociate myself from it. If you are going to apply the same principle to a country like Ceylon with its 40 per cent. of educated population as to another country like South Africa where there is no education at all, it is so absurd that I think to allow the statement to go unchallenged would do infinite harm to the Labour party itself, because it would tell people abroad that when that party came into power it proposed at once to dictate something which had no reference to the conditions of peoples who lived in particular countries. I think the Labour party, when it comes into power, will have sufficient common sense to consult the varied interests of each country and will come to something in the nature of a sensible conclusion not to impose general principles on all but rather to do something especially applicable to each of the respective countries. I give place to no man in my desire to protect the natives and native interests. Many years of my life have been spent in countries in contact with natives, and I have not only a very high regard for their future but I have a personal regard for a good many of those with whom I have been brought into contact. Still, if I am asked whether these men or even some of the most forward among them ought to be placed exactly on the same plane as Europeans, and be made

  483
  subject to the game legislative measures without distinction, my answer would have to be in the negative, because I do not think that by any process of transition you could put these people on a level of absolute equality with Europeans. If the Labour party attempted to do so they would alienate a very large amount of sympathy because, after all, people who go from this country do not change their natures when they come under another clime, they remain exactly as they were when they left home, and their interests in the natives are not like those of our idealists at home.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: They make them work.
  Mr. ROYCE: I think that is a very good thing. What are you faced with when you come in contact with the native population—in contact with savage races? You have two choices. You can either leave them to their savagery or attempt to bring them into line with civilised ideas. If you are going to make them one of yourselves, inasmuch as your lot is to work, so it must also be their lot to work. That cannot be avoided. Do not misunderstand me. I am putting forward nothing in the nature of coercion. I do not suggest that they should be forced to work, but they must work, and if you remove them from the evils of savagery or tribal rule you must treat them with a view to their future; you must teach them to govern their own lives, and not leave them to the rule of their chiefs with all the thousand attendant evils.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: And so, I say, you make them work.
  Mr. ROYCE: I do not say that. It would, however, be a bad kind of friendship to tell them that they must not work, because they will work in the ordinary nature of things. They require certain things and they will work to obtain them. I want to protest against the application of any general principles to people who are in various stages of civilisation. You cannot so apply them. You must consider each case on its own merits. I know nothing about Ceylon, and in that respect I anticipate I am much in the same position as many of my hon. Friends round me; but it does strike me, as
  484
  regards Ceylon, where the people are largely educated, where their interests are much the same, a limitation of area might make possible the application of something like general principles to that country. That is a thing with which I am not sufficiently acquainted, but as regards the general principle of civilisation and savagery I do claim to know something. I do think that by wise administration, by encouragement and by education, you can bring these people up, not to the same level—you will never mix black with white—but that on parallel lines they can attain the same degree of civilisation. It is not, however, by teaching them too much civilisation in the earlier stages that you can bring them to the desired level; their progress must be slow. Our civilisation, such as it is, has taken us 2,000 years to attain. You cannot make these people, although intellectually they are quite capable of anything that we can attain—you cannot uplift a whole race to the same level of ideas that we possess in 24 hours. If you attempt that, you will fail.
  Mr. SPOOR: I have no intention of entering into the rather interesting domestic disagreement between my colleagues, but I would suggest to the House that the difference is, perhaps, more apparent than real. I am convinced that, so far as their aims and intentions are concerned, there is comparatively little difference between my two colleagues, although there may be a difference as to the methods to be adopted. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Talbot) suggested that the problem facing us in Ceylon is whether Ceylon shall have paternal government or popular government. I would like to suggest to him that communities, like individuals, grow up. I have always understood that the chief aim of our government in distant parts of the world was, at the earliest possible moment, to equip and qualify those whom we are governing to govern themselves. I submit that abundant evidence exists that the people of Ceylon have reached a stage at which they are both entitled and qualified to exercise a much larger measure of popular control than it is proposed to give them under the constitution put forward by the Colonial Office.
  I should like to take this opportunity of joining with other speakers in pro-

  485
  testing against the utter inadequacy of opportunity for discussion that this House has on all Colonial matters. We hear a great deal about the British Empire and about the desirability of maintaining the integrity of the Empire. If ever there was a time when the bonds that bind together different parts of that Empire needed to be strengthened, that time is the present; and yet, during the whole of this last year, this House had about four hours for the discussion of Colonial affairs! I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood) that the Colonial Office is the most reactionary of Government Departments. Reference has been made already to the Government of India Act of last year. There had been for years a growing demand in India for some measure of Home Rule, and that demand, in some degree, had to be met. A Bill was presented to this House. It passed through its various stages in this House, and was submitted to a Select Committee of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords. For months that Committee sat. They heard evidence from India, from every shade of Indian opinion; they examined witnesses of all kinds; and, as a result, they, at all events, to some extent modified and changed the character of the Bill. It came back to the House of Commons, there was a further discussion of three days, and the Bill became an Act. This House had an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the reforms which it was proposed should be applied to India. The House has had no real opportunity—for, after all, a casual discussion like this cannot be described as an opportunity—of thoroughly investigating the proposals that are contained in the suggested constitutional reforms for Ceylon. I do hope that some change in our procedure will be secured before long, by which Parliament will get a greater measure of control over Colonial affairs. It is essentially necessary in the interests of the Empire. We shall never secure stability and peace in those parts of the Empire, to which reference has been made this afternoon, until this House is able to take a more active and living interest in the problems that face us in those parts of the world. We have unrest in the West Indies; we have unrest in every part of Africa; we have dissatisfaction in Ceylon. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire; suggested that
  486
  my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, was not expressing the opinions and desires of the people of Ceylon. I think that perhaps the most effective answer to that criticism is contained in a telegram which only an hour ago reached this country from Ceylon. It is a telegram from the Ceylon Workers' Federation, and I will ask the House to allow me to read it:
  "Ceylon Workers' Federation protests strongly against reforms announced in House of Commons, as inadequate, retrograde, and wholly ignoring the claims of the mass of workers now suffering under iniquitous labour laws and conditions. The Federation, to protect their interests, demand Legislative Council elected adult suffrage, territorial basis, substantial majority."
  Mr. TALBOT: Can the hon. Member say what is the constitution of that body?
  Mr. SPOOR: I do not know the constitution of this particular body, but, apparently, it is the only labour organisation existing in Ceylon, and I may say that the telegram has come officially to the headquarters of the Labour party in this country. It is interesting to note, in view of the remarks that the hon. Gentleman made with regard to the desirability of communal representation—and I noticed that he pointed out that the people of Ceylon prefer communal representation—it is interesting to note that this telegram asks for election with adult suffrage on a territorial basis. It asks also for an elected speaker; it asks for half the Executive Council to be elected by the Legislative Council; and it further goes on to say that the Federation condemn the vesting in the Governor of the power of legislative veto and certification, and especially the power of suppressing the valuable safeguard of free discussion. The Federation demand, further, the replacement of Governor Manning by a liberal-minded Governor with Parliamentary experience. I make no observation on the last suggestion in the telegram, because I am not sufficiently familiar with the record of the Gentleman concerned.
  Sir J. D. REES: This House is.
  Mr. SPOOR: I do, however, submit that that telegram is an effective answer to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire. I have said that the present scheme is inadequate, in our opinion. I do not want to weary the House by going over ground which has

  487
  already been adequately covered, but I do want to stress the point, which has been made by several speakers, that, despite the promise made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies some time ago, this Measure gives no single touch of real popular control. It not only establishes communal representation, but it seeks to extend it. It is rather difficult to understand why communal representation, as a principle, should have been included in this constitution at all. So far as one is able to discover, there has been no real demand for it from the people of Ceylon. We have been told again and again this afternoon that there do not exist in that country those deep racial and religious differences which, unfortunately, exist in India. We know, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Colonial Office knows, that, if this system of communal representation is continued and extended, it will have the effect, not of uniting the people of Ceylon, but of dividing them. One is bound to believe that the object, either conscious or unconscious, of the Colonial Office in establishing or seeking to establish the principle of communal representation, is simply to divide them. We want to see a united Ceylon, as we want to see a united Empire, and we submit that this proposal will certainly not secure it.
  Then, again, despite the apparent changes in the composition of the Executive Council, I submit that there is no real change. The character of the Executive Council remains, for all practical purposes, as it was before this reform was suggested. Why should Ceylon have a smaller measure of self-government than India? We have been told that in Ceylon there is a very much higher percentage of literacy. I have already referred to the fact that there are not those racial and religious differences which aggravate the situation so far as India is concerned. If there is greater unity, if there is a higher standard of literacy—which does suggest a greater intellictual development, and, perhaps, a greater sense of responsibility—if all those conditions obtain at the present time, why should we ask the people of Ceylon to accept a smaller measure, and a very great deal smaller measure, of self-government than we have given the Indian people? We know that the Indian people are not satis-
  488
  with their reforms. We know that at this moment agitation is going on throughout the length and breadth of India for a much greater measure of freedom than has been afforded by the Act of last year. If those conditions of unrest obtain in India, because the Government has feared to give an adequate measure of self-government, can we hope that we are going to have peace in Ceylon when we are offering them something which, in many material particulars, falls lamentably short even of the Indian scheme? May I further draw the attention of the House to the fact that not only have we this higher standard of literacy, not only have we abundant evidence of this greater capability in Ceylon, but we have there a very real desire to remain within the British Empire on terms that meet the demands of national self-respect. I have been rather amazed at hearing one or two hon. Members this afternoon make the suggestion that, after all, Ceylon was a country which had only become civilised—I suppose it was meant in a Western sense—during comparatively recent years. Ceylon, however, had a national independence for over 2,000 years, and a history of which any country might well be proud. I do not know whether many hon. Members have read that speech which was made at the last meeting of the Ceylon National Congress by their President, a most distinguished Ceylonese gentleman, a speech which it would do honour to any Member of this House to be able to deliver. It is rather interesting to read the words he uses with regard to the relationship of Ceylon to our own country. He says:
  "Our destinies are indissolubly bound up with England. We have the most perfect confidence that within her fold we can attain the fullest development of our national life, and that the obstacles placed in our path by officials and others, who are out of harmony with the great ideals of the King and his statesmen, will be swept away when once the true facts are placed before them by a united people. Is not our very demand a proof of that confidence and a tribute of our affections? "
  The gentleman who uttered those words was speaking for all the best elements in Ceylon, and we are doing no credit to ourselves, the Government is doing no credit to itself, by acting in a tardy way with people such as these. I want to protest again against the utter inadequacy of these proposals. They are unworthy of this country. They will

  489
  produce in Ceylon not harmony, but in all probability discord; for India is only a few miles away from Ceylon, and political happenings and political development there during the next few years will profoundly affect the course of events in the smaller island. I protest, because I believe that as long as the Colonial Office lacks imagination, and I contend that it most certainly does, and fails to visualise this problem as it really is, and fails to confer that freedom upon these people which is their legitime right, so long is that Office altogether incapable of doing ordinary human justice.
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: This has been an interesting discussion, and, speaking, not from a personal point of view, I agree with the feelings expressed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Bennett) when he regretted that so few Members were in the House during the greater part of it. I agree, too, most cordially with the hon. Member (Mr. Spoor) in wishing that these matters of Colonial administration and Colonial government, of our duty towards native populations, and of our task in developing those great territories, obtained fuller opportunities for discussion in the House and attracted greater attention. But I fear that as long as the constitution of this House is what it is to-day, as long as the immense multitude of local and national problems, as well as of Imperial problems, have to be considered here, things more immediately under our eyes will inevitably tend to attract more of the interest of the House, and therefore get more of the time of the House, than these no less important problems of the Empire overseas. I certainly join entirely with the hon. Member in the wish that we may be so able to transform our methods or our constitution that it may be possible to give the House of Commons much fuller opportunities for these discussions, which I quite agree are not as adequate as they should be.
  My hon. and gallant Friend who began the discussion, and several other hon. Members did me the honour of presenting me in a rôle with which I have not always been familiar. I find I am an arch-reactionery and at the same time well advanced on the road towards Bolshevism, and that I myself and the Secretary of State, whom I am here to represent and interpret in this House,
  490
  have changed entirely from those great traditions of impartiality and of detachment which animated past Secretaries of State in the discharge of their high duties. I utterly and entirely deny the charge. I endeavour, I trust, to do my work in the Colonial Office in the same spirit as that which has always animated British statesmanship in dealing with the great problems of the Dependencies which form part of the "British Empire. If, owing to improved methods of locomotion, it is more possible for some of us to get into actual human personal touch with the men and the problems of those outlying parts of the Empire than was possible for our predecessors, I do not think we are any the worse fitted for the discharge of our duty because of that. I have been in parts of the Empire where I have met the settler and the pioneer, and I am glad to have done so, and I feel strong sympathy for him and his work and for what he is doing for the British Empire and for civilisation. But I have no less had opportunities of meeting the natives, and I have come back just as fully conscious as any predecessor who never moved out of the confines of the United Kingdom of the greatness of the task that lies upon this country in lifting up and helping forward the native population for which we are trustees. More than one hon. Member has described the Colonial Office as the most reactionary and most bureaucratic of our Departments. There again I should like most emphatically to deny that charge. On the contrary, I wish to assert, and thereby to answer the question raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Bennett), that our goal in the administration of the Dependencies of the Empire is the same as the goal of any Department of this country, the same as the goal that the India Office sets before itself, namely, to enable every part of the Empire to obtain, in the fullness of time, and when conditions make it possible, full power of controlling its own affairs and developing its own destinies. The differences between us are more apparent than real. The goal is the same. The only difference is that we who are responsible for the actual details of the task cannot move with the swift impetuousness which characterises my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why did you not consult the India Office?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I will come to that in a moment. Our goal, I repeat, is the same. But we have to consider all the difficulties of each problem in its own setting. I am rather surprised that those who have spoken of the reactionary character of the office which I represent seem to be entirely unaware that in, at any rate, one case in the last year we have proceeded from a Colonial Office administration where the majority was official, and the elected members were in a pure minority, to a very wide measure of responsible government.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is only settlers, is it not?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: No, I am talking of the colony of Malta. In Malta we are giving to a population not of British birth, in respect of all the more important functions of Government, full responsible Government by Ministers elected by themselves. We are giving practically all the powers of an Australian State. I am not asking the hon. and gallant Gentleman to waste the time of the House by praising the Colonial Office for its democratic, progressive action, but I would ask hon. Members, when they are asked to pronounce a sweeping general judgment on a most reactionary Department, to keep in view the great advance, the unsolicited advance, which we have taken.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Was it unsolicited? Was there not a riot in Malta before you granted the constitution?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: There were riots in Malta, undoubtedly, arising from a very grave economic situation. They were primarily economic and not in any real sense political. We are responsible—and that constitutes the difference between us and our critics—not only for moving towards freer Government in the Colonies, but we are in the meantime also responsible for peace, order and good Government, and we are responsible for the interest of every class of the community. It by no means follows that the immediate grant of full responsible Government in communities of that character would be consistent either with peace or with the welfare of the mass of the people. My hon. and gallant Friend really made it clear that to give complete self-Government straight away
  492
  to communities like Rhodesia or the East African Protectorate, on any sort of franchise, would not be in the interests of the mass of the native population, and I believe the same could be said if you here and now put the whole power of Government in a country like Ceylon into that small handful of lawyers who in the main would get the power.
  We have been reproached for not consulting it. We have certainly studied what has been done in India with the utmost care. If we have given Ceylon a different constitution from that in India it is not because of any inferiority in the people of Ceylon. You have to remember that you are attempting to compare Ceylon with one of the Provinces of India. The Government of Ceylon is not the Government of a province under a central Government. It is itself a central Government. If Ceylon were a part of India there would be no difficulty in giving it a similar constitution to that of Madras. The true comparison of the constitution we are giving to Ceylon is with the final seat of power in India, the Upper Chamber in India, which has got the last say, and there you have a constitution which to all intents and purposes is the same as that which we are giving to Ceylon. In local matters we are in this present year giving Ceylon a Local Government Ordinance under which urban and district councils can be set up which will contain an elected majority and an elected chairman, and taking the size of Ceylon compared with India, that will offer an opportunity for training in responsible Government more comparable to the system of Provincial Governments in India.
  Let me come to the constitution itself, which has been described as a sham and a camouflage. There again, under thy existing constitution, you have a minority of unofficial members. Under the constitution now proposed you will have, in a house of thirty-seven, twenty-three unofficial members, sixteen of whom will be elected at once, and nineteen will be eventually elected as soon as the electoral arrangements can be made. It is all very well to say that is nothing, because certain of the elected members will always vote with the Government. I am not prepared to admit for one moment that the Member who happens to be a European always votes with the Government; for instance,

  493
  on questions of sanitation, public works, and taxation. In this connection I might add that financial questions come in the first instance before what is practically a Lower House, namely, the Finance Committee, and on that Committee there will be only three official Members as against the whole body of unofficial Members, or as many of them as they choose to select for that purpose. There will always be on this Committee a substantial majority of unofficial and of elected Members. True, the recommendations of the Finance Committee are subject to revision by the Council as a whole, but that power is rarely exercised. The same, I may say, applies to the reserve powers given to the Governor. Those are powers which are to be exercised very rarely. And I might mention that the power of veto is one borrowed from that very Indian constitution which we are criticised for not studying or adopting.
  The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wedgwood) entered into a very strong criticism of community representation as if it were deliberately invented by ourselves for the purpose of dividing and weakening the native population. Nothing of the sort. It has been forced upon us by the conditions, just as it was forced upon the Government of India by the conditions.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: No.
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes, and I may say in answer to a question that was asked that in all these cases—the Moslems, the Kandyans, the Indians—it was asked for. The Kandyans sent a deputation to this country to plead with the Secretary of State. In this country, where we have? a more or less homogeneous population, we obviously do not want community representation. The working man in one constituency may be effectively represented by a manufacturer, but if he thinks that the manufacturer fails to represent him he feels he is represented by a working-class Member in the next constituency. But where you have countries that are organised right through on the community basis, and where communities represent not only different races and religions, but different economic factors and functions, then to have a purely geographical territorial representation would simply mean that the minority communities would absolutely
  494
  disappear politically and secure no representation whatever of their interests and of their views. Therefore, we cannot accept that point of view. In every case where we have given these special franchises, we have done so because they have urged it upon us. But the communal franchises are not necessarily permanent. When they have served their purpose, possibly proportional representation, or something else which may secure the same object, may enable us to do away with them.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Member refer this scheme to the same Joint Committee that considered the Indian scheme, so that it may be gone into by the same people, and be based upon the same principles as the Indian scheme?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: No. I would very much sooner put this scheme into operation now.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: It will not work.
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I would much sooner put this scheme into operation now and then consider the possibilities of further changes. This is not a final scheme. When the hon. Member and his party come into power, I trust he will follow the excellent advice of the hon. Member for Holland (Mr. Royce) and regard this scheme, not from the point of view of sweeping it away, but of reviewing it and, it may be, modifying it. Meanwhile, it represents a substantial advance in representative government, even if it is not the last word. It is going to give a training to the elected Members and a training to the electorate. That is the task we have in front of us. I know some of the advocates of constitutional reform in Ceylon may be disappointed, but I would say to them, "Even if you are disappointed, your duty is to make the best of it, and the more capable you show yourselves of working this constitution in a practical and effective spirit, the more easy it will be for His Majesty's Government to introduce still further changes which will give you a wider representation and a greater element of responsibility."

RUSSIA.

  FRANCE AND GENERAL WRANGEL.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I should like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to a communication which is published in the afternoon Press relating to the position of General Wrangel, vis-a-vis, that of France. It is stated to be an official announcement, and, for the information of the House, I will read the important paragraphs of this very brief message. It is from Router's Agency:
  "The French Government, taking into consideration the military successes and growing strength of the Government of General Wrangel as well as the assurances which have been received concerning the democratic form of his administration, and concerning the respect that will be paid to the generous arrangements of the Russian State, has decided to recognise as a de facto Government the Government of South Russia. A French diplomatic agent will be sent to Sebastopol with the title of High Commissioner. The French Government has given instructions to the French commercial Attaché in London not to have any relations or conversations with M. Kameneff and M. Krassin, the representatives of the Soviet Government. The Minister for Foreign Affairs states that the decision to recognise the Government of General Wrangel and send a High Commissioner to Sebastopol implies the rendering to General Wrangel of all possible material assistance."
  The message adds:
  "France notified Mr. Lloyd George of the decision of the Government yesterday."
  The House will recollect that the Prime Minister in the course of his speech yesterday, after giving an account of the proceedings of the meeting of the Allies at Lympne, added that he did not know that there was any other fact which he could supply as to the dates in reference to Poland. Then the hon. Member for Central Hull (Commander Kenworthy) said:
  "What about Wrangel?
  The PRIME MINISTER: So far as I know, there is no condition which has been put forward in relation 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th August, 1920, col. 257, Vol. 133.]
  496
  Therefore, as far as the information to the House is concerned, the position is quite clear that yesterday, at any rate, the Prime Minister was not in possession of the information which is contained in the message which I have read, and that, therefore, it follows that the statement of the notification to him of the decision of the French Government yesterday is incorrect. On the assumption that this report of an official announcement is correct I have only two comments to make. It is perfectly obvious that if the Prime Minister replies that he knows nothing about it, then, until he does know something about it, I do not think the House is in a competent position to discuss it, but on the assumption that this is a correct report of an official communication from the French Government I want to say two things. If it is true, a new situation, in my humble judgment, is created, and so far as France is concerned, for the time being, at any rate, it shatters any chance of a London conference arriving at a general peace which the whole world prays and longs for. The only other point I make is this, that if this is the position taken by France, I say with such responsibility as I have in these matters, she must go on alone. I do not think this country will allow itself to be pledged to unlimited military adventure in Russia. That, I believe, with deep conviction is the considered mind of the British people.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The telegram of the announcement which appears in the evening papers only came into my hands half an hour ago. I read it with very great surprise and anxiety. No information of this kind, official or otherwise, has been communicated to me. Since I saw it in the papers I made it my duty to inquire whether the Foreign Office had heard anything. They had received nothing. No communication had been received there. I have received no communication, in spite of the intimation in the message that a communication had been sent to me. The Foreign Office had received no communication. They were equally surprised when they read this in the evening papers. The Foreign Secretary instantly made inquiries from the Foreign Office to see whether anything had reached them up to half an hour ago. Nothing had reached the Foreign Office.

  497
  We then communicated with the French Embassy, and they had heard nothing. I can hardly believe it to be accurate, for I had the privilege of meeting the French Prime Minister, who is also the Foreign Minister, on Sunday. We discussed the whole situation at great length on Sunday and on Monday, and there was no proposal before the Conference in respect of the recognition of General Wrangel. There was a discussion as to what would take place if the Soviet terms were of the character which I described yesterday, and as to what action would be taken in that contingency. That I communicated to the House, but there was no proposal put forward for the recognition of General Wrangel. I can hardly believe that this announcement is accurate. I feel sure, from what I know, that M. Millerand would have communicated the intention of the French Government if he had it in his mind. That is why I am assuming that this communication must be inaccurate.
  7.0 P.M.
  It is well known that the attitude of the French Government to General Wrangel is not the one adopted by the British Government. They consider themselves quite free to support and sustain General Wrangel. They are under no obligation not to do so. As a matter of fact, we are under no obligation not to do so, after the communication sent to the Soviet Government on Friday. But we are not doing so and we do not propose to do so, except in the contingency I put before the House yesterday. In any event, there was no discussion on the question of the recognition of General Wrangel. Where there has been any difference of opinion between the French Government and ourselves on the Russian question, we have discussed it very freely and quite frankly among ourselves. That is what leads me to the conclusion that this cannot be accurate, because I am sure that if M. Millerand had it in his mind to issue a proclamation of this kind, recognising General Wrangel as the de facto Government for Southern Russia, he would have intimated it to the representatives of the Allied countries, who had gone over there to discuss the whole situation. Therefore, I must conclude that some unfortunate mis-statement has occurred in the report, which has come from a very reliable agency, and that
  498
  the French Government have not authorised it.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I have only one question to ask on that. In view of the grave issues involved and the deep public interest in this matter, does the Prime Minister not think that the House ought not to adjourn to-morrow? I ask him again to keep his mind open on that question until we have more definite official information with regard to the matter now being raised.
  Mr. CLYNES: In view of the Prime Minister's statement and the uncertainty of the situation, it is perhaps desirable that something should be said on behalf of the Labour party on the substance of the communication which has been read to the House. I want to express the hope that, even if the worst has been published, that will not interfere with the proceeding of the negotiations as between Russia and Poland, on the lines of the announcement which appeared in the Press this morning. I am quite certain that public opinion in this country, not merely Labour opinion, but general national opinion, will refuse to be a party such commitments and conditions as are announced in the papers this after noon-on the authority of Reuter's Agency I fear, however, that there may be this culmination—that within the Prime Minister's own government there is at least one spirit very much akin to the policy expressed in the announcement in the newspapers of this afternoon. The Secretary of State for War has made statements not unlike those which justify the commitments as they have been announced. My last word is that neither the Secretary of State for War in this country nor the French Government can succeed in crushing Bolshevism by military force, and that it would be better after their experiences to try some other method. On the whole I think it is not desirable that any attempts should be made—
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it is fair to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to suggest that he has ever made proposals which are akin in the least to this. I do not think it quite serves the purpose which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) in all sincerity has in mind, to let it go forth that any member of the present

  499
  Government has put forward proposals like this.
  Mr. CLYNES: I spoke of the spirit in which the Secretary of State for War has addressed himself on many occasions to these subjects. If he can speak to us in the terms and the spirit of the Prim? Minister, I should be very glad to revise my estimate of the action of the Secretary of State.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I have not taken any action.
  Colonel GRETTON: A statement has been made as to which I have taken some trouble to find the text, and I have reason to believe it is well authenticated. Last night the Prime Minister stated the Russian terms for an armistice and the preliminaries of peace with Poland. There followed four paragraphs setting out the proposed undertakings of the Russian Government. It was stated that M. Kameneff makes the reservation that these terms may be "supplemented by details of secondary moment." Since then there is clear indication in some of the communications in the Press that part of the "supplementary details" referred to is that the Polish people will be required to set up a Soviet Government in Warsaw. That is a very serious matter, if true. The sole purpose of the Allies is to set up an independent Poland. The right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) went fully into the matter yesterday. He expressed his confidence that the terms proposed by Russia would establish the full independence of Poland, and then the Prime Minister said, "Absolute independence." The right hon. Member for Platting added, "Yes, the independence of Poland—to remain absolutely uninterfered with as a nation," and after another interruption he added, "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." That statement met with the general assent of the House and was not objected to by the Prime Minister. It is a very serious matter, if it be true, that as a secondary detail there is to be imposed on Poland the obligation to set up a form of Soviet Government in Warsaw. I think it my duty to ask whether any information of such a kind has reached the Prime Minister?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I read the whole document to the House yesterday. It was an official communication which came from the Soviet Government, and which was communicated officially to the British Government. I read the whole of it to the House. If the Russians are going, as a condition of peace, to impose or force any form of government upon Poland which is not acceptable to its people, that certainly is not a secondary or subordinate matter. I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) in what he said yesterday, that that would be an interference with the independence of the country. But that is not part of the official communication as given to me, and I can hardly think that it is intended to introduce a matter of that kind, which is a fundamental alteration.
  Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I want to ask the Prime Minister to do one thing. In the case of the attempt by Poland to interfere in purely Russian affairs, Poland was told that it was not advisable, either in her own interests or in those of the Allies generally, that she should embark on an expedition and attack of that description. I think the Prime Minister would be well instructed if he were to advise even our Allies the French that such a policy with reference to Russia is too late. There was a time, maybe, when it certainly could have succeeded, but the vacillation and the dividing elements that are natural in a combination such as the Entente—differing in policy, viewing the thing from entirely different standpoints—at the critical moment made it impossible for the Allies to act, and it would be a crime if they attempted to do it now.

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
  "while this House is quite prepared to assent to the provision of moneys necessary for all proper public expenditure, it regards it as essential before doing so to secure from the Government effective guarantees that real economy in the public service will be enforced both as regards policy and administration."
  We ought to discuss this question, because the country outside, and, I hope, a great many Members of this House, are beginning to realise what a very serious

  501
  state we are in at present with regard to finance. I am sorry to say that when the Government are criticised in regard to these matters generally, very often the Prime Minister—I single him out because more than others he generally tries to show one of two things. He tries to show that this is merely Press agitation. I believe that is a great fallacy.
  I do not believe for a moment that this agitation about excessive expenditure is a Press agitation; or, at least, it may be called a Press agitation in so far as the Press interprets and: reflects public opinion. I do not believe for a moment that a man will go on buying a paper day after day if it puts forward opinions that were not already in his own mind. It is perfectly true that the Press is able to present in a more literary form the opinion which the public already hold, but I do not believe for a moment that people would buy their papers as they do if they really believed that the opinions presented in the Press were not sound opinions at the present time. Therefore I believe that it is not a Press agitation. It is an agitation in men's minds at the present moment; and if it were not, I do not believe that the Press would have any effect at all.
  There is another argument that the Chancellor of the Exchequer sometimes uses. He says it is not so much the responsibility of the Government as the responsibility of this, House. That, again, I believe, is an absolute fallacy. I maintain that the Government is responsible for the finances of this country. The Prime Minister is responsible in the first place, the Leader of the House is responsible in the second place, and then, I suppose, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government as a whole are responsible. I believe it is a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, to say that the Government is not responsible for its policy, but that the House of Commons is responsible. After all, the Government has all the information at its disposal. We only get from time to time the barest outlines, a few details here and there. In fact, when we ask for information we have the greatest difficulty in extracting it from the Government. We continually try by question and answer and in Debates to get information on the Estimates and on various questions of financial policy; and it is like drawing a tooth from a man's
  502
  head to get definite information from the Government upon the Estimates or upon a particular financial policy. How can the House really have control if it is kept in the dark? I contend that it is the business of the Government to govern, and I do not believe it can transfer the responsibility to individual Members of the House of Commons. If the Government think that the House is wrong—if a majority of the House ask for money for any particular purpose and the Government think that money ought not to be given, they ought to say so, and they ought to be prepared to stand or fall in that opinion. It is no good when they have given the money and have accepted a certain policy to come down and say: "Although we are the Government of the country the House of Commons is responsible."
  I really do believe that unless the Government can cut down expenditure we shall be faced with a very critical financial situation in the near future. To put it very shortly, our expenditure to-day is six or seven times what it was before the War. I will not quote the figures. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us a normal Budget. Even taking his normal Budget, the normal figures are four or five times what our expenditure was before the War; and our income and capital, and our wealth, have not increased to anything like that amount. During the War everybody was prepared to make sacrifices, but are we really still to be asked to make all those financial sacrifices in order to give the Government a perfectly free hand? During the War we gladly gave millions—we spent millions in order to bring the War to a successful issue. But are we still to be asked to spend all these millions without a murmur, and to pour out national money like water? I think the Government has been very generous with other people's money. About five days ago a very interesting White Paper was issued in dealing with stationery. The right hon. Gentleman may say it is a very small point, but I happened to find there, so far as stationery is concerned, that in practically nearly every case where a new Ministry has been set up the stationery used by the Ministry has enormously exceeded the estimate of the particular Department. I take the Ministry of Shipping, the Ministry of Food, the

  503
  Ministry of Munitions, and the Ministry of Labour. In all these new Departments the cost of stationery—and this is only one item—enormously exceeded the original estimate of the Department; whereas, if you take the older Departments—the Board of Trade, the Board of Education, the Post Office—in every one of these cases you will find that the estimate is practically equivalent, or in some cases the estimate was rather more than the money that they had actually spent. During the War we backed the Government through thick and thin, and it really is rather a poor return, after we have backed them through thick and thin in spending money during the War, that we should still be asked to pour out money like water upon schemes about which there is a good deal of doubt, and schemes which are certainly enormously expensive, much too expensive in proportion to the present wealth of the country. I do not see—and this really is my only excuse for moving this Amendment—I do not really see that the Government are showing any real evidence that they are trying to economise.
  A few weeks ago, I think it was, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave two very interesting answers in this House in reply to questions. His answers were these, that, exclusive of soldiers and sailors, the Air Force, the Post Office, and the Pay Department, there are over 44,000 more men employed in Government Departments than just before the War, and that there are very nearly 47,000 more women employed in Government Departments than just before the War. There are, therefore, 91,000 more men and women employed in Government Departments than just before the War. And in his answer he showed that that did not include industrial employés, in dockyards and similar establishments, paid out of public funds. He said in reply that there were 53,000 more men employed in that way than just before the War. If you take these two categories together, men and women in the first case, and men in the last case, there are no fewer than 144,000 more persons employed out of public money to-day than before the War. I say that these are perfectly monstrous figures. I believe they are absolutely indefensible figures when you consider our present state of finance and our present powers of
  504
  recuperation. Whenever the Government are criticised and have used their argument about the Press and the responsibility of this House, they generally trot out the Select Committee on National Expenditure. An hon. Member this afternoon said he very much disliked the word "camouflage." It was very often wrongly employed. I venture to say that the appointment of this Committee is absolutely camouflage so far as real control of this House is concerned. You not only cripple the Select Committee on National Expenditure by debarring them from discussing policy at all, but when they make recommendations to the Government and the House none of those recommendations is ever carried out. What really is the use of appointing a Committee of this kind if you never accept the recommendations that they make? I say it is an absolute waste of time.
  In 1918 the Select Committee on National Expenditure presented no less than ten Reports, and in 1919 they presented five Reports. That is to say, in two years they presented 15 Reports, and not a single one of their recommendations, practically, has been carried out by the Government. And after all, the Gentlemen who composed this Committee are experts. They were drawn from every party in the House; there were Unionists, Conservatives, Liberals and Labour Members. One would have thought that when a Committee was appointed specially to draw up Resolutions some consideration would be given to the recommendations that they made. Not at all. In these recommendations I pick out seven or eight principal recommendations. For instance, they recommended in regard to the Board of Trade that an official from the Treasury, with the assistance of the Secretary of the Board, should be appointed to examine and criticise on financial grounds proposals leading to public expenditure, and that they should examine policy as well as procedure. Do you suppose for a moment, if we really had such an official from the Treasury examining into that question of procedure, that we should have seen the Ministry of Munitions? They took absolutely no notice of that recommendation. Then they recommended that there should be two Standing Committees on Estimates. That recommendation has also been disregarded. They also

  505
  recommended that when recommendations come down from the Select Committee to reduce a Vote, this House should be allowed to vote freely, and that the Whips should not be put on. That recommendation has been disregarded. They also recommended that the form of the Estimates should be completely remodelled so that Members of the House should have an opportunity of understanding the Estimates, for, as everybody knows, at the present moment they are an incomprehensible jumble of figures. They have absolutely disregarded that recommendation. I have got the evidence here of the Accounting Officer of the Ministry of Munitions. These are his words:
  "I do not think that the Estimates, as furnished in the past to Parliament, are worth the paper they are written on from the point of view of Parliamentary control."
  Not the slightest notice was taken of that recommendation. They made another recommendation that statements by Ministers in regard to Money Resolutions should be sent to one of the Committees for examination and report to this House. That recommendation has been disregarded altogether. They recommended that the Treasury should cease to be a spending Department. That was disregarded. They recommended—and I mention this as the last point—that the accounting officer of each spending Department should be a Treasury official appointed by and solely responsible to the Treasury. I understand now that an experiment was tried in the Transport Department, where Sir Hardman Lever represented the Treasury, and it was a great success so far as it went. But when we asked that similar officers should be appointed for other Departments, we were told that it would lead to friction. As a matter of fact we have the evidence in the Second Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure that no friction has been caused in the Ministry of Transport by this unusual appointment. None at all. I believe that at the present moment, although that official is appointed by the Treasury, he can be dismissed, not by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but by the Prime Minister. So he is not really properly under Treasury control.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg your pardon. He can be dismissed by the
  506
  Prime Minister, not as Prime Minister, but as First Lord of the Treasury. There is Treasury control in the most effective form.
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: All I meant to say was that this particular gentleman when he was appointed could be dismissed by the Prime Minister without referring to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman does not deny that. All these recommendations have been disregarded, and, therefore, I say, that the appointment of such a Committee is nothing but a farce and a waste of time. It is not fair to the Committee that they should be appointed, and not fair to the House of Commons that the farce should be gone through of nominating certain Members to make recommendations, and then consistently disregard their recommendations. I begin to despair that we are ever going to get economy from the present Government. They seem to me to have a malaria of spending, unassailable, persistent, all-pervading, and I do not believe, personally, until we get a general election that the present Government will be brought to their senses. That is the ultimate cure. There is only a temporary cure at the moment, and that is a Division in the Lobbies, but I am afraid that I have not got very much hope from a Division in the Lobbies at the present time. The only cure is to refuse to consent to issue the money from the Treasury, and if we refuse to allow them to issue the money they cannot spend it. I do really feel that before the House allows them to issue this money to-day they ought to give definite pledges and definite guarantees that great economies are going to be made in the public service. Believing this very strongly, I beg to move.
  Mr. ACLAND: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I very much admire the pluck of the Mover in raising this matter. He, has stuck to this question and has received very little encouragement in doing so. I am very glad it has been raised again. As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee I have taken some interest in this question of trying to secure, due economy in the expenditure of public Departments, and the more I think of it the more I am convinced that the difficulties with regard to it will not be met

  507
  until we go back to one of the things which the Committee on National Expenditure recommended, and which the Government has always refused to carry out, namely, that there should be attached to them to help them in their examination of Departmental Estimates responsible officers who should be officers of the House. What happens now? The Committee gets no guidance of that kind. They do their best, work hard, and send in Reports. Every now and then they perhaps send in a Report which, it may be, in the opinion of the Government, goes too far, or something or other. Then we see, as we saw the other day, a Minister put up to rend the report of the Committee to pieces, and the general impression created by that is a very disastrous impression. Instead of that the Government ought to co-operate with their Committees and to rely on them and to assist them in every possible way. The impression gets about that the Committee is discredited, and is no good, and that the Government merely looks to its Reports as so much material to attack. Committees like the Public Expenditure Committee and the Public Accounts Committee ought to be the House in microcosm, and ought to do a great deal of work on behalf of the House and on behalf of the Government. It seems to me that the Government does not give them anything like a fair chance of doing that work. Over and over again they have made the recommendation that they should have responsible officers attached to them, but the Government insists on turning down that recommendation. I think that the Treasury has taken a rather narrow view of Departmental jealousy. I believe that the work of the Treasury, which is very, very difficult, would be enormously strengthened if a really first-class officer or two were attached to the House of Commons to assist them. I do not think that the Government can really say that they are doing their best to help the House of Commons in one of its most responsible duties, namely, that of controlling and criticising expenditure, if they disregard that most important and, I think, fundamental recommendation that there should be a proper highly trained staff attached to this Committee.
  Major-General SEELY: No doubt it is quite true that the kind of economy which the Mover and Seconder have in view might make an appreciable diminution in our expenditure, but the point to which I wish to draw attention is that to make real economies you can only succeed in doing so in policy and national defence. I will give one instance. I myself believe, and I know there are many who have a much greater knowledge of the situation than I have also think, that we have made a great mistake both in policy and in military administration in Mesopotamia, or rather in a combination of policy and military administration. What is the cost there? It is not a few hundred thousand pounds or the cost of so many extra Secretaries who may be appointed or dismissed by the Prime Minister as First Lord to the Treasury. The cost in the Estimates of the military administration of Mesopotamia amounts to more than the whole of the Service of the National Debt before the War. If we are to include what is likely to be in a Supplementary Estimate, as a consequence of the operations going on there now, I do not think I should be going beyond the mark when I say that it will be at least double the whole cost of the interest and sinking fund on our huge pre-War debts. In the same way in several places in which we may come in contact with people all over the world if we fail to agree with them, and if we do not take proper military measures, we are involved in expenditure on a gigantic scale. Our operations in Russia to which attention has been drawn to-day have involved us in gigantic sums of money. It is very hard to estimate the amount. A sum of one hundred millions has been stated in one year, and it is said that much of that consisted of stores which would otherwise not be used, but all these mean that the mistakes in policy and military administration are the things which involve us in expenditure of hundreds of millions, and they are the things which may drive the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have to say that we cannot continue to pay our way. Important as are the points raised by the Mover of the Amendment, they are as nothing compared to the importance of this point.
  It may be said, What is the good at the end of a Session of an hon. Member getting up and stating what are obvious truths,

  509
  and what remedy have you to propose? There are two remedies. One is that I think the Government must have a real change of mind and of spirit. They must move away from the war period to the peace period, and I have no doubt in preaching this I am not preaching to deaf ears when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in his place. I believe that the Government has not changed from the war spirit to the peace spirit, and of that there are many indications. The second and more practical point is one which I venture to urge on the Chancellor. I believe that the present system of government under which the War Cabinet, the Committee of Imperial Defence, and, above all, the personnel of the Committee of Imperial Defence are all fused into one more or less amorphous body is the cause of this extravagance, and the cause of the loss of these tens of hundreds of millions, and if we are going to get back to a pre-War frame of mind we had better get back to the pre-War machinery. I believe that the Cabinet should meet as the old peace Cabinet used to meet. I do not believe the Committee of Imperial Defence should be in attendance there. I believe it should be in attendance on the Committee of Imperial Defence. The Cabinet could devote its mind to the great problem of Imperial Defence and such Imperial questions as might come before it. The Committee of Imperial Defence, with some Member of the Cabinet devoting his whole time to it, must be there thinking and planning all the time how peace may be preserved, and how, if peace is broken, we can get out of our obligations with honour, but with the least sacrifice, not only of money, but of men too. That is not being done now. I believe that the man who more than almost anyone else helped us to win the War in that sphere was Sir Maurice Hankey. I believe that this country owes him a debt which it never can repay, and I deplore that his extraordinary genius for true military organisation both in men and money should be frittered away in multitudes of other duties. I do not know if the Chancellor will agree with me, but I hope he will consider whether we could not get that good brain, and I mention him because he is the outstanding figure, to devote all his time to efficient, painstaking thought as to how to keep the peace and how also when peace be broken we can fulfil our obligations with the minimum of
  510
  expenditure of men and money. In that way hundreds of millions might be saved.
  I have given the instance of Mesopotamia, and I could give many other instances where, in my judgment, not only the failure of co-ordination between the three services of air, sea and land have landed us in untold expense, but still more, that failure of co-ordination between policy and military effort has landed us in this difficulty. Mesopotamia is a good instance, and I repeat that there are others. There is this deep and bitter feeling in the breasts of our countrymen on the subject of Russia and Poland which is not in the least because they love the Bolshevists or because they are really indifferent to Poland, but it is because they are determined that British soldiers shall no longer be sent to engage in a quarrel which is not really ours. They say, you must manage without any more being killed. I am not sure that the criticism is not just. I am not sure we are not continuing in the war spirit and say, "Oh, well, we must end a division here and another here," when all the time your many military experts would tell you that the divisions you are sending are not really fit for the job, for various reasons into which I need not enter; and when a different kind of force properly thought out beforehand might have averted the difficulty altogether, or, at any rate, have shortened it, with a great saving of money and of men. I trust the Chancellor when he replies will take note of these suggestions, and I verily believe that a return to pre-War conditions in the minds of the Government and in the actual machinery of the Government, and, of course, a perfecting of the pre-War conditions, may not only save us untold millions of money, but also the lives of many gallant men.
  Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Perhaps the ideas of a very humble Back-Bench Member on this question upon which we are all getting so many representations may not be altogether out of place. My hon. Friend, the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), referred to certain incidents in which he thought there was extravagance and there might be economy, but I think he will admit that the greater trouble we have to deal with is the question of expenditure. When we come to think of the enormous number of new branches of expenditure,

  511
  new Ministries, and new Government activities, I cannot help going back to the time of the General Election and the programme upon which most of us were elected to this House. Put shortly, it was to go in for a policy of reconstruction and to produce a new heaven upon earth. We are not going to produce a new heaven upon earth by a turn of the magic wand. It is going to take at least a generation to bring about that reconstruction which we have entered upon, and we are not going to carry it out and produce the new heaven without a very great deal of expenditure. The defence for expenditure has constantly been that it is justified, necessary, and is going to be reproductive in the end. If it is going to be reproductive, that is, to my mind, a perfectly good and sound argument for that expenditure, subject only to one condition, and that is that the productivity of that expenditure is going to be greater than the cost of raising the money for that expenditure. There is where the limit comes which the Government should observe in regard to expenditure on matters of reconstruction. A business man entering upon a new, big field of business will spend all that he can raise as long as he can spend it in such a way as to be productive, but if the capital that he employs is going to bring him in 40 per cent., and it is going to cost him 50 per cent. to raise that capital, he is not justified in doing it, and I think that, with the heavy taxation which we have at the present time, the consequent heavy prices, and a certain decline of production, we perhaps have got to the time when we have, got to look very seriously indeed at any new expenditure, however justifiable in itself it may be.
  Now I take the position of any ordinary-supporter of this Government, and ask myself what Members like myself can do in the matter. We believe that at the present moment there is no reasonable alternative to the present Government, and that being so, we are not going into the Division Lobby in such a way as to turn out the present Government, because we do not feel that there is a successor to it which will be more successful than the present Government in the management of the affairs of the country. We may be wrong, but that is our opinion. That puts us in this difficulty, that the Government comes down
  512
  to this House with reconstruction proposals involving expenditure, and the back Bench Member is left with this choice: Is he going to do his best to turn the Government out, or is he going to acquiesce in expenditure which he does not think is justified? I am going to be rash enough to make a suggestion, and I am going to put it very briefly, because I have not the knowledge or experience of Parliamentary procedure to set it out in any detail, but what I feel is lacking is something in the correspondence and methods of communication between the Government and their own supporters, and I am seriously suggesting that before the Government introduce a measure involving expenditure, they should endeavour to ascertain the real feelings of their own supporters in this House, and how far they can expect their real and enthusiastic support, and that in cases where they find that their own supporters consider that the expenditure is not justified, they should pay some regard to their wishes rather than introduce the measure in spite of their wishes, and say, "You must either take it, or we are going out of office." That is the choice that we have before us at the present time, and it is not a pleasant choice.
  There is another little point in connection with these matters of reconstruction. We have had so many of them that it really seems to be coming to a case of general grandmotherly legislation, where a great deal of the management of the affairs of the great industries and businesses of this country is being controlled, or managed, or interfered with, or improved, or otherwise, by some Government Department. Personally, I think that has gone too far; but if we are to have it, and if it is necessary, as no doubt in some cases it is, I do urge that those businesses or those branches of industry which are going to get the benefit of it should pay for it, and should pay for it to the relief of the general taxpayer, who at present has to bear the expense of the new Departments. A case in point arose only the other night. It was a very little matter, it is true, but it was a sample of others, and that was in the Seeds Bill, introduced by the Minister of Agriculture. The Bill, I am told and I believe, is welcomed by the agricultural community and is very necessary, but why not make that self-

  513
  supporting, why not make the thing such that that Ministry, which is intended for the benefit of people in a particular industry, should be paid for and the expense borne by that industry instead of, in effect, subsidising that industry by giving them, through a Government Department, what if they managed their affairs well they would do themselves at their own expense?
  In conclusion, I am going to say a word on another point in connection with this question of economy. I have referred to the last General Election. At the time, when we on this side of the House were elected as supporters of a Coalition Government, many of us were told by candidates who opposed us that they also were in sympathy with the idea that all parties should come together for the purposes of reconstruction, as they had worked together during the War. During the last month or two, at any rate, it seems to me that the Government have not had quite the assistance which they might expect from the Opposition in these matters in which we are all so vitally interested. I do not think that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House believe that they have got any chance at the present moment of turning out the present Government and supplanting it, and if they have not, I venture to make an appeal to them that they should do their best genuinely to assist the Government, in so far as they cannot resist measures, by keeping down expenditure rather than by, perhaps, increasing expenditure by a resort to the old methods which we all know perfectly well, methods of political opposition, which, however amusing, and interesting, and beneficial they may be when parties are fairly evenly divided, are perhaps to be deplored at a time when I believe that unity is absolutely as necessary for the purposes of reconstruction and the financial affairs of this country as it was in the very worst period of the War.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The friendly tone of the speech just made by my hon. Friend was, of course, recognised by me and by the House. My colleagues and myself always desire to act in the closest harmony with the opinions of those who are good enough to support the Government, and we seek to keep ourselves informed of the trend of opinion among them. We have the ordinary methods of
  514
  communication, and I hope hon. Gentlemen are not afraid of approaching Ministers with what they have upon their minds, but my hon. Friend must remember that, after all, the Government of the day carries a responsibility that it can devolve on no other shoulders, and there may be occasions on which we feel it necessary, in the general interests of the country, for its security, external or internal, for its welfare, or for its development, to propose expenditure which does not meet with universal approval among our own friends. They have to choose between their desire to keep the Government in office and their willingness to sacrifice their individual feelings on a particular occasion to the policy of the Government, and if at any time we lose the confidence of the House the natural consequences inevitably follow. I am sorry we appear to have lost already the confidence of my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson).
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, only in matters of finance.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Let me say a word or two about the general questions of organisation as they affect finance which have been raised in this Debate. I cannot agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend (Major-General Seely) that it is at all desirable that we should go back to what he calls the pre-War Cabinet organisation. He will forgive me for saying that that was no organisation at all. The Cabinet met without an agenda and parted without Minutes, and nothing but the fact that business then was comparatively small and comparatively simple, made such a system, or such an absence of system, workable.
  Major-General SEELY: The pre-War Cabinet had the Agadir incident amongst other matters of vast and vital importance to settle by those means.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I never suggested that questions of great importance did not come before the pre-War Cabinet of which my right hon. Friend was a member, and before other Cabinets, but I say that nothing but the camparative simplicity and the comparative fewness of the questions which came before the Cabinet in those days made that system tolerable. I do not know whether my right hon.

  515
  Friend has read the last few volumes of the "Life of Lord Beaconsfield," and marked the difference between those days and these—those days which, after all, are not so very long ago. Lord Beacons-field, in a crisis, refused to call the Cabinet together for fear it might alarm the country. What alarms the country nowadays is if the Cabinet does not meet daily. I do not agree with my right hon. Friend that the Cabinet would be better without a Secretary, and, if it is to have a Secretary, neither he nor I could wish it to be more fortunate than in possessing Sir Maurice Hankey for that post. But as to the co-ordination of the Committee of Imperial Defence, I am entirely with him. I hope that that will, as time and opportunity permit, resume its old class of study, and prepare for the Cabinet as a whole the great questions of Imperial defence which must come before that body.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green still dwells upon the proposal for a different kind of Committee on National Expenditure selected from this House, with an officer of its own to examine the expenditure. I do not think my hon. Friend can ever have tried to apply his system to our parliamentary and constitutional traditions and practice. He will find it very difficult, though perhaps not impossible, to work such a system as he proposes without considerably lessening Cabinet responsibility. If, for instance, the Whips are to be taken off when the question of public money is concerned, that would be not merely an impairment of Cabinet responsibility, but almost an infringement in the spirit, if not in the letter, of one of the oldest Standing Orders in this House. There is more than that. I do not say that our procedure is perfect as it stands, but if you are to send our Estimates for such examination, you can hardly expect the House to come to a decision upon them until the Committee reports. If the Committee is to make a thorough examination, it will mean that the Estimates will not come before the House until very late in the Session, and that the House must be asked to vote the current finance in the shape of Votes on Account or Votes of Credit, to be subsequently elaborated and implemented by the adoption of the Estimates when they return from the Committee. Unless the House is willing
  516
  —and it has shown no willingness so far that I can see—to devolve upon a Committee a great deal that it has hitherto claimed the right to do for itself, I do not think he will be able to get a Committee scheme effectively worked. To pursue that kind of thought, it might be something like the French system of a Budget Committee. There might be referred to that Committee every proposal of expenditure for examination, but, if time is to be given to them, the House must be content to forego a great part of the discussion which has hitherto existed, and to trust to the Committee.
  My hon. Friend referred to the recommendations of the Committee on National Expenditure as if the Government paid no attention to them. That is really not fair, either to the Committee or to the Government. We do not accept all, as was shown in Debate the other day, and for reasons there disclosed. We do not think the Committee has always been fair, or has correctly stated the facts, but I myself acknowledged my indebtedness the other day to that Committee for considering, at my request, the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue. That Report is the refutation of all the ill-informed criticism we heard inside and outside the House about a vast staff being unnecessarily employed, and is a high tribute to the work done by that Department and the money they have saved to the public, and confirms, in fact, the policy which the Government has pursued. My hon. Friend picked out one or two cases where we had not followed their recommendations. We had not appointed an officer to assist the Committee in the examination of the Estimates. What is he going to be able to do? My right hon. Friend opposite and my hon. Friend speak as if the officer would be, in his sphere, the counterpart of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. He would have an infinitely more difficult, and an infinitely more responsible, task. The Comptroller and Auditor-General, in his examination, is confined to seeing that the money is being expended on the purposes for which the House appropriated it, and with proper authority in each case. But the new officer would have to examine the policy and raise questions of policy before the Committee. I do not know that anybody makes the same proposal.
  Mr. ACLAND: The suggestion of the Committee, I think, was to go into Estimates without interfering with questions of policy.
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I was merely quoting one of the recommendations of the Committee.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend quoted it with approval, and therefore he will not contradict anything I say. Is anything I have said not relevant to the proposal he quoted with approval?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My point is that, unless you allow these people to discuss questions of policy, what is the good of it?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Then my hon. Friend had no reason for interrupting. My argument is relevant to the proposition which he introduced. The right hon. Gentleman says he does not want them to discuss policy; my hon. Friend says that, unless they discuss policy, it is useless. In that case the officer is going to discharge a much more responsible and difficult task than the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who has merely to follow the expenditure of money and see that it is properly vouched for and applied to the purposes for which Parliament voted it. With what staff and equipment will he come to his task? The Comptroller and Auditor-General is not one man working alone. He has a great staff costing £150,000 a year, working de die in diem. What is your single officer without any staff or a couple of assistants going to do, and with what authority is he going to challenge, on questions of policy, the proposals of the Government of the day? That is for Members of Parliament to do. I will not pursue that further. I only wish to say that I have not yet found a machine which, to my satisfaction, would really improve our control, and yet not impair ministerial responsibility or the rights so jealously guarded by this House.
  I want to say a word about expenditure at large. I think the Government is a little hardly dealt with. We find great difficulty in getting the facts before the public. The hon. Member for Wood Green complains that he cannot get them. I supplied all the information asked for. I have supplied, in particular, a return which is Command Paper 802, known as the Pilditch Return. May I
  518
  take the House through a few figures? Our gross expenditure last year—I take the gross, because it is a truer comparison than the net—was £2,106,000,000. This year it is estimated at £1,282,000,000, exclusive of the reduction of Debt in both cases. Of course, there was a net addition to it. The actual reduction of Debt was trifling with what is proposed this year. In other words, there is a reduction between this year and last year of £824,000,000 in our expenditure following on a reduction of over £1,000,000,000 in the year before, and that in spite of the fact that not all War charges have decreased because the War is over. On the contrary, some War charges have gone on, of necessity, increasing. For instance, in 1918–19, the interest on Debt was £270,000,000; this year it is £345,000,000, or £75,000,000 more. In 1918–19 War Pensions cost £50,500,000; to-day they cost £123,000,000, an increase of £72,500,000. You have got, therefore, in War charges in those three years an increase of over £145,000,000, and in spite of that large general decreases have been made. People sometimes talk as if we were doing nothing for the men who served with the armed forces of the Crown during the War. I hope the House will not think it irrelevant if I have been led to mention War Pensions. I will just tell the House what money has been, or is in course of being, expended in this work. In the first place, all men had a month's furlough on full pay. I cannot estimate the cost of that exactly, but it must have been very great—probably another £50,000,000. The War gratuities for the three services have cost £87,640,000 up to date, and will cost £91,000,000 before they are all paid. Out-of-work donations to ex-service men have cost £29,600,000 up to date, and will cost over £35,000,000, with the extension given the other day. Resettlement grants and civil liabilities, excluding payments made during the War, have cost very nearly £2,000,000, and are estimated to cost £4,200,000. The industrial training of disabled men has cost £3,400,000 and is expected to cost £26,500,000. Interrupted apprenticeships have cost £900,000 and will cost £5,500,000. Land settlement has cost £5,250,000 and is expected to cost £23,350,000. Overseas settlement has cost £50,000 and may cost £1,000,000. Therefore we have already paid over £178,000,000 to ex-service men and con-

  519
  template having to pay a sum of £236,000,000 before our obligations are discharged. That is in addition to the War Pensions charge of £123,000,000, which may be capitalised roughly at a sum of £1,000,000,000 to £1,100,000,000. I hope that when it is asked what the Government has done for ex-service men some attention may be paid to the burden which the taxpayer has shouldered on their behalf, and, as I think, willingly and gladly shouldered, as a fulfilment of a great obligation. I have spoken of the reduction made this year as compared with last year, and last year as compared with the year before. Next year I hope we shall show, not a reduction on the same scale, but a further reduction of a considerable amount—what in any days but these we should call a very considerable amount—for there are in the existing estimates something like £300,000,000 of remaining War charges. So much for the general expenditure. Now I want to turn for a little time to the figure of the Civil Service Estimates, which is so much criticised. They are spoken of as though they were payments to Civil Servants. Of course they are nothing of the kind. Every charge falling upon the taxpayer, except the service of the Debt and the cost of the fighting services, is included in those Estimates. If anyone will take the trouble to turn to the Pilditch Return, Table 2, printed on page 4, he will see that we are now in the present year committed to a net expenditure on the Civil Service of £557,500,000. Of this, £341,500,000 is for services which had no parallel before the War. The first item is pensions, the next grants for ex-soldiers and sailors, for education, for resettlement, for Overseas settlement, and so forth. They are temporary charges, like the loans to Allies and for relief, the charges under railway agreements—not subsidies, but payments under the original contract. And then comes the largest of all the items, the bread subsidy, £57,000,000, and there are housing subsidies which account for £15,000,000. Which of these are challenged as being things that we could do without? Subsidies? Well, I said in the Budget speech that the Post Office ought not to be a subsidised service, and we are carrying out that policy, but I do not observe that the critics of Government expenditure and
  520
  those who argue for economy are lavish in support of the proposal for increased postal rates, or give my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General much assistance. We said we would sweep away the railway subsidy. We all know the clamour, the ignorant and ill-informed clamour, that arose when we proposed to make the railway rates such that the railways-should pay their way. Then there is the bread subsidy. I have long expressed a desire to bring that to an end at the earliest possible time. I said some little time back, in answer to a question, that the Government did not contemplate a continuance of the subsidy beyond the present financial year. I am now able to amplify that statement. The matter has been fully considered by the Government. They have gone carefully into the whole question, and they have resolved, in the interests of national economy, and with a view to hastening a return to normal trading conditions, to end the subsidy altogether before the beginning of another financial year. At present the subsidy is about 5d. on the quartern loaf. Of that, 3d. will be transferred from the taxpayer to the consumer next month, and whatever balance remains—and that depends, of course, on the course of corn prices—at or before the end of the financial year, so that that liability may be cleared off our books at latest by the end of the present financial year.
  Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: That is £45,000,000?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is £45,000,000. The Ministry of Munitions is being wound up as rapidly as its staff permits. The Ministry of Shipping is being wound up also as fast as the situation permits. Many of these are disappearing charges. £341,500,000 of the £557,500,000 in the Civil Service Estimates is for new services not existing before the War, leaving £216,000,000, of which £60,000,000, that is double the pre-war cost, is on account of the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Postal Service. In the Revenue Departments this year, apart from the fact that wages and salaries have risen, there has been a growth of work. There is the payment of war pensions and allowances in the Post Office, there has been the Post Office issues of War Loans, the increased cost of carriage and engineering; the Inland Revenue and Customs Departments are I responsible to-day for the collection of

  521
  a far greater amount than they ever had to deal with before, an immensely greater revenue, with additional work and additional difficulty, but the percentage cost of collection, instead of rising, is actually lower than it was before.
  Captain Sir BEVIILLE STANIER: Might I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman and ask if he could just go back to the question of bread. He said the subsidy was £45,000,000 and that He should have to close that down shortly, and that threepence was to be put on the loaf, but he did not quite explain to us about the other twopence
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What I said was that the 3d. was to be transferred from the taxpayer to the consumer next month, and the balance, if balance remains—and of course what the balance is, whether greater or less, depends upon the course of the corn prices—the balance before the end of the financial year. Pursuing the figures with which I was dealing—I hope I am not wearying the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—but I am really trying to show the House of Commons, and through the House of Commons the country, how the money is being spent, and thereby giving them some conception of the way you can cut and slash with the hatchet to cut the expenditure down. I am not dealing with small economies. I cannot follow my hon. Friend, and he would not expect me without any notice so to do—to follow the cost of any particular articles.
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, I quite appreciate that.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not complaining of my hon. Friend, but he will see, of course, that no Minister can be expected to be prepared for every instance in Committee when he has not had notice. Now I come to the figure—following the cost of the postal services and revenue collections—and that leaves me roughly with £100,000,000 of expenditure after deducting the pre-War cost of the services existing prior to the War, which amounted to £57,000,000. How is that £100,000,000 of expenditure made up? Additions to old age pensions account for £13,250,000; additions to the pay of the police account for £9,200,000; additions to health and insurance come to £8,500,000 (partly); Development Fund and Welsh Church, one a non-recurring charge and
  522
  the other a charge occasionally occurring as funds are needed to replenish the Development Fund; each of these two items take £1,000,000. Harbours and transport, £1,160,000—again a disappearing charge: all this more than they took before the War. Again I ask: will anyone challenge any part of that expenditure? I do not think so, the moment they know what has been done. The whole of that sum is spent either on additional benefits conferred by Parliament, or on extraordinary services which are not of normal recurrence in the financial year. This leaves me with £66,000,000 to be accounted for.
  Of this, £34,000,000 is the additional cost of education. I do not think there is any real support in this House for a curtailment of the money spent on education. That is additional expenditure compared with pre-War times of services which—often in a restricted form, sometimes, indeed, actually non-existent before the War—cost before the War £17,000,000. Is the increase an unreasonable one having regard to the facts within general knowledge? Does it support the general cry of extravagance? Prices have gone up 150 per cent. Salaries and wages have gone up—wages at any rate—something like the same thing. Salaries have increased necessarily all-round, and in the Government Departments as well. I am not here to say that there is no expenditure which might not be prevented. We ought to be striving all the time for this. I am not here to say that there are not small savings to be made; but I do say, with my right hon. Friend opposite, that the large money is in policy. The policies which involve large expenditure have not been forced upon an unwilling House by an arbitrary Government. They have been called for by the House, and in many cases perhaps reluctantly conceded by the Government I am here to say that unless people will take the trouble to examine these figures and see what they mean, they are really not competent critics of national expenditure or of Government extravagance. These charges are made loosely, widely, and particular instances here and there given as illustrative of the whole. Facts are often denatured or wrongly stated. An atmosphere is created which the enemy wishes to create to the effect that economy is not practised, and that truth is not esteemed.
  Mr. WALLACE: The House is greatly indebted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his clear, concise, and painstaking statement. In speaking to-night, I do not wish to associate myself in the slightest with any of the charges of extravagance at large made against the Government. I certainly agree with the closing sentences of the right hon. Gentleman's speech where he said that the House itself on matters of policy must bear its share of the responsibility for the present expenditure. Great demands are made for remedial legislation, and whether the House is or is not in agreement with the Government on the main questions of expenditure is to be found in the Division Lobbies. I, therefore, protest that we who criticise certain accounts of expenditure, should be fully alive to our own responsibility for the enormous sums which are appearing in the Budget Statement. The fact is, that while I am very proud of Coalition legislation, we sometimes forget that every Act placed upon the Statute Book means an expenditure of money.
  While I am glad that the Government has done its best to carry out its election pledges, I sometimes think the country is now suffering a little from political indigestion. I do wish we could have a little rest, and an interregnum in which we should have very little further legislation, and if there are any gaps at all in our system of laws, let us really for a little while depend upon the decalogue I feel very strongly, in some regard at least, though I am not in the main complaining against the Government, that there is too much interference by Government Departments in our industrial life. I am glad to say that the people are waking up to the fact that the maximum of Government interference in business means a maximum of expenditure and a minimum of efficiency. When complaints have been made before of extravagance in this House, the Chancellor has per fectly properly asked as to give specific examples with which he was quite ready to deal. While we do control policy in this House, we cannot, to any great extent, control administration, but I do wish to-night just to give one or two examples of what I believe to be extravagance in certain Government Departments. I do so with a little hesitation. We are living in after-War days, and my
  524
  right hon. Friend, and, indeed, practically every other hon. Member of this House to-day, finds it only possible to think in millions. I am much happier thinking in hundreds and thousands, because then I have a better sense of proportion.
  In the matters to which I want to refer very shortly to-night I am not going to mention any millions, but I wish to point out where I think certain economies can be effected by one or two Government Departments. I see the President of the Board of Trade present. I feel sure that any matter of even minor importance which is brought before him will receive his sympathetic consideration, at the least. My hon. Friend, in moving his Amendment, mentioned the question of stationery. This is a question which very much interests my right hon. Friend's Department. The increase is about £5,000,000, but one must have regard to the enormous increase in the cost of paper during the last year or two. My right hon. Friend represents the trade of the country, and during the War his Department sent out certain forms. One was a Z8. The object of this form was to find out how many employ½s were on the staffs of various firms up and down the country. No doubt, that was very necessary during the War, but I fair to understand the object in sending out this particular form. As a matter of fact, many firms did not take the slightest notice of it, and after some delay the Department sent out another form, known as Z7a, reminding those firms that they have not replied, and asking that a reply be sent at once. Of course, very frequently the first form goes into the waste paper basket, and it is followed by the next form. What is the object of those forms? I cannot think it is possible that the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade is ignorant of the fact that an armistice was declared about two years ago, and the returns which the right hon. Gentleman is getting back on these forms are utterly valueless from a statistical point of view.
  May I say a word about another Department? The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the Profiteering Department, which makes many inquiries, and, in my judgment, is quite an unnecessarily expensive Department so far as results are concerned, although the amount of money involved is not large. Take an

  525
  example of their ideas of economy in stationery. The Profiteering Department send out a form asking for certain particulars to be sent to the Controller. It is contained in a very small envelope, but they enclose for the return of the form a very large envelope 18 inches by 12 inches. This may seem a small matter, but paper is very expensive, and it seems as though the right hon. Gentleman's staff think that paper is showered from heaven like manna considering the prodigality with which they use it. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should call the attention of the Food Department to what I believe to be unnecessary extravagance, and this is where I think a considerable saving could be effected. My right hon. Friend springs from and represents a thrifty race, and I suggest that he should exert all the strong influence of his great and economic mind upon this wasteful form of extravagance, and insist upon mending his ways.
  I intended to say something about the Ministry of Labour, but as there is an inquiry pending there, I shall leave that subject in the meantime. I wish to say a word or two about another matter where I think money can be saved. This refers to the Air Ministry, and I advised the Secretary of State for War that I was going to bring this subject up. I have asked questions on various occasions regarding the expensive accommodation occupied by the Air Ministry. Three buildings are occupied in Kingsway by the Air Ministry Staff, and they cost something like £40,000. There is what is known as India House, for which we are paying £40,000, and the ground floors are being used merely for store accommodation and clerks' cloakrooms. The owners of this building have had an offer of £20,000 for these three ground floors, but the Air Ministry decline to vacate that particular building. That is one of the most expensive building sites in London, and I raise these matters, which are comparatively small in themselves, because they are exerting a very strong influence in the country at the present time. In bringing these questions before the Board of Trade I am following out the wishes of my own "constituents, who get a false impression from these communications of Government extravagance. It is not with any desire to offer carping criticism that I bring these matters forward, but to cooperate as far as may he to cut down
  526
  administrative expenditure to its lowest possible limit.
  Major BARNES: I am just as grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as my hon. Friend for giving us these figure" of national expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman has made an extremely important announcement, which is that the bread subsidy is to be removed by the end of the present financial year. I should be surprised if after all there is not general approval of the action which the Government is taking. It is unfortunate that the removal of this subsidy will press hardly upon the poor people, but there is no doubt that we have got to get rid of these subsidies and get back to the normal course of trade. If, however, the Government is to be credited with a return to sound finance by removing the bread subsidy, we must see to it that our agricultural policy does not tend to raise the price of bread. If we are not going to subsidise the consumer, we must see that our policy does not subsidise the producer. The country is not satisfied with the handling of the railways at the present time, which seems to be increasing the cost more than is necessary. If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is going to speak presently—I regret to gather from his attitude that he has no idea of doing so—I would like to get a little more information with regard to the extraordinary expenditure which is still going on. The balance sheet contains more than the bread subsidy, the railway subsidy, or the coal mines deficiency. These are to be got rid of we are told. I should like to know, are we also to get rid of the Ministry of Munitions?—because such a step would, I believe, be hailed with more gratitude even than the abolition of the bread subsidy. Then there is the Ministry of Shipping, which costs us £16,000,000. Is that to come to an end inside the financial year? The subsidies and Ministries to which I have referred are costing the enormous total of £166,000,000, and if the Government could get rid of the whole of that sum in the present financial year they would be well on the way to producing something like a respectable Budget. It is no use getting rid of the subsidies on bread and railways and coal mines if you are going to retain expensive Ministries, like that of Shipping, for years to come. There is

  527
  a sum of £36,000,000 for loans to our Dominions and Allies. When is there to be an end of that story? We have advanced a tremendous amount of money to different people during the War with very little chance of getting it back, and I am sure the country would be interested to know when that particular policy is to be brought to an end.
  There appears to me to be no chance of real economy except in two directions—one very big and the other, perhaps, rather small It has been suggested that officers should be appointed to control expenditure and, in the Department of the President of the Board of Trade, to control policy as well. I am inclined to agree that in that Department it is desirable to control policy, although I am with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the general opinion that policy is the business of this House and not of any official. It is for the House to decide what shall be spent on education, pensions, and so on. I was interested to learn of the big Department of the Controller and Auditor-General which costs £150,000 yearly, and no doubt exercises a tremendous influence on expenditure. I understand it only finds out that the money has been spent, and has no control over the way in which it is expended. Is there any Department anywhere which decides upon questions of staffing? Is there any Department which, when a new Ministry is formed and given certain duties, lays down the size of staff to be allotted to it? Is there any single official or even Department which has a direct power over all other Departments in regard to small economies, and which can lay down the number of staff and the proper expenditure on stationery, office furniture, and so on? We want to be assured that these items of expenditure are properly supervised. We want to make sure that the Departments are economically run.
  There is no doubt that the only real economy we can effect is by changing policy. The whole national expenditure falls roughly into three classes. There is £345,000,000 for interest on debt. We cannot reduce that. Then the total figures for education, Old Age Pensions, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of labour, and kindred matters represents £205,000,000. Nobody is suggesting any
  528
  economy there, except perhaps minor administrative savings on office furniture and stationery. Thus £600,000,000 of the national expenditure, cannot practically be reduced. The remainder of the expenditure is on the Navy, the Army, the Air Force, the Law, and Salaries of Civil servants, in all, about £340,000,000. That seems to me the only direction in which one can look for real economy, and that real economy can only come through a change of policy on the part of the Government. So long as we go on embarking on vast schemes in Mesopotamia, Palestine, Russia, or anywhere else, this expenditure cannot be cut down. It is the fault neither of the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor of the Financial Secretary. It is the fault of the House which supports the Government in its policy on these matters. An hon. Member appealed to us on the benches to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer in economising. Surely that appeal should have been addressed to some other quarter of the House. If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to study the division lists and compare the financial effect of the votes recorded in the Division Lobby, he would have found that the majority of the votes given against expenditure came from this side of the House. I hope we shall get a speech from the Financial Secretary, and that he will be able to tell us whether there is any body or person who has general control over questions of staffing and of expenditure on office furniture and stationery right through all the Departments of State.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir R. Horne): I rise to reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) who made specific reference to the administration of the Board of Trade. Like myself he has, I think, early learnt the lesson that if you look after the pence the pounds will look after themselves, because the matters with which he dealt were indeed concerned with the very smallest possible items of expenditure. However, I take no exception to his speech on that account, or to his criticisms, and I would like indeed to express my gratitude to him for raising such questions, because it is only when these matters are brought to the notice of Departments specifically that it is possible to take means to get rid of items of expenditure which need

  529
  not be incurred. I shall have the greatest possible pleasure in looking into the particular matter to which my hon. Friend referred. It is obvious I could not be prepared to deal with such items as he adverted to on this occasion without consulting the officers of my Department to see exactly what is being done on these matters of very detailed administration. I do know sufficiently of the forms to which he referred to be able to give some explanation. He suggested that these forms were concerned purely with information required during the course of the War. That is a complete misapprehension. I cannot imagine that either the House or the country would desire to be without the detailed information which is required by these forms. You want to know what is the number of employés in this country, and also the number of employés in each particular trade. It may be that you get inadequate information, owing to the forms not being all answered; and it may be that you have not now the authority to exact an answer which we had during the War. But that the country depends on that kind of information, for the proper control of its policy, goes without saying. Questions constantly arise in this House with regard to the state of employment in particular industries, and with regard to the amount of output which a particular industry is controlling. Unless we get information by some such means as the form which the Board of Trade is issuing, undoubtedly the country will be without proper guidance upon matters which constitute great elements in public policy. The form to which reference has been made has been carefully adjusted recently between the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade. Since I went to the Board of Trade, I found that there was a certain amount of overlapping in the questions asked by the two Ministries, and I took steps to stop that at once. Now, accordingly, the form has been adjusted between the two Departments, and the information is that which is required for the guidance both of the Ministry of Labour and of the Board of Trade, the one in regard to matters of employment and the other in regard to matters of production. I hope that the explanation which I have given upon the matter will satisfy my hon. Friend, although I am
  530
  afraid he will have to read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT instead of hearing it.
  With regard to the other matter, namely, the character of the envelopes which are sent out for the replies when inquiries are made regarding profiteering, I shall certainly see that no excessive amount of paper is sent out in connection with that matter in the future. My hon. Friend made certain references to the Profiteering Department, indicating that it cost more than, perhaps, it was worth, although its cost was very little. I should like to say, with regard to that, that the Profiteering Department, in my view, has been of the greatest possible service to the State. Every disclosure which we have had in recent times has shown that profiteering has not been carried on in this country to any great extent; but one of the reasons why there has been no great development of profiteering is that it has been checked by the threat of prosecution. That, at least, has formed one of the elements. Just as the policeman is a deterrent element in connection with crime, so the penalties of the Profiteering Act have had an effect, I have not the slightest doubt, upon the conduct of certain portions of the community. The point, however, which my hon. Friend made with regard to the way in which the business is done, is one which deserves my attention, and will certainly receive it.
  Perhaps I may just refer—although it does not come within my Department—to one of the questions asked by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Newcastle (Major Barnes). He asked whether there is any method by which control is kept by the Treasury, or by any other Department, of the amount of staffing and establishment in any particular Department. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend, from my own experience—and I have inquired of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as to the experience of other Departments—that the strictest possible surveillance is kept by the Treasury, not merely upon the staff required for any new establishment, but upon additions, even of individual elements, to the staffs of all Departments. If my hon. and gallant Friend had had the experience which I have had—and which, I have no doubt, he will one day have—of dealing with these matters in connection with a Ministry, he would have found how exceedingly difficult it is to get the staff

  531
  which he would regard as absolutely essential from time to time in order to perform the functions of the Department. Every application of that kind goes through a sieve at the Treasury, and, believe me, it is a sieve of very small meshes. I am certain that the experience of every Minister is the same as my own—and I have often discussed it—namely, that we find the greatest possible difficulty in getting through any applications involving any increased expenditure upon staff whatsoever. So far as that matter is concerned, I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend can keep his mind easy. We have, of course, been going through a period during which we have been reducing staffs to the greatest extent in our power. I know it is sometimes thought that perhaps these reductions have not taken place quickly enough, but the difficulties with which one is confronted are very great, at a time when the country has learned more and more to depend on Government Departments. One of the results—and I think one of the unfortunate results—of the War, has been that, during the War, the whole community became accustomed to rely upon Government Departments for advice, partly because many of the controls which existed prevented them from taking action without obtaining Government consent. One of the unfortunate results has been that, when control has been removed, the community still relies upon ministries to give them guidance. Hon. Members would be astonished if they knew the kind of questions upon which trade deputations insist upon seeing the President of the Board—questions which in pre-War days would never have been asked of any Member of a Government Department at all. All of these things involve increased work by the staff, and make it more difficult than it would ordinarily have been to reduce the amount of staff that accumulated during the War. I am not competent to reply upon any of the other matters to which reference has been made, but I hope to take the earliest possible opportunity of looking into the matters referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, and, if I find that there are difficulties of the kind which he has suggested, of remedying them as rapidly as possible.
  Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

MINISTRY OF FOOD (CONTINUANCE) 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.

SCHEDULE.

  LIMITATIONS.
  2. Where any articles are requisitioned or acquired after the passing of this Act under the powers of the Food Controller the compensation to be paid in default of agreement shall in each case be such compensation as may be determined to be reasonable by the arbitration of a single arbitrator appointed for the purpose by the Lord Chief Justice of England in England, by the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, and by the Lord Chancellor in Ireland.
  Lords Amendment:
  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."
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment,"
  9.0 P.M.
  Perhaps it may be convenient to the House if I just indicate what is the substance of this Amendment. The House will remember that, in Paragraph 2 of the Schedule of the Bill, there was a provision with regard to the possible contingency of the requisitioning or acquiring of any article after the date of the passing of the Act. It was provided in that paragraph of the Schedule that, in default of agreement, the matter should be remitted to an arbitrator, and that the arbitrator should be empowered to award such compensation as might be determined to be reasonable. In another place, some doubt was expressed by Lord Sumner as to whether the provision in that paragraph, requiring the arbitrator to award such compensation as he might

  533
  think reasonable, was sufficient to allow him to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, or whether it might not conceivably be held that he was precluded from doing so by the actual terms of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and was only entitled to consider, in determining compensation, such matters as were set out in the exact terms of those Regulations. The matter was considered by the Members of the Government responsible in these matters, and it was thought better, and I think the House will agree that it is better, to make quite clear on the face of the Statute that the arbitrator in determining any compensation he may have to award should be quite unfettered and quite free to take all circumstances into consideration. Accordingly the Amendment provides that the arbitrator shall award such compensation as he may determine to be reasonable, and that in arriving at the amount he shall not be bound by any provision contained in any of the said Regulations as to the principles on which the compensation is to be determined. In so far as this is a modification at all, it is a modification in favour of the subject and against the Department.
  Major BARNES: I should like to be quite clear as to the position that is created. As far as I understand it is this. The Ministry of Food has been in existence for a considerable period of time, and during that time has been making requisitions under the Defence of the Realm Act. I gather that if we accept this Amendment there will be two classes of requisition. There will be the requisition that takes place before some date or other which is effected by this Bill, and those who have to be compensated for these requisitions will have to go before the Tribunal under the Indemnity Bill, and that those whose goods axe requisitioned by the Ministry of Food under this Continuance Act will go before the arbitrator, and the former class will get compensation according to the principles laid down in the Regulations as modified by the Indemnity Bill, whereas the compensation of the latter class will not be restricted in any kind of way either by Regulation or by the Indemnity Bill. I do not know that that can be objected to. I think perhaps a distinction can be drawn between requisitions during wartime under very inflated conditions, and the
  534
  requisitions which are to be made under this Bill. I should be sorry to think, if the Ministry is going to requisition rum—I do not know if that is considered a food—under the Food Continuance Bill, they are to pay 57s. a gallon or whatever it is. I quite realise that there may be a distinction drawn. I am putting the case as I understand it to be, and I shall be glad to know whether that is the situation that is created by the Amendment.
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The situation is as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has apprehended. The Schedule states quite clearly that the provisions of the Bill apply where any articles are requisitioned or required after the passing of this Act, and it is-clear that they will only apply after the passing of the Act.
  Question put, and agreed to.

INDEMNITY BILL.
Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 2.—(Right to compensation for acts done in pursuance of prerogative and other powers.)
(1) Notwithstanding anything in the fore going Section restricting the right of taking legal proceedings, any person not being a subject of a State which has been at war with His Majesty during the War and not having been a subject of such a State whilst that State was so at war with His Majesty—
(b) who has otherwise incurred or sustained any direct loss or damage by reason of interference with his property or business in the United Kingdom through the exercise or purported exercise, during the War, of any prerogative right of His Majesty or of any power under any enactment relating to the defence of the Realm, or any Regulation or Order made or purporting to be made thereunder, shall be entitled to compensation in respect of such loss or damage;
(2) The payment or compensation shall be assessed in accordance with the following principles:—
(i) Where under the Defence of the Realm Regulations or any Order made or purporting to he made

535
thereunder, any special principle for assessment of compensation or the rate thereof, is contained in the Regulation or Order, compensation shall be assessed in accordance with that principle or rate:
Provided that nothing in this provision shall prevent the tribunal in assessing compensation from taking into consideration any circumstances which, under the Regulation in question, it would have been entitled to take into consideration.
(iii) In any other case, compensation shall be assessed as follows:—
(a) If the claimant would, apart from this Act, have had a legal right to compensation the tribunal shall take that right into consideration, and in assessing the compensation shall have regard to the amount of the compensation to which, apart from this Act, the claimant would have been legally entitled, and to the existence of a state of war and to all other circumstances relevant to a just assessment of compensation:
(3) Where before the fifteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty, any claim for compensation has been made and disposed of by award or agreement, or has been rejected, or any payment (other than a payment expressed to be made on account) has been accepted in respect thereof, no claim for compensation or further compensation under this Section shall be brought without the leave of the tribunal, and the tribunal shall not grant such leave except on proof of a material change of circumstances or new evidence not previously available being adduced.
(4) The tribunal for assessing compensation shall, where by any of the Defence of the Realm Regulations any special tribunal is prescribed, be that tribunal, and in cases where the claim is made under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of this Section be the said Board of Arbitration, and in any other case be the said Defence of the Realm Losses Commission.
(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.
Lords Amendments:
In Sub-section (1, b), after the word "to" ["shall be entitled to compensation "], insert "payment or."
In Sub-section (2, i), leave out the words "the Defence of the Realm Regulations or any," and insert" any regulation or."
Leave out the word "thereunder" ["purporting to be made thereunder"], and insert "under any enactment relating to the defence of the realm."
After the word "of" ["for assessment of compensation"], insert "any payment (including any price to be paid) or."
After the word "order" ["Regulation or order"], insert "such payment or."
After the word "assessing" ["tribunal in assessing compensation"] insert "the payment or."
In Sub-section (2, iii, a) leave out the words "take that right into consideration, and," and insert "give effect to that right, but."
In Sub-section (3) after the word "for" ["any claim for compensation"] insert "payment or."
After the word "for" ["no claim for compensation"] insert "payment or."
After the word "further" ["or further compensation"] insert "payment or.
In Sub-section (4) after the word "assessing" ["for assessing compensation"] insert "payment or."
Agreed to.
Lords Amendment:
At end of Sub-section (6) insert the 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 SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir E. Pollock): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
These are words only put in by way of precaution, in order to retain the existing system. Up to the present time the Commissioner has always awarded a certain sum in his discretion as he thinks fit for the purpose of costs. Now a certain number of statutory Regulations have been made by this Bill, and the point was raised by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Leslie Scott) and by Lord Sumner in another place whether it was not necessary to insert some words in order to give the same power as exists at

537
present for the purpose of costs. Therefore these words have been put in.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Validation of sentences.)
Any sentence passed, judgment given, or order made by any military court (other than a court-martial constituted in pursuance of any Statute) in connection with the War, or by any court established by the authority administering any territory in the occupation of any of His Majesty's Forces during the War for the administration of justice within such territory, whether passed, given, or made during such occupation, or after such occupation has determined until the court has been abolished or superseded by such lawfully constituted authority as may hereafter be established for the administration of such territory, shall be deemed to be and always to have been valid, and to be and always to have been within the jurisdiction of the court.
Lords Amendment:
At the end of Clause insert,
"Provided that any petition from a person upon whom a sentence has been passed by any such military court shall be submitted to the Judge-Advocate-General for his opinion and report in like manner and in the like cases as if the sentence were a sentence passed by a court-martial under the Army Act."
Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This has been inserted on an undertaking I gave to do my best to secure that some words should be put in in order that there might be statutory authority for the maintenance of the practice which I have indicated to the House. With the assistance of the Lord Chancellor we have founds words which I think will effect that result.
Major BARNES: I should like to congratulate the Solicitor-General on his success in inducing another place to honour his undertaking. He has been more successful in that respect than some other Ministers who have preceded him this Session. We on this side feel bound to say that he has done everything he promised in that direction, and that he has secured to the full all that he held out any hopes that he would secure. But of course we have not got all we asked for. While we feel that we have got something substantial here, we still hold the view that if we had got in addition the Privy Council we should have got a more effectual safeguard.
Sir E. POLLOCK indicated dissent.
Major BARNES: I should hesitate very much to oppose the hon. and learned Gentleman if I had not been advised that that is so by what I regard as a competent authority, the point being that it may be thought that in a great many of these cases the proceedings have not been carried out with the same care that they would have been in a court-martial, and that the record of the proceedings when they come before the Judge Advocate-General will be so incomplete that he is not likely to be in a position to give the judgment he would have been able to give if it had been a court-martial. The effect of this Amendment is that these cases come on all fours and that they will receive the same attention. We are all agreed that such cases, when they do come before the Courts, do receive attention. There is only one other flaw, and that is that although the Judge Advocate-General may come to a conclusion that it is a case where revision should be made, it does not follow that he has power to order it. His conclusions are reported to the War Office, and the War Office decide, so that in that respect this Amendment is still incomplete as a safeguard. We feel bound to point out these things. We are disappointed that the Government has not met our desires, but, so far as the Solicitor-General is concerned, he has fulfilled the promise he made, and we are satisfied.
Sir E. POLLOCK: I thank the hon. Member for what he said of me personally. Perhaps I may remove one ground of disappointment. This form on which the Judge Advocate-General will act is exactly the same form on which he acts in all cases. His opinion and report is always acted upon and accepted by those who have to carry it out. That is the method under which this system operates. I am very glad that we have this provision rather than the appeal to the Privy Council, because however great their authority may be, and no doubt it is great, I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Member on that point.
Question put, and agreed to.

BLIND PERSONS BILL.
Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 2 (Power of local authorities to promote welfare of blind persons):
(1) It shall be the duty of the council of every county and every county borough, within six months of this Act coming into operation, whether in combination with any other council or councils or otherwise, to make arrangements to the satisfaction of the Minister of Health for promoting the welfare of blind persons ordinarily resident within their area, and such council may for this purpose provide and maintain or contribute towards the provision and maintenance of workshops, hostels, homes, or other places for the reception of blind persons whether within or without their area and, with the approval of the Minister of Health, do such other things as may appear to them desirable for the purpose aforesaid.
Lords Amendment:
In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "within six months of this Act coming into operation."
The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The whole of these Amendments are purely drafting Amendments. They effect no change of substance except the one which provides for the extension of the six months' period to twelve months. It was felt by the County Councils Association, and I expressed the same doubt myself, that the preparatory work could not be done in six months, and after consideration we felt it right that it should be extended to twelve months, during which time schemes will have to be prepared.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment:
At end of Sub-section (1) insert
"The council shall, 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."
Agreed to.

CLAUSE 4 (Application to Scotland and Ireland.)
(1) This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:—
(a) Sub-sections (2) and (3) of the Section relating to the power of local authorities
540
to promote welfare of blind persons, and paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of the Section relating to charities for the blind, shall not apply;
Lords Amendments:
In Sub-section (1, a), leave out the words "the Section relating to the power of local authorities to promote welfare of blind persons," and insert "Section two."
Leave out the words "paragraph (c)." and insert "paragraphs (d) and (e)."
Leave out the words "of Sub-section (1) of the Section relating to charities for the blind," and insert "Section three."
At end of Sub-section (1, a) insert
"(b) The following Sub-section shall be substituted for Sub-section (6) of Section Two:
(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."
Agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Short title and commencement.)
This Act may be cited as the Blind Persons Act, 1920, and shall come into operation on the sixth day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty.
Lords Amendment.
Leave out the words "sixth day of August" and insert "tenth day of September."
Agreed to.

JURORS (ENROLMENT OF WOMEN) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. C. D. Murray): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Captain BENN: I do not desire to do anything but assist in the passing of this Bill. I understand that this Bill is brought forward with the object of putting Scotland in the same position as the other part of Great Britain, namely, that women can serve on juries. Anyone who knows the high educational standard

541
and attainments in Scotland will realise that if it is desirable, as we think it is, that women should serve on juries in England, it is equally or more desirable that their services should be at the disposal of juries in Scotland. I under stand that if this Bill is not passed we shall find ourselves in the anomalous position that women may be called to serve on juries in England, but nothing of the same kind would be possible in Scotland. Therefore, if this is allowable by the forms of the House, I should like to support what I understand to be the wish of the Government that the short Bill should pass through all its stages to-day, so that it may receive the Royal Assent in time to put Scottish women on juries or to make them available for juries at the same date that English women will be available for the same purpose.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.
Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."— [Mr. V. D. Murray.]
Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed without Amendment.

SEEDS [EXPENSES].
Resolution reported,
"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."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Major BARNES: On the Consolidated Fund Bill an hon. Member opposite pointed out that under this Bill you are subsidising a particular industry, although to a small amount. It does seem rather curious that at a time when we are anxious to get rid of subsidies,
542
whether large or small, and on the same evening that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that the bread subsidy—which at least has this advantage that it does assist the poorer section of the community—is to be done away with during the financial year, almost immediately afterwards the Government should bring forward this Resolution for granting a subsidy to a very large and important industry. I think we should have some statement from the Government to justify their action in this respect. We are told in a memorandum that there is not to be any great increase in cost on account of this particular Resolution, because the Treasury has already set up these seed stations. It is a rather curious principle to ask us to pass a Resolution granting certain sums of money and then to tell us that we are not going to exceed the present cost because these stations have already been set up without the sanction of this House. This is not the only industry which is coming under Government supervision and control. In connection with other industries the Government have adopted the policy of making the industry pay for the benefit it receives from the assistance of the Government. I refer, for example, to the Gas Regulation Bill, which has just passed the House, under which inspectors are being appointed and tests made, and to meet the cost a levy is being made on the gas industry. Why cannot the same principle be applied to the seed industry? It is only fair to assume that it is assistance, and that the industry is to get some benefit fom the Bill. It is stated that the fees charged for the tests are not sufficient, and that towards the expenditure of £7,000 a year in England and Wales the fees come to only £1,500. We are told that the Treasury is considering the question of raising the fees with the view of making the undertaking more nearly self-supporting than it is now. I suggest that this Financial Resolution should not be proceeded with now.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): We propose to raise the fees very considerably, and that matter is now under consideration. When the fees are raised I think the greater part of the cost will be covered, but I do not think it will be possible to cover all the cost, because if we did so it would

543
prevent seedsmen from availing themselves of the official seed testing stations. It is quite impracticable for all seeds to be tested at the official station. We propose, therefore, to license private seed testing stations, consisting of the premises of the seedsmen themselves and belonging to them. If we make the fees too high the tendency will be that they will utilise the private stations and not utilise the public stations to any extent. We wish to induce them to utilise the public stations to a considerable extent. This is not merely a matter for the benefit of seedsmen and farmers. It is in the national interest that we should have pure seeds, and we are entitled, therefore, to ask that a small portion of the cost shall be borne by the nation.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

RUSSIA.
  FRANCE AND GENERAL WRANGEL.

    SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House a question relating to two or three questions I have already put to the Government regarding the Adjournment of the House for the holidays, namely, whether, in view of the brief discussion we had in the early afternoon as to a message from the French Government and the grave situation which thereby arises—assuming the message to be correct—the Government intend to proceed with the Motion for the Adjournment for the holidays to-morrow?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We did propose, as I announced at Question Time, to proceed with the Resolution, but we intended in any case to give to the House tomorrow some indication of the steps which would be taken in the event of there arising contingencies which we all hope will not arise. However, after the incident to which my right hon. Friend has referred, we have come to the conclusion that it will be better to keep the House sitting until Monday, when I hope the situation may be clearer, and that it may then be possible to move the Adjournment to the date in October which I have named.
    544
    I therefore beg to move, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Monday next."
    Question put, and agreed to.

SEEDS BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
CLAUSES 1 (Delivery of particulars on sale of seeds and seed potatoes), 2 (Provisions as to tests), and 3 (Prohibition of sale or use of seeds containing injurious weed seeds), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.— (Power to enter and take samples.)
(7) The Minister may, after giving notice of his intention so to do to any person appearing to him to be concerned and after considering any representations made by that person, publish, in such manner as he thinks fit the particulars contained in any certificate issued under this Section with respect to the result of a test of seeds, together with the name and address of the owner of the seeds tested and also of any person from whom the seeds were procured, or such of those particulars as the Minister thinks fit;
Provided that the Minister shall not, in pursuance of the foregoing provision, publish the name and address of any person unless one part of the sample of the seeds was delivered or tendered or sent to that person under this Section.
Major W. MURRAY: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (7).
The Clause as it stands provides that persons can be put upon a black list without the need of conviction. I do not think that is a fair power to give to any Minister or any authority.
Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Government are prepared to accept this Amendment. On re-consideration, we think it is desirable that we should rely on prosecution rather than on publication.
Captain BENN: On behalf of some of those who have approached me on the subject, I wish to express my gratitude to the Government for meeting them on this point.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.— (Exemptions.)
This Act shall not apply—

(a) to a sale of seeds to a person purporting to purchase them with a view to cleaning them before they are sold or exposed for sale; or

(b) to a sale of seeds where the purchaser at the time of the sale gives to the seller an undertaking in writing that he will before selling or exposing the seeds for sale test or cause them to be tested, or that he will not resell the seeds to a seed merchant except on a similar undertaking by the purchaser; or

(c) to a sale of seeds or seed potatoes for delivery outside the United Kingdom; or

(d) to a sale or exposure for sale of seeds or seed potatoes not to be used for sowing or planting.

Major W. MURRAY: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert a new paragraph—
"(e) to a sale of seeds or seed potatoes by one farmer (not being a seed merchant) to another farmer unless the purchaser shall require in writing at the time of purchase the delivery of a statement in terms of Section one, Sub-section (1), of this Act."
In moving this Amendment I wish to express my thanks to the Minister in charge for his action in regard to the last Amendment. This second Amendment speaks for itself. It covers the very ordinary sale of seeds by one farmer to another and the exchange of seeds by one farmer with another. That seems a very harmless and proper operation, and I do not see why it should be done away with.
Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment. I think we must have the same rule for farmers as we have for seedsmen, and if we have a very definite Regulation insisting on the purity in the case of sales by seedsmen we must apply the same rule to farmers. We have to consider the national interests in this matter, and it is a very important thing that we should not have these impure seeds or impure potatoes planted in our fields. A great deal of damage can be done by farmers if they are to be free from the tests imposed upon seedsmen, Farmers have fewer opportunities of cleaning and testing seeds than the ordinary seedsmen have, and I cannot see why they should be allowed to introduce impure varieties when the seedsmen is prohibited from doing so.
Sir B. STANIER: I hope the right hon Gentleman will stick to his decision, because if this Amendment were carried we should be landed in most dangerous ground, especially with reference to wart disease in potatoes. At the present time there is the greatest difficulty in preventing the seed of a non-immune variety from being planted on contaminated land. And if this were permited I am perfectly certain that this horrible scourge of the wart disease would run rampant.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. ROYCE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert a new paragraph—
"(e) To a sale of potatoes to a person purporting to purchase them with a view to the product as planted being used solely for his own domestic consumption."
This is a very different Amendment from the last, and I hope the Minister, in charge will see his way to accept it. It is a very serious matter for the small man, especially the allotment holder, who secures good seed potatoes and plants thorn one year not to be allowed to sell any of the seed in the second year. His neighbour, to whom he would probably sell, knows the quality of the potatoes he has grown, and the quality of his seeds, as well as the best seedsman in the country. It is a regular practice among people in the rural districts to purchase seeds from each other. If this is not permitted every little man will have to go to a seedsman and buy his seeds. Every time he wants to plant he will have to buy direct from the seedsman, because this Bill really means a curtailment of the means of disposing of surplus seed on the part of an allotment holder. If there are areas in the country where wart disease prevails, I should be glad to see those areas prohibited, but to make this general over the whole country will impose a hardship, and will cut right through the ordinary practice among rural people. Very few of them realise what this Bill means. They have no idea that this will upset th6 whole of the system on which they work. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this, so that these small people can exchange or purchase seed.
Sir A. BOSCAWEN: There is nobody in this House for whose opinion on matters of this sort I have greater respect

547
than that of the hon. Member opposite. I know that he has the interests of the smallholders and allotment holders, and the small men generally engaged in agriculture, thoroughly at heart, and I am sorry that I cannot agree with him on this occasion. I think that what he is proposing would be the greatest possible disservice to those men whom he is seeking to support. If there is one man more than another who requires protection against being fobbed off with indifferent seed potatoes it is the small man, the allotment holder, and the man who is growing a certain amount of produce in his garden for his own domestic use. In many cases, unfortunately, these people go to the small seedsman, and it is largely for their protection that this Bill is brought in. It was for their protection that the Consumers' Council carried a very strong resolution in favour of a Bill. If the Bill is not to apply to a case where a man is buying seeds merely for his own use, that man is going to run the risk of being fobbed off with very indifferent stuff which will not only be a great damage to him, but may also introduce disease and damage to his neighbours also. I cannot help thinking that on conisderation my hon. Friend will see the great danger to which he is putting these people by proposing this Amendment, and therefore, as a friend of the allotment holder and the small man, quite as good a friend as my hon. Friend opposite, I ask him not to press this Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 6 to 12 and 14 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 17.—(Short title and commencement.)
(1) This Act may be cited as the Seeds Act, 1920.

(2) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "twenty," and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-one."
548
When this Bill was originally drafted, we hoped to get it into operation on the 1st August this year, and we hoped, therefore, that the Regulations would be published in time for the 1920–21 season. But, owing to the delay which has unfortunately happened, it is impossible now to make the Regulation in time, and it is impossible to get our testing stations into proper order in order to deal with this season. Therefore, I beg to move this Amendment to postpone the operation of the Bill for a year.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.— (Expenses.)
Any expenses incurred by the Minister, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, or the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, in carrying this Act into execution shall, up to an amount approved by the Treasury, be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move-" That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a new Clause which I am now enabled to move, owing to the passing by the House of the Financial Resolution.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Bill reported, with Amendments.
As amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
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 nut till Monday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.
Adjourned at a quarter before Ten o'Clock.

BRITISH ARMY.
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHISTS).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHISTS).
  GRENADIER AND COLDSTREAM GUARDS.
  GRENADIER AND COLDSTREAM GUARDS.
  WAR CASUALTIES (MISSING).
  WAR CASUALTIES (MISSING).
  ROYAL DEFENCE CORPS (WAR MEDAL).
  ROYAL DEFENCE CORPS (WAR MEDAL).
  TROOPS IN EGYPT (DEMOBILISATION AND EMBARKATION).
  TROOPS IN EGYPT (DEMOBILISATION AND EMBARKATION).
  MESOPOTAMIA.
  MESOPOTAMIA.
  MUNITIONS FACTORY, QUEENS-FERRY (ELECTRIC POWER PLANT).
  MUNITIONS FACTORY, QUEENS-FERRY (ELECTRIC POWER PLANT).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  AEROPLANES, AIR STATIONS AND PERSONNEL.
  AEROPLANES, AIR STATIONS AND PERSONNEL.
  "FERRYCRAIG," NORTH QUEENSFERRY.
  "FERRYCRAIG," NORTH QUEENSFERRY.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  WAR GRATUITY (PETTY OFFICER NORMAN P. COLEMAN).
  WAR GRATUITY (PETTY OFFICER NORMAN P. COLEMAN).
  LIMBLESS OFFICERS.
  LIMBLESS OFFICERS.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY (C. GRAHAM LLOYD, GLASGOW).
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY (C. GRAHAM LLOYD, GLASGOW).
  PENDING APPEAL CASES (ADVANCES).
  PENDING APPEAL CASES (ADVANCES).
  ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS (APPLICANTS' EXPENSES).
  ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS (APPLICANTS' EXPENSES).
  PENSIONS ALLOWANCE BOOK (J. VERITY, MANCHESTER).
  PENSIONS ALLOWANCE BOOK (J. VERITY, MANCHESTER).
  PRE-WAR PENSIONERS (J. MCKAY).
  PRE-WAR PENSIONERS (J. MCKAY).
  DISABILITY PENSION (PTE. H. BOULTER'S APPLICATION).
  DISABILITY PENSION (PTE. H. BOULTER'S APPLICATION).
IRELAND.
  MR. R. C. BARTON, M.P. (MILITARY SERVICE).
  MR. R. C. BARTON, M.P. (MILITARY SERVICE).
  SINN FEINERS (AEROPLANES).
  SINN FEINERS (AEROPLANES).
  GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRESS INTERVIEW).
  GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRESS INTERVIEW).
  BELFAST SHIPYARDS (EVICTIONS).
  BELFAST SHIPYARDS (EVICTIONS).
  SINN FEIN MUNITIONS OF WAR FUND.
  SINN FEIN MUNITIONS OF WAR FUND.
SCOTLAND.
  LOCAL OPTION (CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD).
  LOCAL OPTION (CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD).
  EDUCATION (EXPENDITURE).
  EDUCATION (EXPENDITURE).
INDIA.
  CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS.
  CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS.
  SUPPRESSION OF RIOTS (BALL AMMUNITION).
  SUPPRESSION OF RIOTS (BALL AMMUNITION).
  AUXILIARY FORCE BILL.
  AUXILIARY FORCE BILL.
  DRUGS AND SURGICAL DRESSINGS (ARMY SUPPLIES).
  DRUGS AND SURGICAL DRESSINGS (ARMY SUPPLIES).
  RUPEE PENSIONERS.
  RUPEE PENSIONERS.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  IMPORTED TOYS.
  IMPORTED TOYS.
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
  COAL EXPORTS, TYNE (RESTRICTIONS).
  COAL EXPORTS, TYNE (RESTRICTIONS).
  RUBBER MANUFACTURES (FOREIGN COMPETITION).
  RUBBER MANUFACTURES (FOREIGN COMPETITION).
  CHINA CLAY (EXPORTS).
  CHINA CLAY (EXPORTS).
  FISHING INDUSTRY (ADMIRALTY TRAWLERS).
  FISHING INDUSTRY (ADMIRALTY TRAWLERS).
  COTTON INDUSTRY.
  COTTON INDUSTRY.
TRANSPORT.
  MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL (ROCK CUTTING, BARTON AQUEDUCT).
  MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL (ROCK CUTTING, BARTON AQUEDUCT).
  MINISTRY EXPENDITURE AND APPOINTMENTS.
  MINISTRY EXPENDITURE AND APPOINTMENTS.
  GENERAL MERCHANDISE (COLLECTION AND DELIVERY).
  GENERAL MERCHANDISE (COLLECTION AND DELIVERY).
  MOTOR CAR TRAFFIC, GLAMORGAN (IDENTIFICATION MARKS).
  MOTOR CAR TRAFFIC, GLAMORGAN (IDENTIFICATION MARKS).
  MOTOR TRACTORS (ESSEX PROSECUTION).
  MOTOR TRACTORS (ESSEX PROSECUTION).
  WORKMEN'S TRAINS (FARES).
  WORKMEN'S TRAINS (FARES).
  LOST ARTICLES (RAILWAY COMPANIES' LIABILITY).
  LOST ARTICLES (RAILWAY COMPANIES' LIABILITY).
  GOODS TRAFFIC RECEIPTS.
  GOODS TRAFFIC RECEIPTS.
  FIRST-CLASS PASSENGER TRAFFIC.
  FIRST-CLASS PASSENGER TRAFFIC.
  RAILWAY TICKETS (ACTUAL FARES).
  RAILWAY TICKETS (ACTUAL FARES).
  FISH TRAFFIC.
  FISH TRAFFIC.
  CANALS AND WATERWAYS.
  CANALS AND WATERWAYS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  GODSTONE DISTRICT OFFICE.
  GODSTONE DISTRICT OFFICE.
  DOUBLE SHEEP-DIPPING ORDER.
  DOUBLE SHEEP-DIPPING ORDER.
  ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (WAGES).
  ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (WAGES).
  LIMES FARM, HORBLING, LINCOLNSHIRE (RENT).
  LIMES FARM, HORBLING, LINCOLNSHIRE (RENT).
HOUSING.
  EVICTION OEDER, MIDDLESBROUGH.
  EVICTION OEDER, MIDDLESBROUGH.
  GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY, IRELAND.
  GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY, IRELAND.
  SCOTLAND (SUBSIDY).
  SCOTLAND (SUBSIDY).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
POLICE SERVICE.
  HOME OFFICE REGULATIONS.
  HOME OFFICE REGULATIONS.
  SPECIAL DUTY APPOINTMENTS.
  SPECIAL DUTY APPOINTMENTS.
  ANTI-SEMITIC NEWSPAPER ARTICLES.
  ANTI-SEMITIC NEWSPAPER ARTICLES.
  WOMEN, YOUNG PERSONS, AND CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  WOMEN, YOUNG PERSONS, AND CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  FOREIGN CHILDREN (COUNTY COUNCIL EXPENDITURE).
  FOREIGN CHILDREN (COUNTY COUNCIL EXPENDITURE).
  ST. ANDREW'S HOSPITAL, NORTHAMPTON (IRREGULARITIES).
  ST. ANDREW'S HOSPITAL, NORTHAMPTON (IRREGULARITIES).
  EDUCATION (CINEMATOGRAPH).
  EDUCATION (CINEMATOGRAPH).
  SAMOA (CHINESE INDENTURED LABOUR).
  SAMOA (CHINESE INDENTURED LABOUR).
  MONTENEGRO.
  MONTENEGRO.
  WAR LOANS (DEPRECIATION FUND).
  WAR LOANS (DEPRECIATION FUND).
  SUPER-TAX.
  SUPER-TAX.
  OFFICE OF WORKS (FOREMEN AND TIMEKEEPERS).
  OFFICE OF WORKS (FOREMEN AND TIMEKEEPERS).
  HYDE PARK (CHILDREN'S SAND PIT).
  HYDE PARK (CHILDREN'S SAND PIT).
POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONE RATES.
  TELEPHONE RATES.
  SOUTHAMPTON TELEGRAPH OFFICE (MR. A. E. BRAIDEN).
  SOUTHAMPTON TELEGRAPH OFFICE (MR. A. E. BRAIDEN).
  ACTING HEAD POSTMEN (SUBSTANTIVE APPOINTMENTS).
  ACTING HEAD POSTMEN (SUBSTANTIVE APPOINTMENTS).
  WAGES.
  WAGES.
  COST OF. LIVING (INDEX FIGURE).
  COST OF. LIVING (INDEX FIGURE).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BERMONDSEY AND BIRMINGHAM.
  BERMONDSEY AND BIRMINGHAM.
  EX-SERVICE MEN, LEITH.
  EX-SERVICE MEN, LEITH.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I have to, move that Clause 41 of this Bill be omitted. I dare say most of your Lordships have not had time to study the provisions of the Bill, and therefore I will read Clause 41. It is. in the following terms—
"Section 1 of the Trustee Act, 1893 (which specifies the securities in which Trust Funds may be invested) shall have effect as though there were included therein mortgages by the Board of their revenue and of the moneys receivable by them from the four Corporations granted after the passing of this Act."
The four corporations referred to are Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield, and Leicester.
The point at issue, I am informed, is a very simple one—namely, should a private Bill be allowed to make an extension in the range of trustee securities which is not given by the general law and to which the Treasury and His Majesty's Government object? As many of your Lordships are probably aware, the stock of local authorities of over 50,000 inhabitants is a trustee security under the general law by the Trustee Act of 1893, and the Dement Valley Water Board's stock was put in a similar position in the year 1899. Morgtages of local authorities in general are not trustee securities, but under the Housing Act which Parliament passed last year mortgages of the local authorities entitled to issue housing bonds are trustee securities. That was a special concession strictly limited to housing authorities, and only made, as I am informed, in view of the vital necessity of encouraging housing authorities to raise money. It was not given by the general law to mortgages of authorities which arc not housing auth-

1191
orities, and the value of the concession to housing authorities is taken away if a similar concession is given to the competing mortgages of authorities which are not housing authorities.
Clause 41 of the Bill before your Lordships this afternoon proposes to make the mortgages of the Derwent Valley Water Board a trustee security, as your Lordships will have noticed from the terms of the clause that I read out just now. But this Water Board is not, and cannot be, a housing authority; so that what this clause does is to ask for a privilege for a particular authority which is not given by the general law. Your Lordships will observe that in this respect what the Bill asks is quite a different proposition from the privilege given in 1899 to the Derwent Water Board stock, which was a general privilege given to large authorities.
It may be arguable that all mortgages, not merely housing authority mortgages, ought to be trustee securities; but that is not the point to which I am inviting your Lordships' attention this afternoon. They are not all, in fact, trustee securities, and if a change is to be made the Government hold that it should be by general enactment and not in one particular case only, as is apparently asked for by the Bill before your Lordships. The Treasury claim that an extension of the range of trustee securities should not be made lightly in the interests of particular parties but on a general review in consideration of the national interests as a whole.
The general objections to increasing the range of trustee securities do not rest on the safety or otherwise of a particular issue. In this case I have no doubt that the Derwent Water Board mortgages would be as safe as the mortgages of the four constituent members of the board—namely, Leicester, Derby, Nottingham, and Sheffield. But the objections rest on these general considerations: in the first place, that with the present wide choice of trustee securities extension is not necessary to meet the convenience of investors; in the second place, that in these circumstances any further extension tends to compete with, and thereby depreciate, all existing trustee securities; and to admit mortgages of one water board might make it impossible to refuse a similar extension to other water boards, and, in fact, to the mortgages of all kinds of public boards which are not now admitted.
1192
The case of the Treasury against this clause may be summed up as follows. In the first place, there is a general objection to extending the range of trustee securities; secondly, there is a particular objection to doing it in such a way as to deprive housing authorities of a special privilege which was given them as recently as last year; thirdly, there is great objection to making an exception in the general law by a private Act; and, fourthly, we believe that a concession in this case would lead to a wide crop of similar cases. Your Lordships may ask, in the first place, why did not the Treasury object before; and, in the second place, why have the Private Bill Committees of both the Commons and the Lords let this clause through The answer to these questions is as follows. The Treasury did raise the point with the promoters as soon as this clause, which was not in the original Bill, appeared. They informed the promoters of their objection as far back at April 21, and they repeatedly pressed their objections, culminating in a categorical refusal to modify their opposition which was conveyed in a letter from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Baldwin, addressed to one of the Members for Sheffield, Sir S. Roberts, M.P., on July 12, and later, as I am informed, in a letter to my noble friend the Lord Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): Yes, after I had given my decision.
LORD HYLTON: It is not customary for the Treasury to report formally on such clauses to the Commons Committee, and they were not asked to do so by the Committee when considering this Bill in June. The Treasury were at the time in correspondence with the promoters, which is the usual way, as I am informed, of settling such points, and they had no reason to suppose that the promoters would not, as is almost invariably the case in such circumstances, in due course meet their wishes. Counsel for the promoters did mention to the House of Commons Committee that the Treasury had raised objections, but he did not put to the Commitee the real reasons for the Treasury objection. He argued, first, that mortgages ought to be trustee securities—which I hold is a point for the general law; and secondly, that the constituent authorities' mortgages were trustee secu-

1193
rities, which is no doubt a fact. I am referring, of course, to the four corporations. But those authorities are housing authorities, whereas a conglomerate body is not, and counsel did not bring out the housing point or the fact that the general law did not give the privilege for which he asked.
I hope I am not saying anything that the Lord Chairman will not agree to, because, of course, he is better acquainted with the details of this case. I dare say his knowledge of the details may go beyond what I have received from the Treasury, but, as I am informed by the Treasury, they are under the impression that when the case came before the Lords Committee my noble friend may, perhaps, have been influenced by the fact that the Commons Committee had passed. the clause. All this time the Treasury were in constant touch with the promoters, who were fully aware that the Treasury objection was not withdrawn. The Treasury, acting for His Majesty's Government, could not, of course, in any case have forced the Committee to take any particular view. All that they could do was to oppose this clause of the Bill now when it comes before your Lordships' House and can be discussed as a Government matter. Those are the facts as they have been given to me, and I beg to move that Clause 41 be omitted.
Moved, That Clause 41 be omitted.—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, in the ordinary way I have great sympathy with Treasury action, and at present, in regard to ordinary expenditure, I look upon the Treasury as a good man struggling with adversity. But in this case I would suggest certain reasons why their advice should not be followed. I need not remind your Lordships, many of whom are well acquainted with Private Bill procedure and have sat upon Private Bill Committees, that all Private Bills are, to a certain extent, extensions of the general law; it depends upon the limit within which those extensions are made whether the proposals of the Private Bills are justified or not.
As to the method of this opposition on the part of the Treasury, there is no complaint of notice not having been given; the promoters have had sufficient notice the whole time that the Treasury objected to this. I do not object to that in any way, but I do think it is a rather arbitrary pro-
1194
ceeding to try to upset a decision deliberately come to by a Committee of the House of Commons where the point was specifically raised, where the Chairman expressed the opinion that this power ought to be allowed, and indeed, as far as I can see, said he was quite prepared to fight the Treasury about it. That is as regards the House of Commons.
As regards your Lordships' House, this Bill was, I believe, unopposed, and came before the Lord Chairman. I had the pleasure of acting with the Lord Chairman for a short time while I was Chairman of Ways and Means. I learnt at that time to rely on his impartiality and on his sound judgment in regard to Private Bill matters, and I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me that his advice is well worth following in regard to this question. Finally, the opinion of the Treasury is entirely opposed to the opinion of the Ministry of Health, on whom rests the responsibility for sanctioning loans by corporations and by bodies of this kind.
LORD HYLTON: No, I think the Treasury has the power.
LORD EMMOTT: I think, in the first place, the Ministry of Health. But, at any rate, the Minister of Health have in this matter a very special locus, and they are entirely opposed to the. view of the Treasury. As to merits, the view of the Treasury is that it is desirable to cut down the list of trustee securities, and they therefore oppose this slight extension. With great deference to the Treasury, I do not think that is a well-conceived objection. Had I not learned that this view is held by the heads of the Treasury, I really should have thought that this opposition was due to a red-tape proceeding on the part of some minor official. But if the real objection is that it is desirable to cut down the list of trustee securities, why did not the Treasury object to the Bill of last year, the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919? That Act, as I understand it, is not confined to housing at all. As I understand, the effect of that Act in allowing mortgages to be treated as trustee securities applies to all mortgages granted for any purposes by local authorities authorised by that Act to issue local bonds. If that is the case, that Act does not confine the privileges granted to housing; it extends them to borrowing for all other purposes. That Act having

1195
passed, each of these four corporations—Derby, Leicester, Sheffield, and Nottingham—could, if the waterworks were their own undertakings, have borrowed money on mortgage for those purposes, with the leave of the requisite Government authorities, and could have these mortgages treated as trustee securities. This Derwent Valley Board has been set up by past legislation of your Lordships and of the other House, but just because these four corporations are joined together it scents to me that the security is no worse; in fact, I should say the security is rather better, and that it would be making use of a highly technical plea if they were to be refused the same facilities, when they are joined together, as they would enjoy if they were acting separately and each had its waterworks.
What justice is there in the plea that allowing this privilege to the Derwent Valley Board would depreciate the value of Government securities? The total borrowing powers of the Dement Valley Board are somehere in the neighbourhood of £6,000,000, and they are only increased by a little over £200,000 by this Bill. The amount actually issued, is, I think, about £3,500,000 only. Is it seriously contended by the Treasury that allowing the £3,500,000 already issued to be trustee securities is going to depreciate the value of the vast volume of Government securities? But put it all in, imagine the whole of the £6,000,000 borrowed. For every million that can be borrowed by the Derwent Valley Board there is £1,500,000,000 in Government stock and borrowings and in other trustee securities. It is perfectly absurd to say that this small addition to trustee securities would have any effect upon Government borrowing. On the other hand, it would be very unfair to the Derwent Valley Water Board and these four corporations, who are doing a great public service to their own localities by the work they are undertaking in connection with this water scheme. They say they will be prejudiced if they are not allowed to issue the mortgages as trustee securities. I beg your Lordships to hesitate before you accept the advice of the Treasury on this particular matter.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Lord, as representing the Treasury, has taken the step, which, of course, is a perfectly proper one in accordance with Parliamentary
1196
procedure, of moving an Amendment on Third Reading to strike out a clause which has passed through two Committees of Parliament, or, perhaps I should say, which has passed all necessary stages of Parliament but the last one.
I noticed particularly what my noble friend Lord Hylton said that the Treasury are opposed to a wide increase of similar cases. I have no doubt that is a sentiment which will be supported in general terms by all your Lordships, but I think it right to mention, for reasons which I shall explain in a few moments, that though I have not been through a careful schedule ticking off case after case, I, with the assistance of my advisers, am not able to think of a parallel case of an undertaking in the exact position of the Derwent Water Board in the British isles. I do not like the argument that "it is only a little one," but as the point has been raised it is fair, I think, that I should mention that fact to your Lordships.
My noble friend touched briefly on the Parliamentary history of this matter, and I think I ought to explain it in rather greater detail to your Lordships. Of course, the view of the Treasury has been quite clearly before the promoters from the beginning, and this position of affairs was explained to a Committee of the House of Commons which is known as the Select Committee on Private Bills, Group D, over which my right hon. friend Sir Harry Samuel presides. I think it is fair to mention that to your Lordships. I should never criticise a Committee of another House, but I would point out that Sir Harry Samuel is a very experienced man in these matters, so I thought I ought actually to mention his name.
The point was brought before the Committee by learned counsel for the promoters. My noble friend seems to think that learned counsel ought to have argued the case from the Treasury point of view, but I do not think it is any part of the duty of counsel for promoters to do that. I have the Minutes of Proceedings here, and they are sufficient to show that the matter was fully before the Chairman of the Committee. He made his point of view quite clear on the matter. There is no question that he did not understand the point, and his view was quite precise. Perhaps I may make two quotations to your Lordships from what was said by Mr. Vesey Knox, counsel for the promoters

1197
of the Bill. After explaining how the matter came before the Committee, learned counsel said—
"The short point is this. A municipal corporation with a population of over 50,000 could, before the passing of the Housing Act, 1919, issue either stock or mortgages, but the stock was a trustee investment and the mortgages were not. It was curious it should be so, because the one is just as good a security as the other, and in fact, from the trustee point of view, rather batter, because a mortgage is repayable generally at short date, say five or seven years, and the trustee gets back his money in full, whereas in the ease of stock he may not get it back in full for thirty or forty years.
The CHAIRMAN: That was just what was behind my mind; I would much sooner have the mortgage than the stock."
Then Mr. Vesey Knox develops his argument in the next few lines, and proceeds—
"Now an amending Act has been passed which makes the mortgages of the constituent authority trustee securities, and what we are asking is that a similar amendment should be made in our case, and that our mortgages should also be trustee securities.
The CHADINTAN: So they ought to be.
Mr. VESEY KNOX: That is the whole point. The Treasury have objected to it, and I thought therefore I ought to call attention to it. They objected to it, I think, on the ground that they think nothing should be made a trustee security by a Private Bill—"
Mr. Vesey Knox, therefore, put this important objection of the Treasury quite openly before the Committee—
"but this is a very special ease having regard to the fact that this Board represents four corporations.
The CHAIRMAN: Yours is practically corporation stock.
Mr. VESEY KNOX: It is practically.
The CHAIRMAN: And if an amending Bill is being brought in to give facilities to corporations why should you not take advantage of it?
Mr. VESEV KNOX: The only thing is that ours is not technically that.
The CHAIRMAN: I know, I am quite prepared to fight the Treasury on it."
I make that extract to show that I do not think the promoters can be accused for one moment of not. having put the case as fairly before the Committee as it was their duty to do.
Then the Bill came before me. As my noble friends have said, this was an unopposed Bill, and contrary to the custom of the House of Commons an unopposed Bill, as your Lordships are aware, comes before the Lord Chairman and does not go before a special Committee. I can assure my noble friend that I was not in
1198
the least influenced, by the fact that a Committee of the House of Commons had given a decision one way, in coming to it the same way myself. I had not, of course, read these Proceedings at that time; If have only seen them in the last few days. I am sure my noble friend, who has some experience of Committee work, knows perfectly well that a Committee of neither House follows slavishly in the steps of the Committee of the other House, and I hope, my Lords, that I live up to that desirable position.
The parties appeared before me, separately of course; it is not the custom for public Departments to attend and argue with promoters. I do not think I can more shortly put the case before your Lordships than by actually reading the letter that 1 wrote to the Treasury on August 4, after I had decided not to put out the clause. In that, way everything that was in my mind will be before your Lordships, as it is my duty to put it before you. It is a letter signed by my counsel, Sir Albert Grey, though, of course, I had seen it before it was sent. It is in these terms—
"The Lord Chairman regrets to hear from the Agents of this Bill that the objections of the Treasury to Clause 41 (Power of Trustees to invest in mortgages of the Board) have not been removed. He desires me to inform you that for the reasons following he does not feel justified in interfering with the Clause as passed by the House of Commons. By section 111 of the Board's Act of 1899 the stock of the Board was made a trustee security (with the approval of the Lord Chancellor) on the ground that the stocks of the four boroughs constituting the Board were already trustee securities. By Section 9 of the Housing Act, 1919, the mortgages of local authorities who are authorised to issue local bonds under that Act are made trustee securities; and Lord Donoughmore is informed that the four boroughs have in fact been authorised to issue these local bonds. The mortgages of the Board being practically mortgages of the rates of the four boroughs, Lord Donoughmore is of opinion that Clause 41 is justifiable on the same grounds as those which dictated the allowance of Section 111 of the Act of 1899. Long Donoughmore does not propose to question the policy of the provisions in the Housing Act, 1919, relating to the Trustee Act, as the far-reaching effects of that section were no doubt present to the minds of His Majesty's Government. The Bill stands for Third Reading on Monday next."
It is not a good answer, I think, to say, as my noble friend Lord Hylton said, that this body is not a housing authority. It is not; but its component parts are housing authorities who have taken the action required by the law of last year for housing purposes. The Board is not an

1199
ordinary water board such as your Lordships are familiar with like the Metropolitan Water Board. As was explained by Lord Emmott, it is practically a body to provide water in bulk to these four authorities, and it would not be unfair to describe it as the four authorities themselves.
A NOBLE LORD: Which four authorities?
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Sheffield, Leicester, Nottingham, and Derby. It would not be unfair, I think, to describe it as the four authorities under a joint name, or even as a Standing Committee of the four authorities having Parliamentary powers. I do not think, therefore, it is unreasonable that they should ask for this privilege by this clause. It will make the raising of their capital easier—a very important matter in these days—and it is a little unfair to characterise this as an extension of the general law. It would be fairer to say that it is an explanation of the general law, because it is really only a technicality that deprives these localities of the privileges of the general law as passed by your Lordships last year. It is not unreasonable that this technicality should be abolished.
My noble friend Lord Emmott has referred to the special difficulty in which we find ourselves. It was stated to me, and no doubt correctly, when this Bill was before me in Unopposed Committee, that the Ministry of Health had expressed their approval of this clause. We are in a difficulty if promoters are to be allowed to go through all the stages of their Bills in Parliament, knowing perfectly well that they have the support of a public Department, and questions like this are raised on Third Reading. I find myself in a position which I do not in the least desire, of deciding between the two Government Departments—and that is the position your Lordships are in. I think I am entitled to say that I hope my noble friend will not divide the House, but if he does feel it necessary to do so I hope he will not feel it necessary to put on the Government "Tellers" in the special circumstances of the case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, during the time I have occupied my present office this is the first occasion on which I have been unable to agree with my noble friend the
1200
Lord Chairman, with whom on so many points I have been able to co-operate. My excuse for addressing your Lordships is that I rest under a special responsibility to this House in the matter of trustee securities, and I should be wanting in my duty if I did not call attention to one or two important points which, if they had been adequately put before the Lord Chairman, would in my humble opinion, have been likely to have influenced and perhaps have altered his decision. I think Lord Donoughmore has ground for complaint, though not against any special Government Department, that fuller material was not placed before him. I am satisfied that if the whole case had been placed before him he would have thought it a matter which required more consideration than he was able to give on the material supplied to him.
It is not for us to criticise the decisions or the dicta of the Chairman of Committees in another place, but the Lord Chairman read a number of extracts from observations made by the Chairman of the House of Commons Committee to show that he reached a conclusion upon a very important matter somewhat rapidly and without any very considerable argument. I take the responsibility of saying, on a matter on which I am responsible to Parliament, that a very grave issue is raised here. It is a graver issue than the Lord Chairman can possibly have discovered from the proceedings as they were presented to him. In the first place, I believe it to be absolutely without precedent for a Private Bill Committee to alter the general law on the question of trustee securities. I have had great experience at the Bar in these matters, and frequently practised in them, and I should have regarded it as a revolutionary proposal, destructive of the authority and jurisdiction of this House, if I asked any Private Bill Committee to alter the general law on the question of trustee securities.
Parliament has most jealously safeguarded its own rights and distinguished them from the functions and powers of Private Bill Committees. When the advocacy of the Ministry is relied upon by the Lord Chairman, I extend to him my utmost sympathy. I think he was placed in an impossible position, but, frankly, in this House we can decide it with fuller knowledge. The Ministry of Health, in so far as it intervened, had no locus standi

1201
whatever in the matter. The position is quite plain. The Ministry of Health has the power of approving of loans. They have neither the statutory authority (nor had the Local Government Board), nor any power at all, to express any view as to trustee securities, and whatever mismanagement there may have been the Ministry was never consulted, the matter was one which did not concern the Minister and he had no right to offer an opinion.
The only public authorities who are entitled under the law of this country to express opinions to a Parliamentary Committee on the question of trustee securities are the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury. It cannot be contended that the Ministry of Health has any locus standi in the matter. The question really is one that cuts very deep, and I think it should be most attentively considered by your Lordships in all its aspects. The Treasury has always taken the view that, if any change in the law is to be made which would admit mortgages as trustee securities the decision should be arrived by Parliament after it had examined the situation as a whole; not merely in relation to one particular body, but in relation to all the manifold considerations which must be measured and appraised.
I have often had to give my mind to the question. I have discussed it with the Treasury and I have been convinced by the view, which is held by every competent financial authority in the Treasury, that to make such a general change in the law would undoubtedly lead to a depreciation in the value of trustee securities. That may be right or wrong—I am not competent to judge as to whether it is right or wrong—but it is the view held by every competent financier at the Treasury, and it has influenced me and my predecessors in assisting the Treasury view that there shall be no such general change in the law.
That being the policy of the Treasury, we are now asked in Private Bill procedure to say that in a particular case mortgages Shall be made trustee securities. When the Lord Chairman says that it refers only to this one corporation he would be the first to assent to this, that there are hundreds and thousands of institutions in this country who could put forward arguments as strong as those put forward by this corporation for making their
1202
mortgages trust securities and could contend that it would be equally right to make their mortgages trust securities. It is impossible to treat this as a limited and particular case. The decision would involve first, an inroad on our general law through Private Bill Committee, and, secondly, open the door to appeals which would have the certain result of reducing the value of trustee securities.
That is not all. The next point taken by the Lord Chairman is that the principle of the Treasury was departed from when leave was given to housing corporations to treat their mortgages as trustee securities. Let me take your Lordships into the confidence. of the Government as to the circumstances in which that concession was made. It was made only after the most anxious consideration, and after prolonged opposition on the part of the Treasury. Whether the Treasury was right or wrong in giving way I cannot tell your Lordships, but the position was this: it was vital that more progress should be made with the housing difficulties than, as your Lordships very well know, was being made, and it was most strongly pressed upon the Government and the Treasury that if this concession was made to the housing authorities it would make an enormous difference in the speed with which the deficiency of housing was filled
up. After long discussion, the Treasury most reluctantly surrendering, and only in the face of vital public necessity, their point of view, they made this exception in that case, and they hoped and believed in that case only.
It is said that the constituent bodies of this Water Board are housing bodies, and I imagine the argument to be that because the constituent bodies are housing authorities, and their mortages can be treated as trustee securities, therefore the body of which they are part should enjoy the same privileges. If I may respectfully say so, never was a more illogical argument used. The method by which the objections of the Treasury were overcome was by saying "You must make inducements to people who can supply houses." The four constituent bodies can supply houses, and therefore you want to make inducements to them; but you do not make any inducements to the body composed of those four constituent bodies, because it has no power to supply houses. Are we to-day to sanction a course which is

1203
entirely without precedent, which is respectfully protested against before your Lordships by the Treasury and by myself, who are the two Departments that by law are alone charged with advising Parliament on the subject of trustee securities, and which is equally protested against by the Housing Department, because they desire most earnestly to press upon your Lordships that the wholly exceptional privilege which Parliament gives will be so whittled down as to remain almost worthless.
I am authorised, speaking on behalf of the Treasury and of course on behalf of my own Department and the Housing Department, most earnestly—without reflecting in the slightest degree upon the Lord Chairman, for the sagacity of whose decisions I have the most profound respect, but before whom I am sure this matter was never properly argued—to express the hope that you will vote for the Amendment of my noble friend. I have one word only to add. It is not convenient or usual for Government Departments to attend before these Private Bill Committees. If the case which I have attempted to present to your Lordships had been argued before either the House of Commons Committee or before the Lord Chairman, I cannot doubt that they would have reached a different conclusion. The method always adopted in these cases is for the Government Department concerned to make its view clearly known to the promoters, and at an early stage the Treasury informed the promoters of the objections which they held; and it is the invariable practice, when a Government Department so influential as the Treasury does this, for the promoters at once to adapt themselves to that view. So it is only at this late stage that the Treasury is able to make a proposal—I can assure the Lord Chairman that it is so—
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I can assure the noble and learned Lord that it is not so. The officials of my Department had a long interview with the Treasury on the subject.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: When matters are before a Parliamentary Committee the issue is presented and argued at length by counsel. It is a very different thing to acquaint the subordinates of the Chairman of the Committee, either in another place or here. The statement of the Lord Chairman reinforces my main
1204
argument, because it shows that from first to last the Treasury, so far as they could, acquainted the promoters with the strong views which they held. What I mean was that they did not enjoy the opportunity of representing those views through the agency of counsel when the matter was debated and discussed. I can only express a strong hope that your Lordships will not lightly set aside the Treasury view.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that your Lordships are placed in a very great difficulty in regard to this matter, and I shall express my opinion for what it is worth with the greatest possible diffidence. I do not know where the mistake arose, but I think the attitude of the Government Departments in this matter does leave your Lordships in an extremely difficult position. Not merely have we the very unbecoming fact of two Government Departments being opposed on the floor of the House in this matter, because I presume that if the representative of the Minister of Health were here he would have risen to—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am able to reassure the noble Marquess in regard to that. He had not heard of it, and if he had he would have taken a different view.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It was done by the Department without the assent of the Minister. That is not very satisfactory either. I should like to call attention to a very striking circumstance which affects in the first degree the Treasury. I do not pretend to be as familiar as the Lord Chairman and the Lord Chancellor, and the noble Lord on the Cross Benches, with Private Hill procedure, but certainly it does seem to me that in some way or other—
LORE HYLTON: It was as far back as April 27 that the Treasury objections were made known to the promoters of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: To the promoters! But what about Parliament? The Treasury is represented in Parliament by several highly-placed officials in the House of Commons, and that House, if I may use so colloquial a phrase, is the happy hunting-ground of the Treasury. There it lives and moves and has its being.

1205
The Treasury, of course, is a direct service of the House of Commons. It represents the finance of the country. I listened to the debate which has taken place, and I was listening to hear what happened when the Report of the Committee came before the House of Commons. There was a Report stage and a Third Reading in the House of Commons, and there was the Financial Secretary sitting on the Treasury Bench, and there was also the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to speak of the First Lord of the Treasury. Did none of these officials raise the Treasury objection? If not, why not? It is a most incredible thing. Why should the House of Lords, who are most anxious to do their duty, at the very end of the sittings prior to the adjournment be called upon to deal with this matter, which is more emphatically a House of Commons question than anything else? It seems a very astonishing proceeding. I do not know what the answer is.
Then we come reluctantly to the merits of the question, and upon them I want to express a most diffident opinion. Certainly, as I heard the speeches of the Lord Chairman and the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, who was Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons—I call your Lordships' special attention to that, because that is to say that Lord Emmott had greater authority upon this subject than any other person in the House of Commons during his time of office—as I listened to them it struck me—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not think Lord Emmott ever had to deal with a case like this.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There never was a case like this. This is the first time it has arisen. I am sure my noble friend does not dispute Lord Emmott's knowledge and authority.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I served under him for nearly twenty years.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl agrees with me. It seemed to me, as I heard them speak, that there was rather a technical distinction—I do not put it higher—between the stock of a particular corporation and the stock of corporations when acting together. I quite agree with the Lord Chancellor's main contention that the country ought
1206
to be very careful how it expands the area of trustee securities. It is a formidable thing to have that area too much diluted, as it were, but one ought not to rest upon a very narrow technicality if it can possibly be avoided. Upon the merits as they stand I should be rather inclined to support the Lord Chairman and Lord Emmott. I speak with very great deference, because I do not pretend to be an authority. When you come to think that we have had the strong opinion, first of all, of the House of Commons' Committee, secondly, of the Chairman of the House of Commons' Committee, then of the Lord Chairman of Committees in your Lordships' House, and then of Lord Emmott, who is the late Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, that seems to me to be a body of authority which is very difficult to overset, and I should be rather afraid t o vote against it on a matter which is directly within their competence, especially when, as I reminded your Lordships, the Treasury, who had abundant opportunity of raising this question before when the Bill was in another place, have delayed until August 11, on the Third Reading in the House of Lords, before they take effective action.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I should like to say one word on the question of procedure, to which Lord Salisbury devoted the bulk of his remarks. This is really not the first occasion upon which the Treasury has tried to act in this matter. It is not the eleventh hour of the Third Reading on August 11. It began four months ago. From that date onwards, at every stage, the Treasury has consistently done its utmost to oppose this particular clause. Lord Salisbury really ought to be the last Person in the world to object to your Lordships' House, as a whole, acting in its capacity of a revising Assembly. That is what we are inviting your Lordships to do. The stage may be late and, as Lord Salisbury says, perhaps with justice, it may be unbecoming that there should be conflict between two Government Departments. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has, I think, explained one particular aspect of that matter which was probably not known to your Lordships as a whole, but why Government Departments should never be allowed to be in conflict, when all of us in the Government are, we fail to understand.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We know they are.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Of course they are. Noble Lords who act very harmoniously together are constantly in conflict, and the Government is just the same, of course. The Treasury attitude is not a red tape attitude. It is not acting on a mere technicality. This is a question of high finance, and if there were a conflict between these two Departments, I submit to your Lordships that on a matter of high finance, which may affect Leicester, Sheffield, and the two other authorities directly, and which, indirectly and obliquely, may affect the value of scores of millions of trustee securities—on a question like that I submit that the authority of the Treasury should take precedence. The noble and learned Lord has explained with unanswerable cogency that they have no desire to do anything which will permit a new depreciation of other trustee securities, and I ask myself why these four bodies are so anxious for this concession. So far as I remember it was not in the original Bill. It looks as though they felt a certain lack of confidence in their own security without this adventitious aid. And here let me add to Lord Emmott that the Treasury do not desire, using Lord Emmott's words, to cut down the list of trustee securities. They merely wish to prevent the inflation of that list, and when Lord Emmott says it can only add, I think he said, £6,000,000 to the total and that it was too small a figure to count, I dissent. £6,000,000 in itself is by no means a negligible figure, and it would extend. It is not merely this £6,000,000 but the right which would be conferred by analogy on other authorities to enjoy this same privilege. A parallel case would arise next week and it could very easily be contrived by any authority.
LORD EMMOTT: Can the noble Earl suggest one concrete case?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Here is a concrete case where, on the strength of being allied to the housing authorities, this privilege is claimed. I think it would be very easy for other public bodies to try to do something of the same kind and I think the freedom of Parliament would be greatly limited in checking that desire if your Lordships passed this
1208
clause to-day. Lastly, may I reinforce what the Lord Chancellor said just now. It is impossible for a public Department to impress its view on a Private Bill Committee where it only intervenes as a public Department and without the locus standi of the local interest which may find its concerns injured by the Bill. The Treasury alone can intervene in this matter. Your Lordships heard from the Lord Chairman how the question was raised in the House of Commons. Apparently, it was raised in the most casual conversational manner. Had the interests been represented, through the local authority with its own locus standi, by counsel, the whole case would have been laid before that Committee, but in these matters it is neither the interest nor the duty of local people to take objection to stocks of this kind. It must be done by the Treasury, it must be done by Parliament. The Treasury, as the Lord Chancellor told us, attaches the very greatest importance to this question. It is a matter which must be dealt with by Parliament. I regret that it should be on the Third Reading as Lord Salisbury indicated, but the fact that it is deferred to the Third Reading does not impair the responsibility, and still less the duty, of your Lordships to put right what seems to me to be a dangerous and grave precedent.
LORD SOUTHWARK: Would the noble Earl explain why the opposition of the Treasury was not taken in the House of Commons?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not think I will. It was not made in the House of Commons, but the Treasury is anxious that it should be made here.
LORD SUMNER: My Lords, may I offer an observation on this question? I cannot see what it matters now whether the Treasury has been late in taking objection or not. I do not see what it matters whether two Departments have been at loggerheads or not. I should imagine they often were. The real question is, Ought the privilege of becoming a trustee stock, which is a high privilege and of very considerable importance to trustees and beneficiaries, to be granted ad hoc in particular cases by the insertion of clauses on the application of promoters, or only subject to a regulation laid down in a public general Act?

1209
The Trustee Act of 1893 lays down in a long schedule what are the conditions under which certain stocks shall be trustee securities unless the terms of the trust deed forbid it—that is to say, it lays down a general regulation with which all stocks created under private Acts are to conform. It is a very simple and a very wholesome thing to know that the law has been laid down by both Houses of Parliament in a public general Act that such and such stocks only shall be trustee stocks. If you adopt the other plan and let promoters come with a private Bill and say, "Ours is a most excellent security; ours is, in fact, a combination of four very excellent securities; ours is a security emanating from four boroughs all of the greatest importance," and put it before the Private Bill Committee that they really ought to be permitted to have their stock made a trustee security, you are every time advancing particular instances. The proper procedure, I submit, is that you should ask, "Does the particular security come within the general rule that has been laid down by Parliament, or does it not?" It appears to be quite clear that this does not.
I do not for a moment doubt that if I had any money to invest—which I never expect in my life to have again—I should be proud to invest it in this particular security, but that is not the point. The point is that trustees are dealing with somebody else's money, and if the security were to go wrong the trustee is safe and the
Resolved in the negative, and Amend-
beneficiary loses. The beneficiary has to look to the general law laid down by Parliament for his protection. I submit, therefore, that the principle is a serious one, and that the rule should be followed that only those securities which are made trustee securities under some general terms laid down in a public general Act ought to be trustee securities, and that the practice of inserting clauses of this kind, and trusting that the Treasury may find some opportunity of speaking to someone at the right time and in the right tone to prevent it, should not be followed. I suggest that, late as it may be, and subject to every possible condemnation that can be showered on public Departments (who very likely deserve it) the right thing will be to support the Government on this occasion.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I am extremely reluctant to go against my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, or Lord Emmott, but on the simple and sole point that this privilege ought not to be given under any circumstances in a private Act—as was so cogently argued by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and now by Lord Sumner—I should be compelled, if there is a Division, to vote for the Government.
On Question, whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill?—

ment agreed to accordingly.
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS.

Denbigh, E.

Ebury, L.

Roe, L. [Teller.]

Lanesborough, E.

Emmott, L. [Teller.]

Rotherham, L.

Hutchinson, V.

Farrer, L.

Southwark, L.

(E. Donoughmore.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Hood, V.

Gainford, L.

Bedford, D.

Knutsford, V.

Hindlip, L.

Bath, M.

Peel, V.

Hylton, L.

Bradford, E.

Islington, L.

Doncaster, E.

Ampthill, L.

Killanin, L.

(D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Grey, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Lambourne, L.

Lytton, E.

Askwith, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Midleton, E.

Auckland, L.

Shandon, L.

Onslow, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Sinha, L.

Selborne, E.

Clwyd, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Colebrooke, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Sumner, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Wavertree, L.

Chaplin, V.

Elgin, L.

Wester Wemyss, L.

Hardinge, V.

(E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Erskine, L.

Wittenham, L.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill returned to the Commons.

MINISTRY OF MINES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I do not know whether I might intervene in order to explain a matter which perhaps may give rise to some little criticism owing to two slight slips that I made in your Lordships' House on the Second Reading. I alluded to the Emergency Act and the possibility of the coal trade getting some proportion of the excess profits over and above their pre-war standard. I alluded to the possibility apparently, as reported, that the trade might secure nine-tenths of their excess profits. I should have said only one-tenth and not nine-tenths.
But there is another matter which is perhaps of still greater moment, because it alluded to the earnings of the workmen employed in the mines. I stated that before the war the miners were earning per shift 6s. 10½d. That figure was correct so far as our figures have been ascertained of the total earnings of the miners before the war. But I went on to say that the most recent figures showed that the miners were earning 25 s. 1½d. per shift. That figure is an inaccurate one. The miners are now earning, so far as our latest figures for the month of May show, in a normal week, 17 s. 6½d. per shift; but the average wages cost per ton has increased from before the war from exactly the same figure of 6s. 10½d. to 25 s. l½d.
I have nothing to add to what I have already said on the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not desire to retract or add anything to what I then said with regard to the general appreciation or depreciation of the proposals.
I think, however, that it is due to your Lordships' House that I should say on behalf of the coal industry that they feel that the Amendments which your Lord-
1212
ships have inserted in the Bill will have made the Bill more workable and will have removed some of the injustices which the coal trade thought were in the Bill as it reached your Lordships' House. Before sitting down, I should like, if I might, to pay a tribute to the noble Viscount for the way in which he has conducted the Bill under somewhat difficult circumstances in this House.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD GAINFORD: It is your Lordships' pleasure to look perhaps rather more to the merits of a question than to the necessity for giving general support on every detail to the Government. So far as I can judge the situation, it is a favourable contrast with that which sometimes occurs in another place. But I appreciate the difficulties that the noble Viscount has been under, and I congratulate him on the passage of the Bill through its various stages, and I hope the Bill will now pass.
Clause 1:
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.
VISCOUNT PEELhad on the Paper an Amendment to leave out all words after "industry," and to insert the following words: "there shall be established a department of the Board of Trade (to be known as the Mines Department) under a Secretary of the Board (in this Act referred to as the Secretary for Mines), and all powers and duties of the Board of Trade in relation to mines and minerals, whether under this Act or otherwise, shall, subject to the directions of the Board of Trade, be exercised and performed through the Secretary for Mines."
The noble Viscount said: Your Lordships will realise that this Amendment gives effect to the arrangement entered into with the noble Marquess opposite as the result of the discussions we had in your Lordships' House. I desire to move it with only one slight alteration, which I have already mentioned to the noble Marquess—that is, to insert the word " Parliamentary" before "Secretary"

1213
where that word first occurs. It is really only a drafting Amendment to make clear what is intended.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out from ("industry") to the end of the clause and insert the said new words with the alteration mentioned.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
General powers and duties.
2.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Board of Trade, in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties transferred to or conferred or imposed on the Board of Trade by or in pursuance of this Act, to take steps to carry out the purposes aforesaid, and there shall, as from such date or dates as His Majesty in Council may determine, be transferred to the Board of Trade all the powers of a Secretary of State under enactments relating to mines and quarries.
VISCOUNT PEELmoved to omit, in subsection (1), the word "the" ["exercise and performance of the"] and to insert "their." The noble Viscount said: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page I, line 14, leave out ("the") and insert ("their").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: There is a further consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave out from ("duties") to ("to") in line 16, and insert ("in relation to mines and minerals").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
VISCOUNT PEEL: There is a further consequential Amendment in Clause 4.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 4, line 33, after ("duties") insert ("relating to mines and minerals").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Staff remuneration and expenses.
5.—(1) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to the Parliamentary Secretary appointed under this Act an annual salary.
1214
(2) There shall be transferred and attached to the Board of Trade 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 Board of Trade, as the Board of Trade and the other Government department with the sanction of the Treasury, may determine.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The first Amendment in this clause is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 5, line 22, leave out ("Parliamentary Secretary appointed under this Act") and insert ("Secretary for Mines").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: With regard to my next Amendment in line 23 [after "salary" insert "not" exceeding two thousand pounds"] I do not propose to move that. I prefer that it shall be left to another place to deal with it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that will be more regular.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Are you sure they can do it?
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is their own responsibility if they do not. They will be ready to do it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: We have modified the clause.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We have modified the clause very seriously.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think they can do it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sure it is much more correct that the Commons should do it rather than we should insert the salary.
Clause 6:
6.—(l) The office of a Parliamentary Secretary appointed under this Act shall not render the holder thereof incapable of being elected to or sitting or voting as a member of the Commons House of Parliament.
(2) The person who is first appointed to be a Parliamentary Secretary under this Act shall not by reason of such appointment, if a member of the Commons House of Parliament, vacate his seat as such member.
VISCOUNT PEELmoved, in subsection (1), to omit the words "a Parliamentary Secretary appointed under this Act" and to insert "the Secretary for Mines." The noble Viscount said: This is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Clause 6, page 6, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("a Parliamentary Secretary appointed under this Act") and insert ("the Secretary for Mines").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEELmoved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Viscount said: This subsection is now unnecessary.
Amendment moved—
Clause 6, page 6, line 5, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17:
VISCOUNT PEEL: This Amendment is consequential. The Minister of Mines has now ceased to exist.
Amendment moved—
Clause 17, page 12, lines 16 and 17, leave out ("on the recommendation of the Minister of Mines").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20:
Establishment of fund for improvement of social conditions of colliery workers.
20.—(1) There shall be constituted in each of the districts mentioned in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Act a fund to be applied for such purposes connected with the social wellbeing, recreation, and conditions of living of workers in or about coal mines in the district, and with mining education and research as the Board of Trade, after consultation with any Government Department concerned, may approve.
(2) The owners of every coal mine in each district 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 for the district a sum 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 of the mine and shall be recoverable either as a debt due to the Crown or by the Board of Trade 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 in each district the money from time to time standing to the credit of the said fund in the district to the several purposes aforesaid shall be vested in a committee consisting of five persons, appointed by the
1216
Board of Trade, of whom one shall be appointed by the Board of Trade 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 abovementioned 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 if any concerned:
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.
(4) The Committee may invite a local authority to submit a scheme for any of the purposes to which the fund in a district 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 in the said district 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 in each district, 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 Board of Trade, subject to the approval of the Treasury, may direct.
(7) The Board of Trade 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 several districts 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.
VISCOUNT PEEL: We now come to a larger question in Clause 20. It is put in the form of a series of Amendments which carry out the arrangement arrived at with the noble Earl opposite. It differs from it slightly in one way which I will indicate. First of all, it carries out the arrangement that one-fifth of this fund to be raised—the miners' betterment fund, as I may call it—should be spent centrally instead of locally. The question is what "locally " means; whether it should be spent in districts or in areas. I had some discussion with the noble Earl opposite yesterday on the subject, and I think then he desired that the local money should be confined to the districts. As this clause is drawn the local money is to be spent in the different areas, and, if that is objected to, I am prepared to move it with the substitution of "districts" for "areas." But I do not know whether, on consideration, the noble Earl might not be content with the Amendment as it stands.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am very sensible of the courteous manner in which my noble friend has put this question, and I am really sorry to differ from him and from his Parliamentary chief, for whom, if I may respectfully say so, I have so great a respect. But it does not seem to me that the principle for which we have endeavoured to contend will be carried out if the word " areas" is substituted for "districts." We have gone far to meet the views of the Government in agreeing that one-fifth instead of one-tenth may form a central fund. If we were to fall in with the suggestion of substituting "areas" for "districts," really the whole contention which I endeavoured to set forth when I moved the Amendment will be gone—that is, the value of the local expenditure and of the local connection between the fund and the men on whose behalf it is used.
Let us take the areas. I am sorry to trouble the House, but I want to show the greatest respect to the Government in arguing this matter, so as to show that my position, whether right or wrong, is not wantonly held. In the first place the whole of Scotland is one area. Who am I that I should speak for Scotland in the presence of my noble friend opposite and of the Earl of Kintore, Lord Wester Wemyss, and others. But it does seem to me that there is a considerable geographical interval between Fife and Lanark, and that
1218
the position of the Lowlands is not quite the same as the position of other counties—of Galloway, or Ayr, Dumfries, or Argyll. Therefore it seems to me, as an ignorant Englishman, that lumping all Scotland together, though very gratifying to the national sense, is destructive of that local object which we had when we moved the Amendment. When you come to Northumberland, that is all right; Durham—that is all right; it was the county area for which I was contending. And, going to the end, Ireland—I did not know that Ireland had any coal.
VISCOUNT PEEL: 100,000 tons a year, I believe.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: South Wales is an area. I quite admit that the spirit of my contention is carried pat if you lump Glamorgan and Monmouth together. Then you come to the Southernarea—the Forest of Dean, Somerset, Bristol, and Kent. When you lump Kent with the Forest of Dean, Somerset, and Bristol then all my county sense is outraged. Passing to the area that is lightly called by the draftsman "the Midlands" I will tell you what the Midlands consist, of. Cumberland, Lancashire, Cheshire, North Wales, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire. That is a pretty description of the Midlands.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): It is the Federated Area now.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There is also Derbyshire, Cannock Chase, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, and Shropshire. Those are Midland counties, no doubt. But from our point of view it seems a great pity to lump all this vast number of counties under one head. I would therefore earnestly press my noble friend to allow the word "districts" to stand.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Though the noble Earl treated the subject of the Midlands humorously, that expression is used in a coal mining sense, and not in a hunting sense, in which it was used by the noble Earl. Absurd as it looks, it is no use dividing them, because there is this Federated Area, which is well understood in that particular industry. As regards Kent, of course, if the noble Earl has his

1219
way, that is one of the difficulties of the case. The union of Bristol and Kent may seem curious to those who have not studied this coal question closely, but at present there are something like 2,000 miners employed in the Kent coalfields. I believe some day they will be extremely prosperous and will cover the whole of that beautiful country with their pits. But that is not so at present. If the noble Earl has his way and the whole place is divided into these comparatively small districts you will, under this fund, have very small amounts to dispense.
I understand that the reason why the President of the Board of Trade is anxious that the larger area should be used is that the wealthy areas can assist in this way the poorer areas, whereas, it you have them cut up into districts, you will have the poor areas raising their small amounts and the money spent there, and the rich and larger areas with much coal would have plenty of money to spend upon themselves. It is not a mere fad of the Minister; it is really a principle that the miners and the different districts should assist each other.
I am not going to press this matter at this stage, and, if strong objection is raised, I am quite prepared to move the clause in a different form. I have not had the opportunity this morning of consulting the President of the Board of Trade, though I have tried to do so, and I do not know what view he would take in another place, but if it is pressed by the noble Earl I am content to accept the word "district" for "areas," and, instead of Part II, Part I of the Second Schedule.
Amendments moved—
Clause 20, page 13, line 33, leave out ("in each of the districts mentioned in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Act").
Clause 20, page 13, line 37, leave out ("in the district").
Clause 20, page 14, line 1, leave out ("in each district").
Clause 20, page 14, line 4, leave out ("for the district").
Clause 20, page 14, line 14, leave out ("in each district").
Clause 20, page 14, line 15, leave out ("in the district").
Clause 20, page 14, line 32, leave out ("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
1220
by this section being of benefit to the interests of workers in or about coal mines either generally or in more than one district"), and insert ("and that the Committee shall allocate for the benefit of the several districts mentioned in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Act sums equal to four-fifths of the contributions from the owners of coal mines in those districts respectively").
Clause 20, page 14, line 40, leave out ("in a district").
Clause 20, page 15, line 3, leave out ("in the said district").
Clause 20, page 15, line 20, leave out ("in each district").
Clause 20, page 15, line 28, leave out ("in the several districts").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 23:
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have to move a drafting Amendment in Clause 23.
Amendment moved—
Clause 23, page 16, line 35, after ("Department") insert ("relating to mines and minerals").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed and returned to the Commons.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to express my thanks to the noble Viscount for the great courtesy with which he has conducted the Bill through this House. It is an experience we often have from the noble Viscount, but I should like on this occasion to emphasise it.

FIREARMS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendments.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to the Bill as amended in Committee.]
Clause 1, page 1, line 22, leave out ("otherwise") and insert ("for any reason")
Clause 1, page 1, line 26, leave out from ("club") to ("or") in line 1, page 2
Clause 1, page 2, line 9, after ("thereunder") insert ("and the certificate may on the application of the holder thereof be varied from time to time by the chief officer of police of the district in which the holder for the time resides")
Clause 1, page 2, line 11, after ("certificate") insert ("or to vary such a certificate")
Clause 1, page 2, line 14, leave out ("applicant") and insert ("appellant")
Clause 1, page 2, line 39, at end insert ("or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such imprisonment or fine").
Clause 1, page 3, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("at a registered testing ground")
Clause 1, page 3, line 12, after ("by") insert ("purchasing or")
Clause 1, page 3, line 15, leave out from ("aforesaid") to ("or") in line 17
Clause 1, page 3, line 26, after ("kingdom") insert ("or by bringing a firearm ashore for repair provided that he has obtained from an officer of police a permit in the prescribed form for that purpose")
Clause 1, page 3, line 29, after ("by") insert ("having in his possession")
Clause 1, page 3, line 30, after ("in") insert ("or in connection with")
Clause 1, page 3, line 31, at end insert ("or
"(f) in the case of an officer of the Post Office by having in his possession, using, or carrying a firearm or ammunition when acting in the course of his duties or
"(g) in the ease of a person carrying a firearm or ammunition belonging to a person holding a certificate under this Act, by having in his possession such firearm or ammunition under instructions from and for the use of such certificated person only for sporting purposes, or
"(h) in the case of any person carrying on the business of butcher, slaughter-man, knacker, or other person engaged in the business of the humane slaughter of animals for food or other purposes, by purchasing or having in his possession or using any humane killer for the purpose of such business, or
"(i) in the case of any person conducting or carrying on a miniature rifle range (whether for a rifle club or otherwise) or shooting gallery at which no firearms are used other than miniature rifles not exceeding 23 calibre, by purchasing, having in his possession, using, or carrying such miniature rifles or ammunition suitable therefor; or, in the case of any person, by using at such miniature rifle range or shooting gallery any such rifle or ammunition, or
"(j) in the case of a person who has been refused the grant of a firearms certificate by a chief officer of police or whose firearm certificate has been revoked by having in his possession a firearm or ammunition pending disposal thereof by him, provided that he has obtained from the chief officer of police a permit in the prescribed form for that purpose.")
Clause 2, page 3, line 35, leave out ("or sell, or expose") and insert ("sell, repair, test or prove, or expose for sale")
Clause 2, page 3, line 36, leave out the second ("or")
Clause 2, page 3, line 36, after ("repair") insert ("test or proof")
Clause 2, page 3, line 40, leave out from ("person") to the end of line 2, page 4.
Clause 2, page 4, line 5, leave out from ("prohibit") to ("may") in line 6, and insert ("the redemption thereof by a person entitled to redeem the same if he holds a firearm certificate, or is a registered dealer in firearms, and a sale of any such firearm or ammunition to a person holding such a certificate or to such a dealer")
Clause 2, page 4, lines 9 to 12, leave out subsection (3)
Clause 2, page 4, line 16, at end insert ("or proves that he is by virtue of this Act entitled to purchase the firearm or ammunition without having such a certificate:
("Provided that this subsection shall not apply to the sale of firearms and ammunition to purchasers abroad")
Clause 2, page 4, line 17, after ("repair") insert ("test or proof")
Clause 2, page 4, line 18, leave out ("for any other person") and insert ("or ammunition for any person in the United Kingdom other than a registered firearms dealer as such")
Clause 2, page 4, line 18, leave out ("other")
Clause 2, page 4, line 18, after ("producers") insert ("or causes to be produced")
Clause 2, page 4, line 20, after ("firearm") insert ("or ammunition or a permit to bring the firearm ashore for repair")
Clause 2, page 4, line 21, after ("ammunition") insert ("to a person in the United Kingdom other than person in the United a registered firearms dealer")
Clause 2, page 4, line 23, leave out ("by the purchaser")
Clause 2, page 4, line 23, after ("and") insert ("in the case of the sale of a firearm")
Clause 2, page 4, line 31, after ("Act") insert ("and every such entry shall be made within twenty-four hours after the transaction to which it relates took place")
Clause 2, page 4, line 31, after ("sale") insert ("every such person as aforesaid")
Clause 2, page 4, line 31, after ("shall") insert ("at the time of the transaction")
Clause 2, page 4, line 32, leave out from ("identification") to the end of line 35, and insert ("and shall immediately enter the said particulars in the register")
Clause 2, page 4, line 39, after ("request") insert ("(a)")
Clause 2, page 4, line 39, after ("authorised") insert ("in writing")
Clause 2, page 4, line 40, after ("or") insert ("(b)")
Clause 2, page 4, line 41, after ("or") insert ("(c)").
Clause 2, page 5, line 1, after ("authorise") insert ("in writing")
Clause 2, page 5, line 2, after ("aforesaid") insert:
("Provided that in each case where a written authority is required by this subsection such authority shall be produced on demand")
Clause 2, page 5, line 4, leave out from ("section) to ("makes") in line 6, and insert ("or knowingly").
Clause 3, page 5, line 25, after ("pounds") insert ("or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such imprisonment and fine").
Clause 4, page 5, line 32, after ("to") insert ("or repair, prove, or test a firearm or ammunition for").
Clause 5, page 5, line 41, leave out ("a crime of violence, or for burglary or house breaking") and insert ("any crime")
Clause 5, page 6, line 3, after ("1891") insert ("or the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908")
Clause 5, page 6, line 9, after ("to") insert ("or repair, test, or prove a firearm or ammunition for").
Clause 6, page 6, line 19, after ("purchase") insert ("carry")
Clause 6, page 6, line 21, after ("thing") insert ("or any ammunition containing or designed or adapted to contain any such noxious thing").
After clause 6, insert the following new clause:
A. Any person who has in his possession or under his control any firearm or ammunition with intent by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property, or to enable any other person by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property, shall whether any injury to person or property has been paused or not, be deemed to have been guilty of an offence under section three of the Explosive Substances Act, 1883, and the provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly.
Clause 7, page 6, line 33, leave out ("or selling or repairing") and insert ("selling, repairing, testing or proving")
Clause 7, page 7, line 12, after ("safety") insert ("or the peace")
Clause 7, page 7, line 28, leave out from ("nor") to ("any") in line 29
Clause 7, page 7, line 31, leave out from ("offence") to ("shall") in line 33
Clause 7, page 7, line 33, at end insert:
("(c) that any person who, after the date of the order, knowingly employs in the management of his business the dealer convicted of the offence, or any person who was knowingly a party to the offence, shall not be registered as a firearms dealer or, if so registered, shall be liable to be removed from the register; and
"(d) that any stock in hand of the business shall be disposed of by sale or otherwise in accordance with such directions as may be contained in the order;
"Provided that where an order has been made under this section any person aggrieved by the order may appeal against the order in manner provided the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a Court of Quarter Sessions.")
Clause 8, page 8, line 26, after ("committed") insert ("or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months or to both such imprisonment and fine").
Clause 9, page 8, line 31, leave out ("has reason to believe") and insert ("believes")
Clause 9, page 8, line 33, leave out ("the possession") and insert ("possessing").
Clause 10, page 9, line 9, leave out from the first ("of") to ("for") in line 10 and insert ("any crime").
Clause 11, page 10, line 9, after ("missiles") insert ("whether such missiles are capable of use with a firearm or not")
Clause 11, page 10, line 11, at end insert ("or air-rifle (other than air-guns and air-rifles of a type declared by rules made by a Secretary of State under this Act to be specially dangerous)").
After clause 12, insert the following new clause:
"14. Nothing in this Act contained shall apply to the proof houses of the Master, Wardens, and Society of the Mystery of Gunmakers of the City of London (in this Act called "the Gunmakers Company") and the guardians of the Birmingham proof house or the rifle range at Small Heath, near Birmingham, where firearms are sighted and tested, so as to interfere in any way with the operations of those two companies in proving firearms under the provisions of the Gun Barrel Proof Act, 1868, or any other Acts for the time being in force, or to any person carrying firearms to or from any such proof house when being taken to such proof house for the purposes of proof or being removed therefrom after proof.
Clause 13, page 11, line 18, after ("firearms") insert ("or ammunition").
Clause 15, page 12, line 3, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(4)")
Clause 15, page 12, line 7, leave out from ("references") to the end of line 8 and insert ("to an appeal to Quarter Sessions will not apply").
Clause 16, page 12, line 34, at end insert ("and the decision of a court of summary jurisdiction on a prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be final")
Clause 16, page 12, line 38, at end insert:
("(5) In the provisions as to penalties 'two years' shall be substituted for 'three months' as the maximum time of imprisonment:")
Clause 16, page 12, page 13, line 3, at end insert:
("(8) Section eighteen of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, so far as it limits the aggregate term of imprisonment where two or more sentences of imprisonment passed by a court of summary jurisdiction are ordered to run consecutively, shall not apply in any case where any of the sentences is passed for an offence under this Act")
Clause 16, page 13, line 4, at end insert:
("(10) The exemption in favour of any person conducting or carrying on a miniature rifle range or shooting gallery or using a miniature rifle or ammunition at any such range or gallery shall not apply")
Clause 16, page 13, after line 8 insert the following new subsection:
("(11) In addition to any other powers conferred on him under this Act, or otherwise, any constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he believes to be in possession of, or to be using or carrying, a firearm or ammunition in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act, and may search any such person, and whether arresting him or not may seize and detain any firearm or ammunition in his possession or used or carried by him:
(12) For the purposes of the Explosives Substances Act, 1883, any firearm within the meaning of this Act shall be deemed to be an explosive substance").
Clause 17, page 13, after line 12 insert:
("Provided that a Secretary of State may as respects any of the provisions of this Act, by order, substitute some subsequent date or dates, not being later than the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty, as the date or dates on which those provisions are to come into operation").
In the Second Schedule, page 14, line 26, at end insert ("at the date of the last stocktaking or such other date in each year as may be specified in the book")
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Amendments made by the House of Commons do not make any serious alterations in the Bill as it left your Lordships' House. Many of them are merely drafting Amendments or Amendments on points of detail, and most of them have been proposed by the Government at the instance of the Gunmakers' Association in order to ensure the smooth working of the Act and to avoid as much as possible interference with legitimate trade in firearms.
The only Amendment to which I think I need call your Lordships' special attention is the new Clause 7, which applies a heavy penalty in respect to the possesion of firearms with intent to endanger life or cause serious injury to property. It is obvious, of course, that there is a very grave difference between offences which endanger life or injure properly and the mere possession of firearms without a firearms certificate. In Clause 16, at the instance of the Irish Government, several Amendments have been made in applying the Act to that country. Thus, a penalty of two years has been substituted for that of three months which obtains in the rest of the United Kingdom as the maximum term of imprisonment for offences under this Act. Then the provisions in the Act as to appeals do not apply to Ireland, and additional powers of arrest and search are conferred upon police constables in dealing with persons suspected of being in possession of firearms. If your Lordships agree, I would venture to move the Amendment en bloc. But, of course, if noble Lords prefer that they should be taken seriatim, I will endeavour to the best of my ability to explain each one by itself.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Unless any noble Lord desires to raise a specific Amendment, I will put the Question in the form in which it has been moved by the noble Earl.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendment.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The Reference is to the Bill as amended in Committee.]
Clause 5, page 2, line 36, at end insert:
("(2) The expenses incurred with the approval of the Treasury tor the purposes of the census shall be paid out of moneys provided. by Parliament").
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I beg to move that the sad Amendment be now considered. It is of a quite formal character, and I think there is no doubt that your Lordships will agree to it.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

READY MONEY FOOTBALL BETTING BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, this Bill has been carefully considered in another place. It is supported by the Football Association, which represents 15,000 amateur amid 500 professional clubs, a quarter of a million amateur players and 6,000 professional players. When a body of that kind is united in the view that an evil exists in connection with coupon betting and that it is detrimental to the great game of football being played in a proper and pure manner, then in the interests of sport and honesty in connection with one of our great field recreations I think your Lordships need not hesitate to pass the Second Reading of this Bill. Further, as the football season is approaching I ask that it may be permitted to pass through all its stages, so that as soon as the football season commences it will be actually the law of the land.

1227
It has been found in a great number of factories, mills, workshops, and shipyards that a system has been growing up which enables a certain number of firms and bookmakers to reap a great harvest out of the young men by this coupon system. The men of most influence in these works are often induced to become agents, with the result that something like 40 per cent. of the money taken goes in profits to the firms, and those who speculate receive very inadequate terms in connection with this system. Perhaps the worst part of it is that those who play football are tempted to act in a way which may prevent the game being played in the true British and sporting spirit which we all desire. It is because of these evils, and on account of this Bill, together with the penalties, having been very carefully considered in another place, that I beg to move the Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Gainford.)
THE EARL OF MEATH: I hope that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill. I support it from the point of view of sport. In my younger days I was a most enthusiastic football player, and I am sure that all football players must feel that this ready money football betting is detrimental to one of our principal manly field games. The noble Lord, Lord Gain-ford, has given you some very good reasons why the Bill should he passed, but I am going to ask you to think of it from the national point of view. Our urban population is increasing at an enormous rate, and if we want to have a generation of really strong and healthy men we must do all we can to encourage these manly virile sports. This system of ready money football betting does more to destroy real football than almost anything. The men who put their money into it do not care twopence about football. My hope, therefore, is that after this Bill is passed football will become a really pure national game, which will immensely increase the physique of our race.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I do not think it is necessary for me to detain your Lordships by adding anything to the two interesting speeches delivered by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill and the noble Earl who followed him. I would only say that the Government view this Bill with sympathy
1228
and are prepared to support its passage into law.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
LORD GAINFORD: I hope that your Lordships will agree to take all the stages of the Bill to-day. I move that the House resolve itself into Committee.
Moved (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) that the House do now resolve itself into Committee,—(Lord Gainford.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I venture to think this is really a rather strong request. Although I am entirely in favour of the Bill, look at the benches of the House, and you will agree that it is not quite fair to ask us to take all the stages of a Bill of this kind, on which there may be something to be said on the other side. This method of suspending the Standing Orders so as to pass necessary legislation is very proper in matters of urgency, but this Bill cannot surely be considered urgent. No doubt there is a certain advantage in passing it into law before the football season commences, but if it is passed into law a few weeks after it has commenced it will stop the evil. I think your Lordships would be very unwise to depart from your privilege of discussing this Bill in its various stages.
LORD GAINFORD: I recognise that the noble Marquess is a great authority on procedure, and it is only because the Bill has been unanimously accepted in another place, accepted also by the Government, and is really required in the interests of pure football so that this system should not commence at the beginning of the football season, that I hope your Lordships will consider this a rather special matter, an urgent matter, and pass the Bill through all its stages. If I thought any one had anything to say against the Bill I should take a different view.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have no right to say anything because I am the greatest offender, but I would remind Lord Gainford that this Bill was brought from the House of Commons on June 15, and he now asks your Lordships to take it through all its stages.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I also make an observation? Clause 1 of

1229
the Bill contains a number of technical expressions which I should not be prepared to sanction passing into law until I have considered them.
LORD GAINFORD: That being the view of the noble and learned Lord, I will not press the point, but will put down the Committee stage for to-morrow.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

FERTILISERS (TEMPORARY CONTROL OF EXPORT) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
DUCHY OF LANCASTER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL.
Returned front the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
MAYOR'S AND CITY OF LONDON COURT BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment considered and agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the Mining Industry Bill has now left for the House of Commons, but it cannot possibly be considered by them in time for a to be sent back to your Lordships at our present hour of meeting—3.15— to-morrow afternoon. I suggest, therefore, that your Lordships should meet at 4.15 to-morrow. If any statement has to be made on foreign affairs an opportunity will be taken then by the noble Earl the Leader of the House to make it, and Lord Gainford will, I fancy, be able to take the Committee stage of his Bill as one of the first Orders of the Day until the Mining Industry Bill comes back to us.
TEE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Can the noble Earl tell us when it is hoped that the Motion for the adjournment for the recess will be actually moved?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I see no-reason why it should not be moved tomorrow. It depends, however, on the attitude taken by another place to your Lordships' Amendments to the Mining Industry Bill. It the Amendments prove acceptable and there is no difference of opinion between the two Houses, the adjournment will be moved to-morrow, and the Royal Commission taken at five o'clock probably.
House adjourned at five minutes past five o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past four o'clock.

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ALLOA WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, section 7), deemed to have been read 2a (Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WIDNES EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANIES (FARES, ETC.) BILL.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA GAS BILL.
LONDONDERRY CORPORATION BILL.
ERITH IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL. [H.L.]
WORKINGTON HARBOUR AND DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.