Sitting of 16 August 1920

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Port of London Authority (Consolidation) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 20th October.
Inverness Water and Gas Provisional Order Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Coatbridge Burgh Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Considered; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 20th October.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  EMIGRATION.
  Mr. JOHN MURRAYasked the President of the Hoard of Trade whether he can give approximately the figures of annual emigration from Great Britain and Ireland, respectively, for each year since 1912?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Robert Home): I will have the figures for which my hon. Friend asks circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  The following is the information promised:
  The numbers of British subjects who were recorded as leaving permanent residence in Great Britain and Ireland respectively to take up permanent residence in non-European countries during each of the years 1912 to 1919, as reported to the Board of Trade, were:
  550

  COUNTRY OF LAST PKRMANENT RESIDENCE.

  —

  Great Britain.

  Ireland.

  Total.

  1st April to 31st Dec *

  1912

  289,301

  37,658

  326,959

  1913

  344,998

  44,396

  389,394

  1914

  183,961

  30,932

  214,893

  1915

  61,655

  15,256

  76,911

  1916

  42,950

  9,976

  52,926

  1917

  9,210

  794

  10,004

  1918

  10,231

  390

  10,621

  1919

  142,628

  4,307

  146,935

  * Similar particulars were not obtained previous to 1st April, 1912. The totals for the twelve months 1st April, 1912, to 31st March, 1913, were:—Great Britain, 364,217; Ireland, 42,939—Total, 407,756.

  COAL PRODUCTION.

    PIECE-WORK (SOUTH WALES).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the South Wales Miners' Federation have given three months' notice for the total abolition of piece-work by all grades of colliery workers; if such notice still holds good; whether such a policy would prejudicially affect either the supply or the price of coal; and whether any action has been taken with a view to the reconsideration of this decision?
    Sir R. HORNE: I understand that it was decided at the anuual conference of the South Wales Miners' Federation in June to take a ballot on the question of tendering three months' notice to terminate the present piece-work conditions, but that the ballot has not yet been taken and notices have not been given. I have no doubt that the aboliton of piece-work would prejudicially affect both the supply and the price of coal.
    Sir F. HALL: If piece-work were continued should we not know, at all events, what we are paying for, as the men would be paid for the work they did, and would that not be in the interest of the State?
    Sir R. HORNE: That is the position at present, and we have not any notice of an alteration.

    MINERS—THREATENED STRIKE.
    Mr. WALLACEasked the President of the Board of Trade

    551
    whether he had observed in the public Press the announcement that the miners' representatives had decided, on account of the Government's refusal to grant their demands, to recommend a strike, and whether, in view of the gravity of the position which might arise, he had any statement to make to the House?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am aware, of course, of the decision which has been taken by the delegate conference last week to recommend the members of the Miners' Federation to ballot in favour of a strike. That is a very grave decision. I cannot think of anything which would bring greater disaster upon the trade and industry of the country at the present time than a miners' strike. The Government have deliberated most anxiously upon the position, and they gave the answer which I communicated to the deputation of the miners which waited upon me some days ago. That answer appeared fully in the Press, and I have nothing to add to it. Obviously it would be inappropriate, in reply to a question, to discuss that answer in the House. I can only say this in addition: that there is sometimes an impression that when such a question as this arises, a strike should be voted for by the miners in anticipation that thereafter something more may be obtained, when the decision is known. I should regret very much if that view were to prevail upon the present occasion. I hope that wiser counsels may prevail.
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask whether, in the event of the miners referring this matter to the Council of Action, the right hon. Gentleman will or will not be prepared to receive representatives from such Council?
    Sir R. HORNE: I have no reason to believe that the miners will refer the matter to the Council of Action.

  TRANSPORT.

    RAILWAY PASSES.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Transport if he will state the number of gold and silver railway passes that have been issued to Ministers and officers of the Ministry of Transport, to whom they were allotted, the name of the railways, and the date they were issued?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): Railway passes have been provided by all the principal railway companies to the ten senior officers of the Ministry, in accordance with the practice of the companies of issuing passes to their own principal officers and directors. The passes were provided at various dates, beginning on 9th April, 1920. Passes were also provided for the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, but, as stated in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member on 5th July, it was decided not to issue them, and they were not issued.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that the Minister of Transport, or, at all events, some of his officers, had particularly asked for these passes to be given, and was it because a question was put down in the House of Commons that they were sent back, and it was decided not to use them?
    Mr. NEAL: No; the passes were asked for by the Minister of Transport for his staff, himself, and the Parliamentary Secretary. They were provided for all. They were issued to the principal officers. The Minister of Transport stated in the House of Commons in July last, in reply to my hon. Friend, that he had decided on his own behalf—and I followed his excellent example—that he would not accept the pass. That was decided weeks before my hon. Friend gave notice of his question.
    Sir F. HALL: If the Minister had asked on behalf of himself and my hon. Friend for these passes, why did they turn round, and say they did not want them? Is it a fact that one or two of the railway companies absolutely declined to give them?
    Mr. NEAL: No, it is not the fact; and the Minister, in applying for them, followed a precedent established in 1914 by the Board of Trade. He considers it right and proper that passes should be issued to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, but in our personal discretion we do not propose to use them while the State guarantees the cost of the railways.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman not go a great deal further, and ask for passes for every Member of the House of Commons?
    Sir JAMES REMNANT: Have any other Ministers applied to the railways for passes?
    Mr. NEAL: I am not aware that any other Ministers have done so.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Then why should you?

    GOODS RATES.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Transport whether he can now make any statement as to the increase of railway rates on goods; what the increases will be; and if they will come into force on 1st September?
    Mr. NEAL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the recommendations of the Railway Rates Advisory Committee (Cmd. Paper 886), which have been accepted by the Government, and the necessary directions have been issued to the companies to bring the increases into operation on the 1st September next.

    ROADS, KENNIXGTON.
    Mr. PURCHASEasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Kennington Road and Kennington Park Road, in South London, have been up for months past owing to the Metropolitan Water Board laying new mains there; whether he is aware that these roads are dangerous to foot-passengers as well as vehicular traffic; whether he has any control over these roads; and, if so, will he use such powers as he has to compel the Board to work day and night in order to complete this work as expeditiously as possible in order to diminish the danger to the public and loss to the adjacent shopkeepers caused by this long delay in laying these pipes?
    Mr. NEAL: The Minister of Transport is aware of the work now being carried out by the Metropolitan Water Board in Kennington Road and Kennington Park Road, South London, and he is advised that suitable precautions are being taken to minimise the inconveinience caused to the public. A certain amount of the work is being carried on at night, and, although the Minister has no compulsory powers, he is supporting the representations made by the local authority to the Metropolitan Water Board with a view
    554
    to expediting the work by all possible means.

    RAILWAY STAFFS (SUPERANNUATION).
    Major BARNETTasked the Minister of Transport whether he has now conferred with the Railway Companies' Association in reference to the urgent need of increasing the pensions of the superannuated railway staff; and what steps it is proposed to take in order to give effect to the Resolution of the House on the subject?
    Mr. DENNIS HERBERTasked the Minister of Transport whether he has recently had any communication with, or information from, the Railway Companies' Association or any of the railway companies in reference to the expressed opinion of this House on the subject of allowances to superannuated railway servants; and whether he will state what result has followed upon any representations made by him to the railway companies on this question?
    Mr. NEAL: It will be convenient, if I may be allowed, to answer these two questions together. I regret that I am unable to add anything to the answer given in reply to a somewhat similar question by the hon. Member for the Edgehill Division of Liverpool on the 26th of July.
    Major BARNETT: Has the hon. Gentleman told the railway companies that they can charge, say, half of the necessary outlay to working expenses?
    Mr. NEAL: No.
    Mr. PALMER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that great dissatisfaction exists among the railway superannuated staffs, and that the Minister of Transport has been superannuated to the extent of£50,000?
    Mr. NEAL: I do not see any connection between the first and second parts of the question. I am aware of the great dissatisfaction among the superannuated staffs, but the Government's decision was clearly stated in the Debate on the Resolution moved by my hon. Friend behind me.
    Mr. D. HERBERT: Is it the case that the Government have made all the representations they can without effect, and that therefore it is now entirely a matter for the railway companies?
    Mr. NEAL: I can assure my hon. Friend that the matter has been discussed with the railway companies. The matter of how they shall dispose of their funds is a matter for them, and is hardly one in regard to which the Minister could put pressure on them.
    Major BAR NETT: Has the Minister offered them anything but sympathy?

    WORKMEN'S FARES.
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Minister of Transport whether, before the rising of the House, he will be prepared to make a statement regarding the proposed increases in workmen's fares which are to come into operation on the 1st September?
    Mr. NEAL: I would refer my right hon. Friend to the recommendations of the Railway Rates Advisory Committee on this subject, which have received the general approval of His Majesty's Government. With a view to the prevention of any hardship, it has been decided to limit the advance in work-men's fares on any particular section to a sum not exceeding 2s. per week.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what is the National Labour Bureau and what relation, if any, it bears to the League of Nations; whether he is aware that a subscription of £4,000,000 has been suggested at Geneva from Great Britain towards this League; and whether it is proposed that the British taxpayer shall assist this enterprise?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): In answer to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to Part XIII. of the Treaty of Versailles, which sets out the constitution and functions of the International Labour Office and its relation to the League of Nations. So far as I am aware, no suggestion of the nature indicated in the second part of the question has been made, nor has it been proposed that His Majesty's Government should subscribe to the International Labour
    556
    Office, the expenses of which will be defrayed out of the general funds of the League of Nations.
    Sir J. D. REES: If His Majesty's Government subscribes to that general fund, will they not be subscribing to this international enterprise?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, that is quite true, but not to the enormous extent indicated in the question.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: Would it not be better to spend £40,000,000 on war rather than £4,000,000 on peace?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Has anybody else subscribed besides ourselves?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: There are a number of contributory nations.
    Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the possible relation of the International Labour Bureau, are we to understand that the Government propose to finance the Council of Action?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not aware that there is any connection between the two.

    MANDATORY POWERS (ANNUAL REPORTS).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether the Covenant of the League of Nations provides for the presentation of annual reports by mandatory Powers; whether the mandates under the German Treaty were conferred more than 15 months ago; and why no annual reports have yet been presented by the Powers on whom these mandates were conferred?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second and third parts of the question, it is true that the decision as to what Powers should act as mandatories under the German Treaty was taken more than 15 months ago, but the terms of the mandates have not yet been determined.

    AUTUMN ASSEMBLY (AGENDA).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister what matters will be brought before the Assembly of the League of Nations by the British representative at the meeting of the Assembly in the autumn?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Secretariat of the League of Nations has circulated the provisional agenda of the meeting to all members of the League. This agenda is of a most comprehensive nature, and His Majesty's Government have not hitherto deemed it necessary to suggest any addition to the items which it contains.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon Gentleman state what are the principal questions that will be raised, or alternatively can he publish papers on this subject, before we adjourn, giving either a complete statement or a summary?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will consult the League of Nations on the subject. So far as we are concerned, we certainly have no objection to publishing the agenda, and I cannot imagine that there will be any objection.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the meetings of the League be held in public, similar to the meetings of this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should not like to answer that question without notice.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the affairs of Nauru are not overlooked?

    EX-ENEMY COUNTRIES.
    Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Prime Minister whether the British representative will propose the inclusion of any of our late enemies in the League of Nations at the meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations in the autumn?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The appointment of British representatives to the meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations is now engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government, and questions of this nature will be considered on their appointment.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the question about our late enemies being asked to join the League is on the agenda of the next meeting of the Assembly?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not quite sure. I hope the agenda will be published.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not thing that the time has arrived when Germany might be invited League?
    Mr. C. PALMER: Never.

    DECISIONS (SAN SEBASTIAN).
    Major MACKENZIE WOODasked the Prime Minister what decision has been arrived at by the Council of the League of Nations at San Sebastian with regard to a permanent International Court?
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister what decision has been come to by the Council of the League of Nations at San Sebastian with regard to the expenses of the Delimitation Commission of the Saar?
    Mr. KENYONasked the Prime Minister (1) what decision has been come to by the Council of the League of Nations at San Sebastian with reference to the use of the economic blockade; (2) what conclusions have been arrived at by the Council of the League of Nations at San Sebastian with regard to the finances of the League?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am unable to reply to these questions, in view of the fact that the record of the proceedings of the Council of the League of Nations at San Sebastian has not yet been communicated to His Majesty's Government.
    Lord R. CECIL: Will the Lord President consider the immense desirability of making the decisions of the League as public as possible m the future?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I agree there would be great advantage in publishing the decisions of the League, in view of the interest taken in it in all lands.
    Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the importance of this international assembly, could we not have a publication of the nature of the OFFICIAL REPORT, so that we many have the benefit of the debates and speeches which led up to the decisions?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I agree with my hon. Friend as to the desirability of publishing the decisions, but I have some doubt as to the desirability of a full report of the proceedings of a small

    559
    body like the Council. If, however, the question has reference to the Assembly, then I think there might be an advantage in having a full report.
    Mr. BILLING: Was not the idea of the creation of the League the abolition of secret diplomacy, and, therefore, is it not desirable that publicity should shine on realities?

    PERMANENT ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any expenditure is being incurred upon the British representatives on the Permanent Advisory Commission for naval, military and air questions created by the League of Nations; if so, under what sanction; and, if not, whether the three British representatives are giving gratuitous service?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): These officers will continue to draw pay from Navy, Army and Air Votes.

    GERMANY.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether the forthcoming invitations to Germany to attend the International Financial Conference at Brussels is to be taken as tantamount to a notice that she will be accepted as a member of the League of Nations, if she applies, to be so accepted?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question of the admission of Germany to the League of Nations is one for the Assembly of the League of Nations to decide. The invitation to the German Government to attend the International Financial Conference at Brussels will in no way affect any decision on this point which may eventually be taken.
    Mr. MILLS: Would the acceptance of the invitation of the Secretary of State for War be favourably considered in this respect?

    BRITISH REPRESENTATIVE.
    Major ENTWISTLEasked the Prime Minister whether it has been decided who shall represent this country on the Assembly of the League of Nations?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. HOGGE: When is the Government going to determine who shall represent us on that Assembly?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It will be decided at the usual time, and in due course.
    Major BARNETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the claims of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge)?

    BUILDING MATERIALS (COST).
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked: the Minister of Health whether he is aware that several housing committees in England and Wales have passed resolutions protesting against the inaction of the Government in dealing with the continual increases in the cost of building materials, which retards the progress of the erection of houses for the working classes, and which is adding so considerably to the cost of building; and whether he is prepared to deal with this matter without further delay?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): As I have stated on several occasions, the whole question of the cost of building materials is being investigated by a Committee appointed under the Profiteering Act by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is it not time that this Profiteering Committee should report? That answer has been given by my right hon. Friend now many times, and is it not time that we should really get that Report and something be done to prevent the soaring prices of building materials?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am just as anxious as my hon. Friend to get the Report. I wish I could get it.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Has the right hon. Gentleman not influence, and will he not do something?
    Dr. ADDISON: The Committee, I think, should be left to do its own work in its own way.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Does my right hon. Friend not realise how important it is to

    561
    carry his scheme to success, and will he not urge this Department to issue this Report?
    Dr. ADDISON: I regret with my hon. Friend the high cost of building materials. I have done all I can to get this Report. I know they are doing their best to produce it.

    RENTS.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Health if he will make a definite statement of the intention of his Majesty's Government to secure an economic rent at an early date for all State-aided houses, and will emphasise publicly the fact that every concession in building plans or in cost of labour or material will eventually fall on the tenant.
    Dr. ADDISON: It is the intention of the Government to adhere to the regulations which require that after 31st March, 1927, economic rents on the cost of building at that time shall, as far as possible, be obtained. Any alteration in building plans which adds to the cost of building will clearly increase the rent which will require to be paid.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is an economic rent, and what will be an economic rent?
    Dr. ADDISON: I must ask for notice of that question.

  POST OFFICE.

    SUPERVISING MESSENGERS.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. WARRENasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can give a definite reply, without further delay, re a memorial to the Postmaster-General from the Junior Supervising-Officers' Association, dated 20th May, 1919, affecting the supervising messengers of London, Edinburgh, and Dublin; and, as it has been stated that their case is being considered with corresponding classes in other Government Departments, will he supply particulars of what classes and other Government Departments are being considered with those of the Post Office and when a definite reply will be given, seeing that it has taken nearly 15 months to deal with this memorial, the length of time being quite unreasonable and unprecedented?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I regret that it has not yet been possible to reach a decision as regards the classes in question. The rates of pay of established messengers throughout the service are under review, and pending a general decision (which I anticipate will be reached shortly), the case of the supervising messengers in the General Post Office cannot be isolated.
    Sir A. WARREN: Does my right hon. Friend not appreciate that this matter has been before the Department ever since May, 1919?

    ADULT NIGHT MESSENGERS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. WILLIAM SHAWasked the Postmaster-General at what offices in Scotland are adult night messengers employed upon postmen's duties; and whether those so employed will benefit by the increase of the adult night messenger's pay, which at present is 24s. a week and bonus or, alternatively, be placed at a suitable point upon the postmen's scale of pay?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. H. Pike Pease): Dundee is the only office in Scotland at which it has been necessary to transfer adult night messengers to postmen's duties. Men transferred will be given the benefit of any wage increase that may be granted to adult messengers in general.

  CIVIL SERVICE (WOMEN CLERKS).
  Mr. LYLEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the new Treasury Regulations for filling of vacancies at present in Government Departments by means of a special examination open only to temporary women clerks greatly prejudices the prospect of those girls who have been training for the Civil Service, and who, under the new Regulations as to age, when the open competitive examinations are resumed, will now be debarred from entering the service at all; and whether, under these circumstances, he can arrange to have a certain percentage of appointments now reserved for open competition among girls of 18 to 20?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on the 3rd

  563
  instant to a question on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich. I have nothing to add to that reply.

  MUNITIONS.

    SHELL CONTRACTS.
    Mr. PALMERasked the Prime Minister whether any contracts for the making of shell are running at the present time; if so, of what natures are the shell now being made and what sums are involved in the contracts; whether it was understood that all such contracts were to be brought to an end as soon as possible after the Armistice: whether the contract with the Wandsworth Projectile Company is still in existence or has it been terminated; and, if so, what was the the date of termination.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. There are three contracts for shells on which deliveries are outstanding. These relate to heavy shells required for fixed armament of coast defences throughout the Empire. The values of the outstanding deliveries are about £150,000, £17,000, and £2,000 respectively. The Projectile Company's contracts for shell were closed immediately after the Armistice, with the exception of two contracts which were allowed to terminate on 14th January, 1919, and 14th February, 1919, respectively, as it was found more economical to allow them to be completed than to cancel them. Since the latter date the firm have held no orders for the War Office.

    CAPTAIN PULLEINE.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if Captain Pulleine, Controller of Mechanical Transport in France, has left the service of the Ministry; and, if so, on what date was he given notice to leave, for what reason, and what was his salary and total allowances when he left?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): Captain Pulleine voluntarily resigned from the service of the Ministry with effect from 1st May, 1920.
    564
    His total emoluments at the date of his resignation were £850 per annum.

  INDIA (PRINCE OF WALES, VISIT).
  Mr. FORRESTasked the Prime Minister if he can make any statement as to whether the contemplated visit to India of the Prince of Wales will be carried out this year?
  The PRIME MINISTER: A full announcement will be made shortly.

  RUSSIA.

    BRITISH POLICY.
    Commander Viscount GURZONasked the Prime Minister whether he can give an assurance that the British Empire will not be committed to war upon Soviet Russia until the country has been able to express its opinion upon it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would ask my Noble Friend to await the statement which will be made this afternoon.

    SOVIET DELEGATION.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to allow the members of the Soviet Delegation to this country to be allowed to stay here indefinitely and, if not, what limit has been imposed upon their residence here; and is there any reason to think that any members of the Delegations have been in communication with revolutionary and seditious persons in this country, and have they as yet engaged in any political propaganda?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the agreement is arrived at, or, in the alternative, if the conditions sought to be imposed by the Russian Government are not inconsistent with Polish independence, the Delegation will remain here to conduct the trade negotiations under the agreement already arrived at, provided the conditions of that agreement are respected. As to the latter part of the question, this matter is under the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government at the present moment.

    BRITISH NAVAL PRISONERS (BAKU).
    Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether he can give any further

    565
    information with regard to the naval prisoners at Baku; what are the prospects of their release; whether he can explain how it is that Italian representatives can come and go without hindrance and French representatives practically so; whether this point has been put to Krassin and Kameneff; and whether he can state what are the pretexts advanced by the Soviet representatives for detaining these officers and men as prisoners in the hands of the 11th Soviet Army?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am glad to be able to inform my Noble Friend and this House that a message has been received from Tiflis to the effect that all British prisoners were released from prison on 5th August and are now living in a private house outside the town of Baku. This does not include Consul Hewelcke, who is in hospital. The men are receiving sufficient food and money, but would be grateful for tobacco, cigarettes and soap.
    Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that these men will shortly be allowed to return to this country; and whether he has any anxiety as to their fate in the event of a possible counter revolution?
    Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that all the British prisoners in Russia have now been liberated?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not quite sure about all of them, but I think most of them have been released. Whether there are any more left I am not quite sure. With regard to the supplementary question put by the Noble Lord (Viscount Curzon), naturally there is anxiety as long as they are there, and we would rather see them out of the country.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman in communication with the Soviet Government and can ho get from them a report as to how many British prisoners have been released and how many are still in Russia?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Gentleman had given me notice I could have given an answer to that question, because quite recently I have read a communication referring to this subject, but I could not recall the figures accurately.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say definitely whether these prisoners are now being allowed to leave or are they still prisoners?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have given the only information I have received up to the present and it is a great advance.
    Mr. HOGGE: Are there any means by which the Government can provide material comforts for these men while they are there?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. I think we have done so, and done it with considerable success.
    Sir F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when these prisoners are coming back; whether some are still there; and, if so, will they also be liberated?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The result of the steps we have taken is that we have secured these advantages up to the present, and I hope that we shall be able to get them all released, but they are under the control of the Soviet of Azerbaijan.

    EASTERN SIBERIA.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Japanese Government have communicated their policy in Eastern Siberia to His Majesty's Government; if so, whether this policy can be made public; and whether His Majesty's Government is using its good offices to bring about peace between Japan and Russia in Eastern Siberia?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: With regard to the first part of the question, I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Wirral on 4th August As regards the second part, the Japanese Government issued an official statement on 4th July last to the following effect: Owing to repeated massacres of Japanese subjects by the Bolsheviks between 12th March and the latter part of May, the Japanese Government felt it necessary to take steps to uphold the honour and prestige of their country, but, as there was no legal Government to which they could make representations and obtain a satisfactory settlement, they decided to occupy such parts of Saghalien as they considered necessary. At the

    567
    same time, as the Zabaikal provinces had been completely evacuated of the Czechoslovak troops, the Japanese Government decided to withdraw their troops from those regions, in conformity with their declaration. The Japanese Government, however, are compelled, until peace and order have been completely secured, to maintain troops in the districts round Vladivostok, since not only is there a menace from those quarters against Korea, but there are a large number of Japanese residents in the neighbourhood, and Haravosk constitutes a point of strategic importance on the way to the province of Saghalien. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. MALONE: Are the Japanese acting on their own, or acting in concert with the other Allies?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understand they are acting quite independently.

    BALTIC (MINES).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the present situation, he can give any information as to when the mines will be swept up in the Baltic and freedom of trade allowed to Petrograd?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As has already been stated in reply to a previous question by the hon. Member for White chapel, the removal of these mines is not an obligation resting on the British Government.

    GENERAL WRANGEL.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether any advice has yet been given to General Wrangel to cease attacking Russia with munitions provided by Great Britain?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on 10th June, when I stated that "we made it absolutely clear to General Wrangel that we should not be responsible for himself and his army if he undertook offensive operations. He has done so, and the responsibility is entirely his."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we have an assurance there is no British representative with General Wrangel?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There is no British Mission.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there any British representative?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say whether there is an Intelligence Officer, as has been the case in every war that has occurred—an officer representing neutral countries to report on operations.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is this war a civil war? Would it not be possible either to withdraw the Intelligence Officer or to appoint one to the Soviet Army?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Does the hon. Member make that proposal with authority? It might be worth considering.

  UNEMPLOYMENT
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the urgency of the matter and the fact that the House will shortly be in recess, he will now state what are the definite steps which the Government is taking to prevent the widespread unemployment with which this country is threatened?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The information at the disposal of the Government is that, so far from unemployment increasing, the high level of employment shown in the early part of 1920 has, up to the present, been generally maintained, and in a number of cases improved. There are, however, indications from various quarters that the amount of unemployment during the coming winter will be in excess of that usually caused by seasonal depression during the winter months. The question of unemployment, and particularly the continued presence on the list of the unemployed of large numbers of ex-service men, is engaging the very serious consideration of the Government, and a Cabinet Committee has been appointed to examine the problem.
  Mr. HOGGE: Why is it that the Government are leaving to a great General the solution of the unemployment question in regard to ex-service men?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are certainly not doing anything of the kind. On the contrary, they are taking every measure they possibly can in order to meet the situation.
  Major MACKENZIE WOODasked the Minister of Labour in what ways precisely the Government is doing everything that it can to prevent and minimise unemployment.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): The chief measure proposed by the Government at the present moment for the mitigation of unemployment is the new Unemployment Insurance Bill, whereby it is anticipated that not less than 12,000,000 workers will be insured against unemployment. I should, however, add that the whole question of unemployment is at present engaging the careful attention of the Government, and, as has already been stated by the Prime Minister, a Committee of the Cabinet has been appointed to consider the matter.
  Major M. WOOD: Was the Unemployment Insurance Bill initiated to stop unemployment or simply to mitigate the evils arising out of it?
  Mr. BILLING: Are the Government making preparation to give unemployment pay to twelve million workers? Is that their only idea of solving the unemployment problem?
  Sir M. BARLOW: I doubt whether there is any one panacea for solving the unemployment difficulty, but the Bill will probably go a long way towards meeting the difficulty. As has been stated, the Prime Minister has appointed a Committee of the Cabinet to deal with the question.
  Mr. SWAN: Has the Local Government Board or any other Government Department which deals with this question made inquiries as to the reconstruction policy of the Government, and would it not be more economical to employ men on reconstruction work than to pay them unemployment benefit?
  Sir M. BARLOW: It is precisely considerations of that kind which the Cabinet Committee will go into.
  Mr. SWAN: When?

  ANTI-DUMPING BILL.
  Mr. PALMERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the great public interest and the interests involved in the promised legislation to prevent dumping in the United Kingdom, ho can give the House an assurance that an Antidumping Bill will be the first measure to be introduced by the Government on the reassembling of Parliament after the Summer Recess?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot give the assurance asked for, but we hope to be able to deal with that subject this Session.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  Mr. PALMERasked the Prime Minister what is the total sum now standing to the credit of the National Insurance Act; what was the corresponding sum at the close of the financial year ended April, 1919; and to what purpose the surplus, if any, is to be devoted?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The figures for Wales, Scotland and Ireland at the two dates given would have to be obtained from those countries. The total sum accumulated under the National Health Insurance Acts up to 31st March, 1920, was £78,000,000, as given in the reply dated 3rd June, of which a copy is enclosed (this figure is for the United Kingdom). A surplus can be disclosed only on the valuation of the individual approved societies; any surplus so disclosed will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 37 of the National Insurance Act, 1911.
  Mr. PALMER: Was this huge surplus taken into account when the Government increased the contributions both of employers and employed?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think it was taken into account actuarially. It is necessary to get a very considerable reserve fund in order to make these insurance societies sound.

  GERMANY (DISARMAMENT).
  Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister what is the number of aircraft, heavy guns, and small arms which have

  571
  been surrendered by Germany since the Spa Conference, or of the destruction of which the Allies have satisfactory evidence?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As the answer consists mainly of statistics, I shall, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Sir F. HALL: Have any of these aircraft been handed over to this or any of the Allied countries since the Spa Conference?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think so. As a matter of fact, considerable progress has been made in that matter since the Spa Conference.
  Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman's reply contain the figures? It is of the utmost importance to have them.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think so.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have any of them been handed over to Poland?
  The following is the answer referred to:

  The following are the figures:

  1. Heavy Guns.

  Total surrendered up to 5th August

  5,360

  Total surrendered between 3rd July and 5th August

  Nil.

  Total destroyed up to 5th August

  2,577

  Total destroyed between 3rd July and 5th August

  1,064

  2. Field Guns and Howitzers.

  Total surrendered up to 5th August

  20,057

  Total surrendered between 3rd July and 5th August

  164

  Total destroyed up to 5th August

  15,893

  Total destroyed between 3rd July and 5th August

  3,448

  3. Small Arms.

  Total surrendered up to 5th August

  1,570,958

  Total surrendered between 3rd July and 5th August

  19,196

  Total destroyed up to 5th August

  1,158,846

  Total destroyed between 3rd July and 5th August

  246,956

  With regard to aircraft, the latest figures, i.e., up to 31st July, are as follows:

  Number of aeroplanes and seaplanes surrendered

  128

  Number of aeroplanes and seaplanes destroyed

  813

  Number of airships surrendered

  1

  Number of airships destroyed

  1

  POLAND.

    RUSSIAN PEACE TERMS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister if the Supreme Council have advised the Poles to accept the Russian peace terms?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Russian peace terms to Poland have not been considered by the Supreme Council. There has been no meeting since these terms were communciated to the British Government by M. Kameneff.

    DESPATCHES (BLUB BOOK).
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has yet come to a decision as to the desirability of laying upon the Table the despatch to which the Prime Minister recently referred as embodying the advice, or the failure to give advice, to the Government of Poland?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I do not think the publication of an isloated despatch at the present juncture would be desirable.
    Lord R. CECIL: Will the Government issue a Blue Book on the Polish proceedings? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that other countries have done so?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of that. There is a good deal to be said for having the whole story published.

    MUNITIONS.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Lord Privy Seal whether a state of war exists between this country and the Soviet Government of Russia; and, if not, whether the co-operation of British troops at Danzig, m unloading munitions for Poland, constitutes a breach of neutrality?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative.

    573
    As regards the second part, the Allied troops at Danzig are under the authority of the Administrator who provisionally governs the city in the name of the Allied and associated Powers. Under Article 104 of the Treaty of Versailles, Poland is, among other things, guaranteed "without any restriction the free use and service of all waterways, docks, basins, wharves and other works within the territory of the Free City necessary for Polish imports and ex-ports," and also "the control and administration of the Vistula and of the whole railway system within the Free City …"
    Mr. SPENCER: Is it not a breach of the oath on enlistment to compel troops to do this?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Nothing of the kind has been done except voluntarily, and I am told it is not now being done.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Are no British troops now unloading munitions at Danzig?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is my information.

  IRELAND.

    COASTAL STATIONS (ATTACKS).
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many coastguard stations, lighthouses, and signal stations on the Irish coast have been attacked up to the end of July; to what extent has their efficiency been impaired; and what steps have been taken to safeguard vessels approaching those parts of the coast which have been affected?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): Twenty coast guard stations, 2 Board of Trade watch huts, 3 war signal stations, 1 W/T station, 1 lighthouse, 1 fog signal station, I lighthouse dwelling have been attacked up to the end of July, 1920.
    Efficiency has been impaired in the case of 4 coast guard stations and 3 war signal stations, which have had to be abandoned. Permanent efficiency has not been impaired in the case of any lighthouses, fog signal stations, watch huts or W/T stations. With regard to the latter part of the question, information has been issued in Notices to Mariners that the lights and
    574
    fog signals on the Irish coast cannot be re-hed upon in the future.
    Sir B. FALLE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what becomes of the wives and children of these men?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I am sorry to say that, in the first instance, they are thrown out on the street, or on the beach, as the case may be; but as soon as the news comes to the Admiralty, we take every possible care to bring them back to England, and restore them to their homes.

    PRISONERS' RELEASE.
    Mr. MILLSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Irish Prisoners interned at Wormwood Scrubs and elsewhere awaiting trial, and who were subsequently released without a charge being made against them, were refused any assistance to get home; and, if so, will he reconsider the decision, in view of the fact that these pepole were stranded in London after being deported from Ireland without trial?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Those of the prisoners in question who were released from prison were supplied with railway passes to their homes and subsistence money for the journey. It was, of course, impossible to do this for men who had been removed to hospitals in consequence of their refusal to take food, and who subsequently left of their own accord.
    Mr. MILLS: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that the personal property, including money, taken from these men on their arrival in prison has not yet been returned to them?
    Mr. SHORTT: I suppose they can have it if they go for it.

    DISTURBANCES, BELFAST.
    Mr. JOHN DAVISONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Thomas Healy, 41, Central Street, Belfast, who was forced to leave his work at Harland and Wolff's East Yard on the 21st July last; whether he is aware that he was given six hours to leave his house and, on his return from endeavouring to procure a van for the removal of his goods, found the house in the hands of

    575
    looters, who did a considerable amount of damage and took away a number of articles; that Healy is an ex-service man; and that the body of his dead child was lying in the house at the time he and his family were evicted; and if he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I have made inquiry into this matter, and am informed that Thomas Healy, who is an ex-service man, was working at Harland and Wolff's and was forced to leave. He was living in a Protestant neighbourhood, and, fearing that he would be attacked, he decided to leave. None of Healy's furniture was injured in any way either during or before removal. Healy's child died in the Union Hospital, and the body of the child was not in the house when he gave up possession.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the workmen who have been ejected from their employment in Belfast on account of their religious or political opinions, are being denied State unemployment benefit on the ground that they are out of employment in consequence of a trade dispute; whether this interpretation of the trouble in Belfast has received his approval; and, if so, whether he will state the grounds upon which such interpretation is based?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I am aware that a large number of men have not been able to follow their employment in Belfast in consequence of the disturbances there. Claims for unemployment benefit made by the men were in accordance with ordinary machinery laid down by the National Insurance Act, 1911, referred to the local Court of Referees, who recommended that the claims should be allowed. In view of the important and difficult issues involved, the cases were, in accordance with normal procedure, referred by the Insurance Officer to the Umpire. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the machinery of Insurance Officer, Referees, Umpire, etc., is set up by Section 89 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and these officers exercise their functions under that Section without reference to the Ministry of Labour. I may add that, in view of the important questions which
    576
    arise, the whole matter is under the careful consideration of my Department.
    Mr. CLYNES: May I take that answer to mean that the hon. Gentleman will take steps, in view of the long time during which these men have been out of work, to hasten the final decision in this matter?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I can only say that if I send my right hon. Friend a copy of the Act he will see, as I have already stated, that these officers exercise their functions irrespective of the Ministry of Labour, but, no doubt, his question in the House to-day will possibly achieve the result he desires?

    ARCHBISHOP MANNIX.
    Mr. MORRISasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the statement made by Archbishop Mannix that after many years' absence he wishes to go to Ireland to see his aged mother and not for any political purposes whatsoever, the Government will reconsider its decision and remove the restrictions on the archbishop's personal movements so as to allow him to proceed to his native land for the purpose mentioned?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative. The Government will however, be prepared to give every assistance to Archbishop Mannix's mother to visit him in England.
    Mr. MALONE: Was the Government justified in using ten destroyers to keep out a harmless archbishop?

    JURIES (FINES).
    Mr. LYNNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many jurors in Ireland were fined last month for refusing to discharge their duties; and what steps the Irish Government has taken to collect the fines?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The number of jurors fined was 1,068. In Counties Down and Wicklow the fines were remitted by the judge. In King's County three jurors paid the fines and two appealed. In 579 cases the usual warrants have been, or will be, issued to recover the fines.

    LORD MAYOR OF CORK (ARREST).
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the Lord Privy Seal for what offence the Lord Mayor of Cork has

    577
    been arrested, what is his present state of health, and when will he be brought to public trial?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not had notice.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have been asked to reply.
    Hon. MEMBERS: By whom?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: By the principal Private Secretary of the Lord Privy Seal. The Lord Mayor of Cork is being tried by court-martial to-day, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations 22 and 27. The state of his health is satisfactory.
    Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say for what offence he is being tried, and will he also say whether on request he would grant permission for near relatives of the Lord Mayor to visit him in prison?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I gave my hon. Friend the Regulations under which the Lord Mayor is being tried. They are very long Regulations, but I can summarise one, namely. "for being in possession of a secret police cypher code."
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is this court-martial being held under the Restoration of Older (Ireland) Act?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: No. It is being held under the Defence of the Realm Regulations.
    Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my other question—whether near relatives can have permission to visit this Lord Mayor in prison?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Visits to accused persons are matters which come under certain regulations, and nothing exceptional will be done to preclude the Lord Mayor from receiving the full benefit of the regulations that would apply to any similar case.
    Mr. PALMER: Has the Lord Mayor, according to the papers, began a hunger strike with other prisoners, and, if so, does the right hon. Gentleman call that good health?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have no knowledge of a hunger strike. The official information that came to-day is that his state of health is satisfactory.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Minister of Pensions whether any facilities can be given to wives to visit their husbands while undergoing treatment away from home when the treatment is prolonged and the man's condition prevents him travelling; and whether, in view of the hardship otherwise involved, he will consider the question of granting such facilities?
    Major TRYON: Under the present Regulations of the Ministry, a man undergoing treatment in an institution away from home may be provided with a half-fare railway ticket to enable him to visit his home after each three months' treatment, or, alternatively, with a full-fare ticket after each six months' treatment. I am satisfied that there is hardship where a married man is not sufficiently convalescent to visit his home, and is therefore debarred from benefiting by the concession. I am glad to be able to say that arrangements have now been sanctioned under which the free travelling privileges now granted to the man during treatment in an institution can in future be transferred to his wife when the husband's condition does not admit of his travelling home.

    PENSION BOOKS.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the delay in the issue of pension books to post offices, and that this delay is greater at the present time than it has ever been before: that many of the letters received from the Pensions Issue Office are unintelligible, which indicates a state of chaos in that Department; and whether he will consider, as a solution of the difficulty, the immediate decentralisation of the work of the Pensions Issue Office, so that each of the four nations in the British Isles may deal with all cases of pensions entirely apart from the present Pensions Issue Office?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): Adequate arrangements have male to ensure the despatch of pension books to Post Offices in good time, and I am satisfied that there is no general delay

    579
    in this operation. I am aware that a number of cases of delay in payment of pensions have occurred during the past few months, but the Pensions Issue Office is certainly not in the state suggested. The improvement of the existing machinery is receiving the Minister's close personal attention, and, although he is satisfied that an immediate general decentralisation of the issue of pensions would not be practicable, he is not excluding from the range of his consideration the advisability of delegation.
    Sir R. THOMAS: May I ask on what grounds it is suggested that decentralisation of the issue of pensions is not practicable?
    Major TRYON: An experiment is already being made as to decentralisation in London, but regions are now being set up for the general work. When we see how decentralisation works in London, we shall be able to see whether it is desirable to apply that principle elsewhere.
    Sir R. THOMAS: May we take it that, if London be a success, the four countries of the British Isles will have decentralisation in this respect?
    Major TRYON: Decentralisation certainly will take place, but the hon. Baronet will see that the complaint which he makes is not in accordance with his suggestion. He wishes for small units, and England is not a small unit, so that we have to work by regions.
    Sir R. THOMAS: I beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman's pardon. What I am asking for is decentralisation with regard to the four nations of the British Islands.
    Major TRYON: Those will be units, obviously, but not in the case of England.

    TEMPORARY GRANTS.
    Lieut.-Colonel PARRYasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider the advisability of granting to local War Pensions Committees a discretionary power to administer grants to disabled discharged soldiers whilst awaiting the decision of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal as to whether their disability is due to or aggravated by military service, and thus avoid to discharged soldiers the necessity of having in many cases to apply for parish relief?
    Major TRYON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. T. A. Lewis) in reply to a similar question on the 29th July.

    SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE REGIMENT (LATE PRIVATE R. PREECE).
    Mr. ALFRED SHORTasked the Minister of Pensions whether he can now state the decision of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal respecting the case of Mrs. Preece, of 6, Church Road, Tipton, widow of Private R. Preece, No. 31,349, South Staffordshire Regiment; and, if not, as this case was referred to the Ministry in February, 1920, what action, if any, has been taken to expedite a decision?
    Major TRYON: The decision of the Tribunal has not yet been notified to my Department, but, as my hon. Friend has already been informed, the Tribunal has been requested to deal with the case at the earliest possible date.
    Mr. SHORT: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when the report will come to hand, seeing that this case was brought to the notice of his Department as far back as February, and this lady and her children are practically starving?
    Major TRYON: I cannot say when the report will be made. By the action of the House of Commons the matter has been taken away from the Ministry of Pensions and referred to a special Tribunal.
    Mr. SHORT: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain why the case was referred to someone else? Why could not his Department deal with it, and why does he now make that an excuse?
    Major TRYON: The hon. Member does not seem to be aware that, by an Act of Parliament passed by this House, the pensioner has a right, in case of dispute, to appeal to this Tribunal. That right is now being exercised, and I have asked the Tribunal to report as soon as possible the result.
    Mr. MILLS: Is it possible to set up machinery by which, in cases that do show a valid claim, some sort of advance can be made to keep these people from just utter destitution?
    Major TRYON: It is obvious that if, in the opinion of the Ministry, the case

    581
    is not entitled to an allowance, the Ministry cannot give an allowance; but if the Tribunal should decide that an allowance ought to be paid, it will be paid.
    Mr. HODGE: Why should it take six months to hear the appeal? That is the gravamen of the charge against the Department.
    Major TRYON: My right hon. Friend must be aware that the Tribunal has nothing to do with the Ministry of Pensions, but was set up entirely independently of the Ministry by the decision of the House of Commons.
    Mr. SHORT: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain why it was five months before this case was referred to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal?
    Mr. PALMER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, as the result of these long delays and of no compassionate allowance being given in the interval, many people are on the verge of starvation while awaiting the results of appeals?
    Major TRYON: I have explained to the House that we are not responsible for delays which do not occur in the Department.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that this is being enquired into by the Select Committee on Pensions at the present time?

  TICKET-OF-LEAVE SYSTEM.
  Mr. KILEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the desirability of abolishing the ticket-of-leave system?
  Mr. SHORTT: The ticket-of-leave system, in the strict sense, was abolished many years ago. It is not proposed to abolish the system whereby an offender sentenced to penal servitude or preventive detention is allowed to go at large for a part of his sentence on a conditional licence.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (EDUCATION).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department
  582
  whether until recently the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police insisted on all recruits for the force Compulsorily attending educational classes which were provided by the London County Council in various parts of London; whether this order has recently been withdrawn, and, if so, will he state why; and whether, in the interest of the force itself, these classes can be continued?
  Mr. SHORTT: Owing to the higher standard of qualifications now required of candidates for the Force, and the fuller training given in the Preparatory Class, the necessary educational standard is now-attained by all recruits before they are posted to divisions, and there is no need to require them to attend educational classes for further instruction. Officers who desire to attend such classes in their own time in order to help them to qualify for promotion are given full facilities for doing so.

  POLICE (WATCH COMMITTEES).
  Mr. IRVINGasked the Secretary for the Home Department, whether, in the making of regulations to carry into effect certain recommendations of the Des-borough Committee on the police service, his attention has been called to the fact that very strong objection is being taken by watch committees of very many important municipalities in the kingdom with reference to the proposal to take from watch committees powers which have hitherto been vested in them, particularly in relation to appointments to the discipline of and promotion in police forces; and whether, before the far-reaching proposals of that committee are put into operation, he intends to give an opportunity for the matter to be discussed in this House?
  Mr. SHORTT: I have received resolutions from a number of city and brough police authorities in the sense indicated in the question. Practically the whole of the recommendations of the Desborough Committee to which exception is taken by these authorities can only be dealt with by legislation, and there will, therefore, be an opportunity for hon. Members to discuss them before they are carried into effect.

  LANDING RESTRICTIONS (MR. AND MRS. HOYER).
  Mr. RAPERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to state the exact reason why Mr. and Mrs. A. J. Höyer, of Christiania, have been refused permission to visit England; and whether he is aware that Mrs. Höyer is of British birth; that one of Mr. Höyer's sons served as an officer in the Royal Flying Corps during the War; that another one of his sons is at school in England; and that whilst in Norway, during the War, Mr. Höyer went out of his way to both foster and augment pro-British sentiment in that country?
  Mr. SHORTT: Permission will be granted to Mr. and Mrs. Höyer.

  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (BLOOMS-BURY SITE).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that the Government do not propose to proceed with the purchase of the Bloomsbury site for the University of London unless and until the university accepts the offer, and having regard to the Report of the valuer of the London County Council as to the relative value of certain sites and the present inability of the Government to offer any contribution towards the erection of the required buildings on the Bloomsbury site, he will hold over the purchase money for the site to be devoted to such purposes, subject to the approval of the Government, as the Senate of the University may recommend as most serviceable for the recognised object of the University and for the furtherance of University education in London as the metropolis of the British Empire?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. For the reasons which I gave on Tuesday last, the offer of the Government relates only to the Bloomsbury site.

  INCOME TAX.
  Mr. JOHN MURRAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the new exemptions, rebates, etc., in respect of Income Tax are retrospective as from the beginning of the financial year 1st April, 1920, to 31st March, 1921?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Income Tax allowances and deductions provided by the Finance Act, 1920, are operative for the Income Tax year beginning on 6th April, 1920.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    RICE.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Food whether the Ministry of Food have recently disposed of a large quantity of rice to a syndicate instead of offering it in the usual way to the trade generally; whether, in consequence of such sale, wholesale dealers are obliged to purchase their requirements through a broker from a source other than the Wheat Commission direct; to whom, at what price, and in what quantity was the rice sold; and what gross and net profits were realised by the Ministry on the transaction?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second does not therefore arise. As regards the third and fourth parts of the question, the contract price for the 27,500 tons of Burma rice, which has recently been disposed of by the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies through the usual trade channels, varied according to quality and position, but it was based on the quality of "Two Star" at £40 per ton ex store. It is not anticipated that the operations of the Royal Commission in this season's crop of Burma rice will result materially in either profit or loss.

  MONTENEGRO.
  Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Charge d'Affaires accredited to the Government of Montenegro has been appointed Ambassador in Brussels; whether he has received a letter from the Prime Minister of Montenegro urging that the appointment of a new diplomatic representative be made immediately; and whether the appointment will be shortly announced?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative; to the third part in the negative.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    CIVIL SERVICE.
    Mr. J. DAVISONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in fixing the age of 35 as a maximum age of entry into the established Civil Service, a large number of capable ex-service men over that age at present on the temporary staff of the Civil Service will be penalised in not being able to compete for these examinations; and, in view of this fact, whether he will consider the possibility of reserving a number of these vacancies for men over the age of 35.
    Mr. BALDWIN: My attention has been directed to this matter, and it has already been decided to waive the maximum age limit of 35 years originally proposed as one of the conditions for admission to the examinations to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. DAVISON: Are we to understand that, no matter what the capacity of an individual over 35 years may be for passing these examinations, he is precluded from having any position in the Civil Service?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am not sure I understand the hon. Member's question, but I think the answer was quite plain to the question that was put.
    Mr. DAVISON: Too old at 35!

    WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEE (DUBLIN COUNTY).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Minister of Pensions what steps he has taken to meet the legitimate claims of ex-service men in Dublin county to employment, in view of the fact that the staff of the Dublin County War Pensions Committee at Dawson Street, Dublin, comprises 22 women, of whom only one is a war widow, and not more than five ex-service men?
    Major TRYON: Appointments to the staff of local committees are made by the Committee subject to the approval of the Minister as regards principal officers. In the exercise of this power preference
    586
    is always given to suitable ex-service candidates, and no opportunity is lost of urging local committees, in Dublin and elsewhere, to give similar preference as regards members of their staffs. I may inform my hon. and gallant Friend that nearly 80 per cent. of the staff in the direct employ of the Ministry in the Dublin region are ex-service men, and that of the remainder many are women who have either suffered through the War or are engaged on duties scarcely suited to men.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not only in Ireland but in this country a large number of widows are discharged, while women who have their husbands to support them are allowed to retain their position? Will he see if this can be rectified?

    EVICTIONS, NEW FOREST.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether the New Forest Acts provide for the permanent allocation of certain lands adjacent to each village for allotments; whether four acres at the Weirs, Hinchley, Brockenhurst, were, in accordance with those Statutes, allocated for allotments in 1917 through the Brockenhurst Parish Council with the consent of His Majesty's Treasury; whether the agreement entered into by the allotment holders stipulated, in the event of removal, for six months' notice to plotholders to expire at Christmas in any year; whether notice contrary to the agreement was issued to the allotment holders to quit, and many of these holders have now been evicted; whether the great majority of these holders are ex-service men; whether two holders have been summoned to appear at the King's House, Lyndhurst, on Monday, 16th August, for alleged trespass; and what action the Ministry of Agriculture propose to take to protect these men?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): I have received the following information from the Office of Woods:—
    The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The four acres were allocated in accordance with the Crown Allotments Act, 1331, but were not taken

    587
    up. In answer to the third part, the Commissioners of Woods are not conversant with the terms of any agreement between allotment holders and local authorities. In answer to the fourth part, I have received no information and I have no official information that the majority of the allotment holders are ex-service men, but I believe this to be the case. I understand that two allotment holders have been summoned to attend at King's House, Lyndhurst, to-day for trespass, but I have no official information in the matter. In answer to the last part of the question, the Commissioners of Woods have already informed the local authority as to the proper procedure to enable allotments to be applied for, and until that procedure is adopted the Ministry can take no further action.
    Mr. RAFFAN: In view of the fact that ex-service men are being evicted from very small plots of land which they are cultivating, will the right hon. Gentleman make full inquiry into the matter, and, if possible, take steps for their protection?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Certainly, we are making all the inquiry possible. The question was put to me only at eleven o'clock this morning.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Yes, I must apologise for that.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (FISHERMEN).
  Major ENTWISTLEasked the Prime Minister if he intends to act upon the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Workmen's Compensation and introduce legislation amending the Workmen's Compensation Act so as to include fishermen, and that the money received from shares shall be deemed to be part of the workmen's earnings.
  Mr. SHORTT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The recommendations of the Committee in regard to share fishermen are receiving careful consideration, but I am not in a position at present to make any definite statement on the subject.

  PERSIA AND MESOPOTAMIA.
  Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the present
  588
  heavy burden of taxation and the inadequacy of our military forces to the call" made on them, he is now able to state that it has been decided to withdraw our forces from Persia and severely to curtail our commitments in Mesopotamia?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything to the statement which I recently made in Debate on this subject.

  DOLLAR SECURITIES.
  Mr. JAMESONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury still retain American and other dollar securities lent to the Government during the War on which ½ per cent. or other consideration over and above the rate of interest borne by the securities is payable; if so, what is the amount of the securities retained; what is the annual charge on the Treasury; and what is the purpose for which they are retained?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The amount of deposited securities at present held by the Treasury is approximately £267,500,000; and provision is made in the Estimates, 1920–21 (Unclassified Services, Vote 15), amounting to £1,500,000 far the ½ per cent. extra interest. Arrangements are being made for the return of these securities as quickly as possible; but some of them are still pledged as collateral for unexpired loans, and cannot be immediately released.

  RELIEF FUNDS (GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTIONS).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether further funds are to be provided during the Recess for the following bodies, viz.: British Red Cross Society, Anglo-Czech Relief Fund, Friends' War Victims' Relief Committee (Poland), Friends' Emergency Committee (Vienna), Vienna Emergency Relief Fund, Serbian Red Cross Society, Serbian Relief Fund, Scottish Women's Hospitals (Serbia), Action Lodge Famine Relief Fund (Budapest), Westminster Catholic Federation, Montenegrin Relief Fund, Fund in Aid of Jewish Victims of the War (Poland), Armenian Refugees (Lord Mayor's Fund), Armenian Refugees' Clothing Fund, Armenian Red Cross Fund, Syria and Palestine Relief Fund;

  589
  whether £750,000 has already been given to these bodies; whether this large expenditure is part of or additional to the provision of £10,000,000 for relief in Austria and Poland; whether any and, if so, what limit is proposed to such grants and to the pound-for-pound grants in general; and whether there is any reason to believe that the taxpayer is aware of and approves of these appropriations?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No further funds are being provided for these societies. I explained in an answer given on the 10th November last that the expenditure to be incurred by the Treasury under the pound for pound scheme, in accordance with which grants to these societies have been made, was limited to £400,000. This has subsequently been increased, and a total charge of £750,000 has been made on the credit of £12,500,000 provided for Loans and Grants for Reconstruction and Relief in War Areas in the Estimates for Loans to Dominions and Allies of the years 1919–20 and 1920–21, and paid to relief societies whose accounts and procedure have been subjected to careful Government scrutiny. The Government have, therefore, effectively assisted in the starting of relief work in Europe, but they do not feel able to ask Parliament to vote further sums for this purpose, and therefore no funds in addition to the £750,000 already paid will be granted. The expenditure under the pound for pound scheme is additional to the undertaking to provide sums up to a maximum of £10,000,000 for relief purposes in Austria and Poland made in the Estimate for Loans to Allies, etc., for 1920–21, as part of the International Relief Credits Scheme, in which joint action is being taken with Allied and neutral countries. In view of the fact that Parliament has voted the money, and of the full explanation of the pound for pound scheme contained in the Answers given on the 10th November, 11th August and 3rd July, 1919, and in the official announcement published in the Press of 30th June, 1919, I do not see how it could be maintained that the taxpayer is not aware of, or does not approve of, the action which has been taken.
  Sir J. D. REES: Do I rightly understand my right hon. Friend to say that all these little leaks have been stopped except the power to compound grants
  590
  which are given in concert with other Powers in Austria and Poland? Is that the substance of it?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have read my hon. Friend a very long answer. If he will read it I think he will find it is sufficient. I do not feel able to add to it at the moment.

  STATIONERY OFFICE (ESTIMATES).
  Mr. KILEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether effect will be given to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports that estimates of stationery should be more carefully framed; that in every Department a small committee should be set up which should meet periodically to revise publications; and that there should be a closer liaison between the Stationery Office and the Departments?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The recommendations of the Committee are now receiving my consideration, with a view to effecting the purposes desired by the Committee.

  DEBT REDEMPTION.
  Major HAYWARDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his present intention that the Budget for 1921–22 shall make provision for a Sinking Fund for the redemption of the Debt; and, if so, at what percentage?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is inconceivable to me that any British Chancellor of the Exchequer would, except in the case of some extraordinary convulsion, fail to make provision every year for debt redemption so long as a considerable amount of debt is outstanding. I hope to make a substantial provision next year, but it is clearly impossible at the present stage to say what percentage of the debt it will be. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember that my forecasts for a normal year have provided for a minimum sinking fund of one-half per cent.

  DEVOLUTION COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDATIONS).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of

  591
  the Government to introduce legislation at an early date embodying the recommendations as contained in the Report of the Devolution Committee?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Can we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the matter is being considered?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

  SYRIA.
  Major HAYWARDasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is now in a position to make any statement in regard to the situation in Syria and the position of the Emir Feisal?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The present situation in Syria is reported to be tranquil. The Emir Feisal is understood to be leaving shortly for Europe.

  SHIP-REPAIRING.
  Major HAYWARDasked the Minister of Labour whether much of the ship-repairing work of this country is going to Antwerp and Rotterdam?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): I have been asked to reply. There is no doubt that there is a considerable slackening in the repairing industry in this country causing unemployment, and there is also a tendency for some of the work to go to Continental ports, where, it is alleged, costs are lower.

  PRISON ADMINISTRATION.
  Mr. KENYONasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the desirability of introducing in prisons a system of work and wages?
  Mr. SHORTT: As a perusal of the Annual Reports of the Commissioners will show, there is a very elaborate and highly organised system of work in prisons, but the principle of paying
  592
  wages to convicted prisoners has never been accepted in this country, nor has it been regarded with favour by the International Congresses, where the subject has been frequently raised and considered.

  TREASURY BONDS.
  Dr. MURRAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what cause or causes he attributes the failure of the Treasury Bonds issue?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: When I announced this issue to the House on the 28th April, I stated that I believed it to be generally agreed that the time had not yet come for any large funding operation; but a receipt of £10,000,000 in three months is, I confess, a disappointment compared even with my modest expectations. None the less, even £10,000,000 cash available for funding is useful, and it represents the investment of real savings without any artificial manufacture of credit. I attribute the disappointing results mainly to the great demands for capital after the War, both by local authorities and by industry, and to my desire to frame the terms of the issue in such a way as not to cause further depreciation in the market quotations of previous Government issues and not to compete unduly with Housing Bonds and other issues of local authorities for housing purposes. The issue is still open, and the problem of the Floating Debt is still a cause for anxiety. I venture once again to appeal for support for the issue, the whole proceeds of which, as the House is aware, are applied towards reduction of the Floating Debt.
  Mr. HOGGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to alter the conditions in view of the failure?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not also attribute the failure of this issue to the seriously depreciated prices of other Government issues, and the falsification of the prediction under which they were recommended to the country; and will he take steps to bring them up to something like the issue price before foisting other issues upon a suspicious and disappointed public?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member's question has been fully answered by his putting it.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I take it that the answer is in the affirmative.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
  Mr. HUGH EDWARDSasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the increased expense—as the result of the recent increment in railway fares—involved for members of public bodies who have to travel long distances in order to attend various committee meetings in the discharge of their duties, he can see his way to authorise County Councils and other public bodies to pay the travelling expenses of their members?
  Dr. ADDISON: I am introducing a Bill to-day which includes provisions for enabling County Councils and other local authorities to pay the travelling expenses of members attending meetings of these bodies.
  Mr. EDWARDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to expedite the Bill's passage into law?
  Dr. ADDISON: That depends upon the time available for the House to deal with it.
  Mr. DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman include Members of the Council of Action in this House?

  DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD.
  Mr. ATKEYasked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a Clause in the Derwent Valley Water Bill constituting the securities of the Derwent Valley Water Board to be trustee securities was deleted from the Bill in its final stage in the House of Lords upon request from a Government Department; whether he is aware that the cities of Sheffield, Leicester, Derby and Nottingham, who constitute the Board, are re quidring further supplies of water from the Derwent Valley, and the security offered
  594
  by the Board constitutes a first charge upon the revenues of these cities; that the security of each constituent authority is already recognised as trustee security; that the Committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords carefully considered and approved the Clause now deleted; that the deletion of the Clause will seriously affect the raising of the capital for the purpose of carrying out the works authorised by the Bill, and what opportunity can he offer for the House of Commons to discuss the position created by this unprecedented action over-ruling the decisions of the Committees of both Houses?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware that the Clause in question was deleted from the Derwent Valley Water Board Bill on its Third Reading in the House of Lords. I should hope that the raising of the capital required for the works authorised m the Bill would not be seriously affected. I may add that His Majesty's Government would have thought it necessary to oppose the Clause on the Third Reading in this House if they had then known that the promoters of the Bill intended to persevere with it in spite of the objections of the Government Departments concerned. The Bill will in due course come back to this House, and my hon. Friend will have an opportunity of raising the matter then if he so wishes.

  LABOUR COUNCIL OF ACTION.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the resolutions passed at the Labour Conference on Friday last, creating what is tantamount to a Labour dictatorship, under the title of the "Council of Action"; whether he wilt state, firstly, whether he has consulted the Law Officers of the Crown as to the carrying out of such resolutions being contrary to constitutional law; secondly, whether the Government propose to permit the threatened action in any way to influence their policy; and whether he will state that in his opinion the time has arrived definitely to declare as illegal the organising of industrial disturbances for the purpose of achieving political ends?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The policy of the Government in regard to Poland and Russia—a policy which has been repeatedly communicated to the Polish Government, and which was defined at Spa and again at Lympne, and has been fully expounded to this House—would appear to differ in no way from that enunciated at the Labour Conference to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The swinging of a sledge hammer against an open door is merely made for purposes of display. Any attempt to dictate the policy of the Government and Parliament by industrial action strikes at the root of the democratic constitution of this country, and will be resisted by all the resources at the Government's command.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of giving the House an assurance that under no consideration whatsover will he ever receive either a deputation or a representation from Labour Under the title of the "Council of Action"? Are we to understand from the Prime Minister shaking his head that he is prepared to recognise the Council of Action as such?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not care in the least what is the title, I am prepared to receive, and it is my duty to receive, deputations from anybody in this country which represent citizens of the land upon a matter of public policy, but, of course, if it is accompanied by threats which are directed against the Constitution, then I should have to take the necessary action.
  Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Council of Action has definitely committed itself to threats, and under those circumstances, is he prepared to recognise it as a constitutional representative Labour body?
  Mr. PALMER: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether he has received any notification either from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) of their desire to withdraw from the most honourable membership of the Privy Council in view of their action last Friday?

BILLS PRESENTED.
  PROTECTION OF MENTALLY DEFECTIVE PERSONS BILL,
  "to make further provision for the protection of lunatics, idiots, and imbeciles, and other mentally defective persons from sexual immorality and from conduct akin thereto or connected therewith; and for purposes relating to the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. WIGNALL; supported by Mr. Adamson, Mr. Neil Maclean, and Mr. Tyson Wilson; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 20th October, and to be printed. [Bill 214.]
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL,
  "to amend the Law relating to the Housing of the People, Public Health, and Local Government, and for purposes in connection therewith," presented by Dr. ADDISON; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 20th October, and to be printed. [Bill 215.]
  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL,
  "to amend enactments relating to Merchant Shipping, and to make further provision with respect thereto, and to amend and extend Section 7 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, and to repeal certain enactments, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. SEXTON; supported by Mr. Clynes, Mr. Wignall, and Mr. Tillett; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 21st October, and to be printed [Bill 216.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, without Amendment.
Ready-Money Football Betting Bill,
Derwent Valley Water Board Bill, With Amendments.
Amendments to—
Seeds Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Amendments to Amendments to—
Mining Industry Bill, without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MINING INDUSTRY BILL (changed from "MINISTRY OF MINES 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.
  TITLE.
  A
  BILL
  INTITLED
  An Act to estabish a Ministry of Mines, and to regulate the coal industry, and for other purposes connected with the mining industry and the persona employed therein.
  Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "establish a Ministry," and insert, "provide for the better administration."
  Agreed to.

  MINING INDUSTRY BILL (changed from "MINISTRY OF MINES BILL")
    CLAUSE 1.—(Appointment of Minister of Mines.)

      PART 1.
      ESTABLISHMENT OF MINISTRY OF MINES.
      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 a Minister of Mines, who shall, by virtue of his office, be an additional Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade and shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure.
      Lords Amendment:
      Leave out the words "Establishment of Ministry of Mines," and insert "Administration of Mining Industry."
      Agreed to.
      Lords Amendment:
      Leave out the words, "it shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister of Mines, who shall, by virtue of his office, be an additional Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade and shall hold office during His' Majesty's pleasure," and insert
      "there shall be established a Department of the Board of Trade (to be known as the
      642
      Mines Department) under a Parliamentary 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, he exercised and performed through the Secretary for Mines."
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Robert Home): I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out the word "minerals" ["mines and minerals"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the mining industry."
      Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not going to make a general statement with regard to the whole of these Amendments before we discuss them seriatim? Will he say what the Government propose to do and whether they accept the changes suggested by the Lords?
      Sir R. HORNE: Perhaps it would be convenient to adopt the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman, and probably the situation will be clearer to the Members of the House if I explain now the attitude which the Government propose to take. The main Amendment made in another place on this Bill was to substitute for the Ministry of Mines a Department of the Board of Trade with a Secretary of Mines as its chief. I am going to propose to the House that that Amendment should be accepted, and, so far as I can gather, that will not be entirely out of consonance with a feeling which certainly was ox-pressed in this House at the time when the Bill was first under consideration. I am going also to propose to the House that the salary of that Secretary of Mines should be £1,500 per year, which is the ordinary salary of a Parliamentary Secretary to the Department. There are consequential Amendments following upon that main Amendment. The only other matters which are of any importance and which I need mention to the House are those. The Bill proposed that payment should be made to the various committees, pit committees, district committees, area boards, and national board established under the Bill. In another place an Amendment was made that payment should only be made to the pit committees, and that I propose to ask the House to accept. Certain drafting Amendments in the House of Lords

      643
      Amendments will require to be made in that regard. With regard to the betterment fund which the Bill sets up, the view adopted in the other place is that as to four-fifths of that fund it should be administered in the various districts of the country, and that each district should have allocated to it four-fifths of the money subscribed. I propose to ask the House to accept that Amendment also. So far as the other Amendments are concerned, I think they are purely drafting Amendments except this one under consideration. In the course of their survey of the Bill the House of Lords omitted the whole of the Clauses which dealt with a matter in which the House of Commons displayed very great interest, to wit, the expense of the new Department. It was decided in this House that the expenses of the new Department should be limited to a sum of £250,000. In order to carry out their views on economy in another place the restriction of the amount which was to be spent was dropped out or omitted. I think I should scarcely be keeping faith with the House of Commons if I did not take pains to reinsert the restriction which had been imposed financially upon the Department, and accordingly I am going to ask the House to reinsert words which will still put the new Department under the financial restriction which was applied to it here.
      Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to
      Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

      CLAUSE 2.—(General powers and duties.)
      (1) It shall be the duty of the Minister of Mines, in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties transferred to or conferred or imposed on him by or in pursuance of this Act, subject to any directions which may be given by the Board of Trade, 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 Minister of Mines—

      (a) all the powers and duties of the Board of Trade with respect to the mining industry;

      (b) all the powers of a Secretary of State under enactments relating to mines and quarries.

      (2) If in regard to any other powers and duties of any Government Department relating to mines, quarries, or minerals or
      644
      the mining industry or the persons engaged therein, whether conferred by statute or otherwise, it is deemed expedient that such powers and duties should be transferred to the Minister of Mines, or be exercised or performed by the Minister of Mines concurrently or in consultation with the Government Department concerned, His Majesty in Council may by Order make provision for the purpose.
      (3) The Minister of Mines shall undertake the collection, preparation, and publication of information and statistics relating to the mining industry, and shall co-operate with such Committees of the Privy Council as are formed for the purpose and any other Government Departments concerned in the initiation and direction of research in relation to matters connected with the powers and duties of the Minister of Mines.
      (4) His Majesty in Council may by Order make such consequential and supplemental provisions as appear necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving full effect to any transfer of powers or duties by or under this Act, including provision for the transfer and vesting of any property, rights, and liabilities held, enjoyed, or incurred by any Government Department in connection with any powers or duties transferred, and may make such adaptations in the Acts or Regulations relating to such powers or duties as appear necessary to make exerciseable by the Minister of Mines and his officers, the powers and duties so transferred.
      (5) Before any Order in Council under this Section is made, notice of the proposal to make the Order and of the place where copies of a draft of the Order can be obtained shall be published in the London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Gazettes, as the case may require, and in such other manner as the Minister thinks best adapted for ensuring publicity.
      (6) An Order in Council under this Section may be altered or revoked by a subsequent Order.
      (7) In connection with the transfer of powers and duties to the Minister of Mines by or under this Act, the provisions set out in the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect.
      Lords consequential Amendments agreed to
      Lords Amendment:
      In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "transferred to or conferred or imposed on him by or in pursuance of this Act, subject to any directions which may be given by the Board of Trade," and insert "in relation to mines and minerals."
      Amendment made to Lords Amendment: Leave out the word "minerals," and insert "the mining industry."—[Sir R. Horne.]
      Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Lords consequential Amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendment:
      In Sub-section (1) leave out paragraph (a)
      Agreed to.

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

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

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

      (2) When any such directions are given it shall be lawful for the Minister of Mines, subject to the like approval, also to give directions as to the wages to be paid to workers in coal mines and by Order to regulate the distribution of profits, and any such Order shall contain provisions framed on principles similar to the principles on which the provisions of the Coal Mines (Emergency) Act, 1920, are framed, so as to secure, as far as practicable, an equitable distribution as between different collieries:
      Provided that before any such Order is made a draft thereof shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and the Order shall not be made unless the draft has been approved by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, nor, if modifications in the draft are agreed to by both Houses, otherwise than as so modified.
      (3) If any person exports, sells or supplies, or offers for sale, or attempts to export or supply any coal in contravention of any directions given under this Section or otherwise contravenes any such directions, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or, in the case of a contravention of the directions as to the export, supply or price of coal, at the discretion of the Court, to a fine not exceeding treble the amount by which the sum paid or payable on any coal exported, supplied or sold by him in contravention of any such directions exceeds the maximum sum which would have been paid or payable for the coal if there had been no such contravention, and any coal which in contravention of any such directions is exported or brought to any place or water-borne to be shipped for exportation or for bunker coal shall be forfeited under the Customs (Consolidation) Ant, 1876, as amended by any subsequent enactment:
      Provided that a prosecution for an offence under this sub-section may, notwithstanding anything in any other Act, be instituted at any time within one year of the commission of the offence.
      (4) The powers of giving such directions and making such Orders as aforesaid may be exercised till the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and twenty-two, by the Minister of Mines subject to the like approval after the expiration of the said one year if the exercise of such powers is authorised by a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament.
      (5) An Order made under this Section shall have effect as from such date (which may be a date earlier than the date of the making of the Order) as may be specified in the Order, and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, but may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Order.
      (6) The Coal Mines (Emergency) Act, 1920, shall continue in force until the date as from which the first Order made under this Section takes effect, or until the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, whichever may be the earlier; and that Act shall have effect as if in Section eleven thereof for the reference to the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty, there were substituted a reference to the date to which the Act is con-continued by this provision.
      (7) The provisions of this Section relating to the export of coal shall apply to coke, briquettes, and other solid fuel of which coal or coke is a constituent, in like manner as they apply to coal.
      Lords Consequential Amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendments:
      In Sub-section (1, b), after the word "vessels," insert "other than vessels proceeding to a port outside the British Islands."
      To Sub-section (2), leave out the word "When" ["When any"] and insert "Whilst."
      Leave out the word "given" ["are given"] and insert "operative."
      Agreed to.

      CLAUSE 4.—Advisory Committees.
      (1) The Minister of Mines shall appoint committees for the purpose of giving to him advice and assistance on matters connected with his powers and duties under this Act relating to coal and the coal industry and to the metalliferous mining industry respectively, and may appoint one or more other committees for the purpose of giving him advice and assistance on matters connected with any of his other powers and duties, and in appointing members of any committee hereinbefore referred to the Minister of Mines shall act after consultation with the various interests concerned.
      (2) The Minister of Mines shall refer to an advisory committee for their advice any question relating to his powers and duties which appears to him of such a nature as to make such reference desirable, and shall take into consideration any representations thereon which may be made to him by any such committee.
      (3) The advisory committee on coal and the coal industry shall consist of a chairman and twenty-four other persons, of whom—
      Four shall be representative of owners of coal mines;
      Four shall be representative of workers in or about coal mines;
      Three shall be representative of employers in other industries;
      Three shall be representative of workers in other industries;
      One shall be a mining engineer;
      Two shall be agents or managers or under-managers of coal mines holding first-class certificates;
      One shall be a coal exporter;
      One shall be a coal factor or coal merchant;
      One shall be a person with experience of commerce other than the production or distribution of coal;
      One shall be a person with experience in co-operative trading;
      Three shall be persons with expert knowledge of medical or other science.
      Lords Consequential Amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendment:
      In Sub-section (1), after the word "duties" ["other powers and duties"], insert "relating to mines and minerals."
      Amendment made to Lords Amendment: Leave out the word "minerals" and insert "the mining industry."—[Sir R. Horne.]
      Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Lords Amendment:
      In Sub-section (2), after the word "duties," insert "of the Board under this Act."
      Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out the words "under this Act" and to insert instead thereof "relating to mines and the mining industry."
      This is merely a drafting Amendment.
      Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Lords Consequential Amendments agreed to.

      CLAUSE 5.—(Staff remuneration and expenses.)
      (1) The Minister of Mines may appoint such secretaries, assistant secretaries,
      648
      officers, and servants as the Minister of Mines may, subject to the consent of the Treasury as to number, determine.
      (2) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to the Minister of Mines an annual salary not exceeding two thousand pounds, and to the secretaries, assistant secretaries, officers, and servants of the Ministry of Mines such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may from time to time determine.
      (3) The expenses of the Ministry of Mines, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament:
      Provided that the total amount of such salaries and expenses shall not in any year exceed two hundred and fifty thousand pounds.
      (4) There shall be transferred and attached to the Ministry of Mines such of the persons employed under any other Government department in or about the execution of the powers and duties transferred by or under this Act to the Minister of Mines, as the Minister of Mines and the other Government department, with the sanction of the Treasury, may determine.
      (5) The Minister of Mines may from time to time distribute the business of the department amongst the several persons transferred and attached thereto in pursuance of this Act, in such manner as he may think right, and those officers shall perform such duties in relation to that business as may be directed by the Minister of Mines:
      Provided that such persons shall be in no worse position as respects the tenure of office, salary, or superannuation allowances than they would have been if this Act had not been passed.
      Lords Amendment:
      Leave out Sub-section (1).
      Further Lords Amendment:
      In Sub-section (2) leave out the words, "Minister of Mines," and insert instead thereof "Secretary for Mines."
      Mr. SPEAKER: These Amendments are privileged Amendments. Their effect is to abolish the Ministry of Mines and then to set up a new office—a Secretary of Mines—with a Secretary. This is beyond the power of the Lordships' House.
      Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments."
      Mr. SPEAKER: A special entry will be made.
      Mr. HOGGE: On a point of order. Surely we want more from my right hon. Friend than simply an agreement with the Lords. After all, the Government brought in this scheme because they said

      649
      it was essential and because they said they could not do without it. The same criticism as is now applied by the House of Lords was urged in the House as to the setting up of a new and costly administration, and the same suggestion was made in this House that the matter could be quite easily undertaken by appointing a Secretary. What we want to know now is why the Government depart from their original position; why do they make plans which they do not really intend to carry out? They have put the House of Commons and everybody else concerned to all this trouble, and have refused to accept suggestions made here which they have taken lying down from the House of Lords.
      Sir R. HORNE: I thought that what I said in my initial statement would have been sufficient to satisfy my hon. Friend. I did not suggest for a moment that I should not have regarded the Bill as a better Bill if it had set up a Ministry of Mines, and I put that view before the House of Commons. The Government view prevailed in the House of Commons, but I could not but be cognisant of the fact that there was a very large body of opinion in this House which would welcome the idea of setting up something which appeared to be less grandiose than they thought that the new Ministry would be. I was very conscious of that view at the time I was dealing with it. The same view taken by a minority in the House of Commons was taken in another place. I could not be regarded as accepting the view that I am taking this Amendment from another place lying down, but the Government regard it as more important to get our Bill through and to get it passed now than to spend time in arguing about this matter, with the possibility of losing what we really regard as a useful and beneficient measure. Accordingly, under the circumstances, the Government took the view that, when the House of Lords agreed to the setting up of a definite Department under a person known as a Secretary of Mines, our view had been so far met that we could work the Bill efficiently under that, although not so efficiently as under a Minister of Mines, and therefore, for those reasons, we ask the House to accept the Amendment.
      Mr. SPENCER: In view of the fact that the House has now to pass a Bill to
      650
      which the Labour representatives attach particular importance, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of withdrawing the Bill altogether? So far as the Labour interests in this House are concerned, of course, the defects of the Bill far outweigh any good points which it might have. Among those good points was the fact that it was going to set up a Ministry of Mines. Now the Bill has been to the other House and, instead of a Ministry of Mines, there is going to be set up to deal with that part of the Act an Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade. Therefore the hostility we had to the Bill at first has been, strengthened by the fact that one of its important Sections is to be dropped altogether. I am quite sure that, if the right hon. Gentleman considered either the owners or the workmen who are attached to the trade, he would drop the Bill altogether, because neither side require it at all.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment:
      In Sub-section (2), after the word "salary," leave out "not exceeding two thousand pounds, and to the secretaries, assistant secretaries, officers, and servants of the Ministry of Mines, such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may from time to time determine.
      "(3) The expenses of the Ministry of Mines, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
      "Provided that the total amount of such salaries and expenses shall not in any year exceed two hundred and fifty thousand pounds."
      Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
      I propose to move in lieu of the words omitted to insert
      "not exceeding fifteen hundred pounds.
      (3) The salaries and remuneration of the officers and servants of the Department of Mines and the expenses of the Department to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, provided that the total amount of such salaries, remuneration, and expenses shall not in any year exceed two hundred and fifty thousand pounds."
      The House will, I hope, accept that Amendment, as it is intended to restore the situation which I described in my opening remarks, and is proposed with

      651
      a view to reconstituting the restriction which was made by this House dealing with this matter.
      Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment is not an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, but is an Amendment to the Bill. Therefore, the best course would be to accept the Lords Amendment, and then to amend the Bill by inserting the words which the President of the Board of Trade has just read.
      Mr. HOGGE: Let me be quite clear about this. The Amendment Paper says leave out from the words "pounds."
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is an error. It ought to be from the word "salary."
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, in lieu of the words omitted, to insert
      "not exceeding fifteen hundred pounds.
      (3) The salaries and remuneration of the officers and servants of the Department of Mines and the expenses of the Department to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, provided that the total amount of such salaries, remunerations, and expenses shall not in any year exceed two hundred and fifty thousand pounds."
      Mr. HOGGE: Before we pass from this I should like an explanation of the matter. It is rather hopeless, I know, to take up any opposition to the Amendment. Cannot we know exactly what we are doing? Does this mean that we are now going to have a second Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade?
      Sir R. HORNE indicated assent.
      Mr. HOGGE: It does? In that event, seeing that the Government have given up their idea of a Ministry of Mines, why cannot the present Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade do the work with any appropriate assistance? Why should we waste£1,500 in creating a new Under-Secretary, a new placeman, for the Government to do the work which is now found necessary? We want an Under-Secretary in this House to be responsible to the House for questions put with regard to that particular industry. That should be quite easily done by my right hon. Friend and by the present Under-Secretary who sits beside him (Mr. Bridgeman). This proposal is a waste of public money. If my right hon. Friend
      652
      is really in favour of economising, seeing that he has dropped his Ministry of Mines, cannot he run this under the existing Department, instead of spending another £1,500 a year?
      Sir R. HORNE: I gather that my hon. Friend's argument is centred in the word "placemen." It sounds rather like a revival of old controversies when we hear that word used again. I think he is under an entire misapprehension when he uses that word in this connection. He states that the work involved in a Department of Mines under the Board of Trade is not such as requires the full and continuous attention of a Minister of Mines. My hon. Friend is under a mistake. He forgets the provisions of the Bill, one of which was that there should be collected under the head of this Department all the other sections of Government Departments which at present are dealing with this industry. The Home Office is by no means the only Department to be brought under the roof of this new Department. While I agree that it would be much better to have a Minister of Mines, because the work is large enough to incur the whole attention of the Ministry, it is certainly still more true that it would be occupying the whole time of such a Department as the Board of Trade, and will require the constant and continuous attention of a single officer. For these reasons the expense is more than justified.
      Mr. SPENCER: May I rise to a point of Order? May I ask whether this is a consequential Amendment to the Lords Amendment, and, if not, whether it is not an Amendment to the Bill, in which case it would be out of order?
      Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment is consequential on the acceptance of the Lords Amendment to leave out a particular paragraph, and to insert instead the words proposed by the President of the Board of Trade.
      Sir C. CORY: On the point of Order. I thought that the House of Commons had either to accept the Lords Amendments or to reject them, and that, at this stage, a Bill could not be amended.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I have already pointed out that this is a consequential Amendment upon the acceptance of the Lords Amendment.
      Mr. HOGGE: On that point of Order. I gather that certain words were not inserted by the House of Lords. Why should we in the House of Commons repair the deficiencies of the House of Lords? After all, they are an intelligent House, and if they cannot make their Amendments plain, why should we in any way alter them?
      Mr. SPEAKER: Because the House of Lords have no power to deal with the salaries and remuneration of officers and servants, or to deal with sums of money.
      Mr. HOGGE: I quite agree, but we have left out after the word "salary" in the Sub-section, power over the annual salaries to be paid "out of moneys provided by Parliament." That makes it quite clear that there is power in the Bill to give the Minister of Mines an annual salary, an Under-Secretary being substituted for the Minister. That being so, what right have the Government now to insert another Amendment, limiting the amount of money, or providing another amount of money for the further carrying out of another Amendment to the Bill?
      Sir R. HORNE: Does my right hon. Friend want that?
      Mr. HOGGE: I rose on a point of Order.
      The SPEAKER: The matter is really quite simple. The Sub-section states: "There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to the Minister of Mines an annual salary." It is now suggested to insert after the word "salary" the words, "not exceeding fifteen hundred pounds."
      Mr. HOGGE: I quite understand that, but I want a firm ruling as to whether we are entitled to do that. The mere fact that we say an "annual salary" leaves it open to pay that annual salary, whatever it may be. That is a completely intelligible statement. Have we any right now to provide money for anything of that sort without any estimate, simply because the Government have not made the proper arrangements with the House of Lords to have the necessary consequential Amendments?
      Mr. SPEAKER: We bad arranged to pay £2,000, and, if the House accept this proposal, it will be saving £500, because it is proposed to insert the words
      654
      " not exceeding £1,500." Surely, the House is entitled to make an Amendment of that sort! In fact, the House of Lords could not do it.
      Mr. HOGGE: I am asking for your guidance and experience. Would not this annual salary be provided in the Estimates which are laid before the House, and could we not then on that salary raise all the points? Why should we now at this stage make this alteration when I respectfully submit that it is not in Order to put in these Amendments?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a matter of Order; it is a matter of merit. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman thinks it wiser to leave it to the Treasury to decide the amount, he is entitled to take that line, but the House is now asked to fix a sum, which is not to be exceeded, as the salary of the Secretary for Mines.
      Mr. SPENCER: If the Bill, when it left this House, definitely stated that £2,000 should be paid, surely the House of Lords have no right to interfere with that sum, and, if we now insert £1,500, is not that an Amendment to the Bill?
      Mr. SPEAKER: It is an Amendment to the Bill consequential upon the Lords Amendment, which we have accepted. I have said so, I think, twice before.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Lords consequential Amendments agreed to.

      CLAUSE 6.—(Seal, Style, and Acts of Minister of Mines.)
      Lords Amendment:
      Leave out the Clause.
      Agreed to.

      CLAUSE 7.—(Ability of Minister of Mines to sit in Parliament.)
      (1) The office of Minister of Mines 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 Minister of Mines shall not by reason of such appointment, if a Member of the Commons House of Parliament, vacate his seat as such Member.
      Lords Amendments:
      In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "Minister of Mines" and insert "the Secretary for Mines."
      Leave out Sub-section (2).
      Agreed to.

      CLAUSE 8.—(Pit and district committees and area and national boards.)
      Lords consequential Amendments agreed to.

      CLAUSE 9.—(Constitution and functions of pit committees.)
      (1) A pit committee shall consist of representatives of the owners and management of the mine appointed by the owners and of workers employed in or about the mine selected by ballot of the workers in accordance with the regulations from amongst their own number, so, however, that the representatives of the workers shall constitute half of the number of the pit committee.
      (4) The regulations shall provide for the holding of meetings of pit committees at intervals of not more than a month, and for matters which cannot be satisfactorily disposed of by the pit committee being referred to the district committee, or in the case of questions to which the Coal Mines Act, 1911, applies to the inspector of the division.
      Lords Amendments:
      In Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" insert "not exceed ten in number and shall.
      In Sub-section (4), leave out "for the holding of meetings of pit committees at intervals of not more than a month and."
      Agreed to.

      CLAUSE 10.—(Constitution and functions of district committees).
      Lords consequential Amendments agreed to.
      CLAUSE 11.—(Constitution and functions of area hoards).
      Lords consequential Amendments agreed to.

      CLAUSE 12.—(Additional powers of district committees and area hoards).
      The Minister of Mines may, subject to the approval of the Board of Trade, by Regulations provide for district committees or area boards determining any questions and exercising any powers which before the passing of this Act can be determined or exercised by a conciliation board or by a joint district board constituted under the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act, 1912; and the Regulations may provide for the appointment of an independent chairman, with a casting vote, to preside at meetings of any
      656
      district committee or area board when determining any such question or exercising any such power, and may add to or alter the districts mentioned in the Schedule to the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act, 1912:
      Provided that the Regulations shall not provide for the appointment of such an independent chairman when the committee or board acts as a conciliation board except in pursuance of an agreement to that effect.
      Lords consequential Amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: After the word "Trade" ["Board of Trade"] insert "may."
      Agreed to.

      CLAUSE 13.—(Constitution and functions of National Board.)
      (1) The National Board shall consist of such number of members as may be prescribed by the Regulations and shall comprise representatives of the owners and management of coal mines throughout the United Kingdom, and an equal number of representatives of workers employed in or about such mines.
      Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "and shall comprise" and insert, "of whom one-half shall be."
      Leave out the words "an equal number of" and insert, "one-half shall be."
      Agreed to.
      Lords consequential Amendments agreed to.

      CLAUSE 14.—(Power of Minister of Mines to direct compliance with recommendations and schemes.)
      Lords consequential Amendments agreed to.

      CLAUSE 16.—(Fees to members and expenses of committees and boards.)
      There shall be paid to the members of pit committees, district committees and area boards and of the National Board such fees for attendance at meetings thereof as may be prescribed by the Regulations, and such payments, together with any expenses incurred by such committees and boards in the discharge of their functions, including the remuneration of the secretary and other officers of such committees and boards, shall—

      (a) in the case of pit committees, be payable by the owner of the mine; and

      (b) in the case of district committees and area boards and the National Board be apportioned amongst the owners of the various mines in the district or area or throughout the United Kingdom, as the case may be, in accordance with the Regulations;

      657
      and the sums so payable by or apportioned to the owner of any mine shall be defrayed as part of the working expenses of the mine, and shall be recoverable summarily as a civil debt at the instance of the secretary or other officer of the committee or board concerned.

      Lords Amendment;
      After the word "incurred" ["together with any expenses incurred"], insert "in accordance with the Regulations."
      Agreed to.
      Lords Amendment:
      In Paragraph (b), after "Board," insert:
      "as to the fees of the representatives of the owners and management, together with one-half of the expenses incurred by the respective committees and boards and the National Board, be payable by the owners of mines, and as to the fees of the representatives of the workers, together with one-half of the said expenses, be payable by the workers employed in or about the mines and shall "
      Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
      It was proposed, as the Bill left this House, that the fees of the various committees should be paid by the coal owners, and charged as a working expense. In another place an Amendment was made providing that fees for attendance at meetings of the Pit Committees only should be so paid, and that the employers and workmen should pay their respective representatives on the other committees. The Government have taken the view that the expenses of the members of the Pit Committees should certainly be paid by the coal owners and charged as a working expense, but that, with regard to other committees, it would be a mistake, by Act of Parliament, to impose upon employers and trade unions the duty of paying their representatives. Obviously, with regard to the district committees, area boards and the National Board, the employers may very well obtain the attendance of their representatives without paying any fees. A similar remark may apply to the representatives of the trade unions, whose officials may attend as a matter of ordinary duty. No doubt, the trade unions will pay their expenses, and, in some instances, they may pay them fees, though I do not know. It would remain for the trade unions and
      658
      the employers to decide that question entirely for themselves, but, as we think, it would be a great error to impose any statutory duty upon each side to take any course of action which might be entirely adverse to their own point of view. Accordingly, we propose that the pit committees should be paid by the coal owners, and charged as a working expense, but that with regard to the other committees, which are drawn from wider districts it should be left to the employers' and workmen's organisations to decide for themselves upon what terms their representatives shall be sent to these meetings. I think that course will best meet the wishes of all parties, and accordingly, in order to provide in the Bill for the system which I have suggested, I shall propose, instead of the Lords Amendment, a series of Amendments.
      Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
      Amendments made:
      Leave out the words "district committees and area board, and of the National Board."
      Leave out the words "and boards," ["and boards in the discharge"].
      Leave out all the words of the Clause after "functions," and insert instead thereof "shall be payable by the owner of the mine as part of the working expenses of the mine."—[Sir N. Horne.]
      Lords Amendment:
      In paragraph (b), after the word "of" ["owners of the various mines"], insert "and the workers in or about."
      Disagreed with.

      CLAUSE 17.—(Provisions as to Regulation" under Part II.)
      Regulations made under this Part of this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act:
      Provided that, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Regulation is laid before it praying that the Regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Regulation and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
      Lords Amendments:
      At the beginning insert the words
      "The provisions of Sections eighty-six and one hundred and seventeen of, and Part I of the Second Schedule to, the Coal Mines Act, 1911, which relate to general Regulations shall apply with the necessary modifications to."
      Leave out the word "made" ["Regulations made under this Part of this Act"].
      Leave out all the words of the Clause after the word "Act" ["Regulations made under this part of this Act"].
      Agreed to.

      CLAUSE 18.—(Cessation of Part II. in certain eventualities.)
      If at the expiration of one year from the passing of this Act it appears to the Board of Trade, on the recommendation of the Minister of Mines, that the scheme of this Part of the Act has been rendered abortive by reason of the failure on the part of those entitled to appoint representatives as members of the pit and district committees, area hoards, and the National Board to avail themselves of such right, the Board of Trade shall issue and publish in the London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Gazettes a certificate to that effect, and thereupon all the provisions of this Part of the Act shall cease to have effect.
      Lords consequential Amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendment:
      Leave out the words "and publish in the London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Gazettes a certificate to that effect and thereupon all the provisions of this part of the Act shall cease to have effect" and insert
      "a report of the circumstances, and that report shall be laid before Parliament, and at the expiration of one month from the date when it is so laid all the provisions of this Part of this Act shall cease to have effect unless in the meantime a resolution to the contrary is passed by both Houses of Parliament."
      Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out the words "one month," and to insert instead thereof the words "thirty-days during the Session of Parliament."
      The effect of the Lords Amendment would be that, if you had an interval of one month during which Parliament was not sitting, Parliament would have no opportunity of considering the report which was laid upon the Table. The Amendment which I propose would ensure, with regard to all these reports,
      660
      that Parliament would have a real opportunity of considering effect.
      Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

      CLAUSE 19.—(Schemes as to drainage).
      (1) It shall be lawful for the Minister of Mines after consultation with a district committee or area board or holding such other inquiry as he may think fit, and subject to the approval of the Board of Trade, to make schemes with respect to any group of mines as to the drainage thereof, and as to the apportionment as between the owners of the mines in question of any expenditure for a common purpose that may be required by any such scheme, and any such scheme may amend or repeal any local Act of Parliament in connection with such drainage.
      (2) The provisions of Section eighty-six and Part I. of the Second Schedule to the Coal Mines Act, 1911, which relate to general regulations shall apply with the necessary modifications to schemes under this Section.
      Lords consequential agreed Amendments to.
      Lords Amendments:
      In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "area board" and insert instead thereof "committee concerned."
      After the word "drainage" insert a new Sub-section—
      "For this purpose the Board of Trade may adopt with or without modifications any scheme relating to the drainage of any group of mines proposed by all or any of the owners of such mines."
      Lu Sub-section (2) leave out the word "section" and insert instead thereof "sections."
      After the word "eighty-six" insert "and one hundred and seventeen of."
      Agreed to.
      Lords Amendment:
      At end of the Clause add the words
      "Provided that before any scheme involving the amendment or repeal of any local Act of Parliament comes into force it shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than fourteen days during which that House is sitting, and if either House before the expiration presents an Address to His Majesty against the scheme or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new scheme."
      Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after the word "expiration," to insert "of that period."
      Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

      CLAUSE 20.—(Power to make general and special Regulations with respect to metalliferous mines.)
      Lords consequential Amendment agreed to.

      CLAUSE 21.—(Establishment of fund for improvement of social conditions of colliery workers.)
      Lords consequential Amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: At end of Sub-section (3) insert the words:
      "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, 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."
      Agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: After Sub-section (4) insert a new Sub-section—
      "(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."
      Agreed to.
      Lords consequential Amendments agreed to.

      CLAUSE 22.—(Accounts, statistics, returns, etc.)
      Lords consequential Amendments agreed to.
      CLAUSE 23.—(Power to hold inquiries.)
      Lords consequential Amendments agreed to.

      CLAUSE 24.—(Inter-departmental arrangements.)
      The Minister of Mines and any other Government Department may make arrangements for the exercise and performance by such other Government Department or by the Minister of Mines of any of the powers and duties of the Minister of Mines or such other Government Department which appear to them to be such as could be more conveniently so exercised and performed, and in such case such other Government Department and their officers, or the Minister of Mines and his officers, as the case may be, shall have all the powers and duties for the purpose as are exercisable by the Minister of Mines and his officers or such other Department and their officers.
      Lords Amendment: After the word "Department" ["Government Department which appear to them"], insert "relating to mines and minerals."
      Amendment made to the Lords Amendment: Leave out the word "minerals" and insert "the mining industry."—[Sir K. Horne.]
      Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Lords consequential Amendments agreed to.

      CLAUSE 27.—(Short Title.)
      Lords consequential Amendment agreed to.

      FIRST SCHEDULE.
      Lords consequential Amendments agreed to.
      SECOND SCHEDULE.
      PART II.
      COAL AREAS.

      Names of Areas.

      Coal Districts included.

      2. Northern

      Northumberland and Durham.

      Lords Amendment: Leave out "2. Northern … Northumberland and Durham," and insert instead thereof "2. Northumberland … Northumberland. 3. Durham … Durham."
      Agreed to.

  READY MONEY FOOTBALL BETTING BILL.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith," put, and agreed to.—[Sir H. Norris.]
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

  READY MONEY FOOTBALL BETTING BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Penalties.)
    Any person who in the United Kingdom writes, prints, publishes, or knowingly circulates any advertisement, circular, or coupon of any ready money football betting business, whether such business is carried on in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, or who causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, any of those things to be done, or assists therein.
    Lords Amendments:
    After the word "who" ["or who causes or procures"], insert "knowingly."
    After the word "or" ["or assists therein"], insert "knowingly."
    Agreed to.

SUMMONING HOUSE DURING RECESS.

  STATEMENT BY MR. BONAR LAW.
  Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I beg to move,
  "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, 19th October, provided always, that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. SPKAKER, after consultation with His Majesty's Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. SPEAKER may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time."
  I have made an addition to the Motion on the Paper, entirely altering the effect of the Motion, with which I feel sure the House will agree. Until this morning we had hoped, though we did not think it probable, that we should have had definite news in regard to the Polish situation, which would have enabled the House to adjourn in the usual way. We have no news beyond that which Members have seen in the Press—no news of any kind.
  664
  The only alternative to the Resolution I now propose is to adjourn the House for a couple of days at a time, until something happens. The disadvantage of that, I am sure, will be obvious to every Member of the House. It is not only a very great hardship to Members of the House to be uncertain from day to day, and perhaps even from week to week, because no one will know how long this may last. It is unfair also to the officers and attendants of the House, who are also kept in a position which if there be any other way, is almost intolerable, and it is open to this public disadvantage, in my opinion, that the longer this went on, the more Members would gradually drift away from London, with the result that we should find that, if some decision had to be taken, the House of Commons would not be properly represented, and the public interest would suffer in consequence.
  As the House knows, unless this Resolution were adopted, the House could only be summoned after six days' notice, but it would mean a longer time than even six days' notice. It could be summoned only by a Proclamation by Order in Council, and that would require that the Council should meet, and, although I am certain His Majesty would take every possible step in order to prevent delay, it might very easily happen that a longer time would elapse.
  It seems to me, therefore, in the present state of business, it would be unwise and improper for the House of Commons to adjourn without the possibility of meeting more rapidly than in the ordinary way. By this arrangement, if the House agree with me, we could meet at short notice. I am quite sure that, if the necessity for meeting were known to-day, it would be possible for Mr. Speaker to arrange that the House could assemble on Wednesday next. In my view, that gives to the House of Commons every assurance that, in the event of anything arising to require our meeting, it would be able to meet, and it gives the Government—and I do not attach less importance to this—every assurance that if, as would be the case, we desired the support of the House of Commons, we should be able to get it at the shortest possible notice. I feel certain the House will agree that the proposal I am now making is not only one which best suits the convenience

  665
  of Members, but is best for the public interest as well. The contingency is a contingency which I do not think will arise—at all events, I hope not.
  The policy of the Government in regard to this Polish-Russian question was laid down in the clearest possible way by the Prime Minister last week. I have seen it suggested outside, and a question was put to the Prime Minister this afternoon suggesting it here, that the policy of the Government has been altered by some expression of public opinion, and by the attitude of the body which has chosen to call itself the "Council of Action." There is not a shadow of doubt that there is not the smallest foundation for any such statement, and I shall prove it in a very few sentences. The Prime Minister laid down last week on what conditions—and the sole conditions—we should interfere in the struggle between these two nations. There has not been the smallest deviation from the beginning in our attitude on this Polish-Russian war. So long ago—to give only the facts present in the minds of hon. Members—as January, the Prime Minister—I am quoting largely from a document to which I referred in a previous Debate—made it perfectly plain that we disapproved of any invasion of Russia by Poland, and that they could not rely upon support from us, except for the defence of Poland within its ethnological frontiers. That was made perfectly clear by us, and it was made perfectly clear by a decision, which was made public, of the Supreme Council. Again at Spa, when the suggestion was made by the Polish Government that the Allies should interfere, it was made perfectly plain to them that there would be no interference on any other ground than the independence of Poland, and unless the Polish frontiers were attacked. Then, last, there was a Conference at Lympne between the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of France.
  5.0 P.M.
  It has been suggested that this outburst of public opinion has dictated our attitude. On the contrary, the outburst of public opinion, which has been very remarkable, was an outburst, not antagonistic to, but in support of our policy. The Prime Minister gave, in substance, the decisions that were reached at Lympne. Let me repeat three of them which make this point absolutely clear. The
  666
  first decision arrived at there was that no hostile action of any kind would be taken against Russia, unless the independence of Poland and her ethnographical frontier were impaired. The second decision was that we—this country and France—would not interfere in the internal affairs of Russia, if Russia did not interfere in the internal affairs of another country. The third decision was that if the Polish Government came to terms of peace with the Soviet Government, whatever those terms were, there would be no ground for our interference between the two nations.
  In no respect do these decisions differ from the policy laid down by the Prime Minister, and the policy, which, I am glad to say, has been enthusiastically adopted by the Country. There is nothing, I think, that has happened since last week to which it is necessary for me to refer except one point, and it is very important, in view of the possibility of action having to be taken by this country. The terms which the Soviet Government were willing to give to Poland were communicated to my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, and the moment we got those terms we decided that certain action had to be taken in regard to them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) asked me—no, I think he asked the Prime Minister—what our view was on those terms, and my right hon. Friend replied—and I am sure correctly, in the opinion of every Member of this House—to this effect: The Soviet Government was not willing that this subject of peace should be discussed in London; they preferred to discuss it direct with Poland. It seemed to us, therefore, it would be in the highest degree unfair for us to interfere with negotiations between those two Powers by publicly expressing any opinion whatever upon the subject. But our obligation does not end there.
  We know that the Polish Government proposed to send emissaries to Minsk. It seemed to us, and I am sure it will seem so to the House of Commons, that it would have been improper and unfair to the Polish Government if we did not at once let them know that, if the terms communicated to us were genuine terms, that if there was nothing kept back, to be sprung later, in our view the British Government should not interfere in the struggle between Poland and Russia.

  667
  That attitude we took, and that action did not interfere with the free negotiations between the Poles and the Russians. It was not by our wish or by our action that this was made public. Had it not been made public, these negotiations between the two Powers would not have been affected by it. Since it has been made public, it is right that the House of Commons should know that that is the view we took, and that, therefore, if the terms proposed by Russia do not go beyond, and are sincerely those given to us, then the British Government will not interfere. I think it will interest the House of Commons to know, as a matter of information, that when we sent that message to our representative at Warsaw we also communicated it to our Allies, among them Italy. I am glad to say that the Italian Government, of their own accord, have telegraphed to us that they entirely approve of the step we have taken, and that it was the right step to take.
  The only contingency which would make it necessary for the House to meet—and the only contingency for which this Resolution at the moment is meant to provide—is that these terms should not be sincerely meant, and that others would be proposed which in our view would interfere with the independence of Poland and her ethnographical frontiers. I said our policy has not altered in the least from the first, and that nothing would make us interfere, except interference with the internal arrangements of Poland. Our policy has not altered unless other conditions be imposed. If contrary, not only to my hopes, but to my expectations other conditions are imposed upon Poland—unexpected conditions which would interfere with her independence or her frontier—then the other part of our policy would remain. I have no reason to anticipate that.
  The Soviet Government has stated in the most categorical way that they do not intend to impose such conditions, and only yesterday M. Kameneff sent to the Prime Minister a letter in which he said, "the terms submitted by us will not be altered." In these circumstances, the British Government will not take any action. There will be no occasion to call the House of Commons together. But there was another point which was put,
  668
  I think, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), the force of which we felt and had meant to deal with before he put it—that was that whether or not the terms did interfere might be a matter of opinion. It would be something which the Government would very much dislike if they should be called upon to interpret the terms without being able to discuss it in the House of Commons—for I wish the House of Commons to realise that in dealing with matters so vital as these no Government, least of all this Government, would lightly take action unless it was assured that it had behind it the support of the real council of action—the chosen representatives of the people. I, therefore, on behalf of the Government say now to the House of Commons, since we are able to summon the House so quickly as at 24, or at the most 48, hours' notice, we give an undertaking, should this contingency, which I do not now anticipate, arise, that the Government will take no action until the House of Commons has been called together, and we have had the approval of the House of Commons for any proposed course. That is all that I desire to say.
  I will only add this, if I may, that in my view the one need of the world to-day is peace. My hon. Friend opposite smiles as if this was a new discovery on my part. He is mistaken. I went out of my way a couple of months ago personally, in addressing a meeting of our own party in Birmingham, to point out exactly what I am saying now, that what we want is peace, and that, so far as we are concerned, it is not our business to interfere with the foreign affairs of any country except our own. I made that quite clear. The one thing we want is peace. It was with that object, and with that object alone, that my right hon. Friend gave his advice to the Polish Government. It was with that object and no other, that we tried to have a conference in London in the hope that peace throughout Eastern Europe might be secured. If we cannot succeed in securing a general peace, the House of Commons may be assured of this that this Government will not land this country in any warlike operations unless on grounds so plain and obvious that the whole country will be behind us.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he, if he is anxious for peace, state publicly before the House rises the terms upon which the Government are prepared to make peace with Russia?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is going too fast. Let us see what happens in the present negotiations before we come to a decision as to the other matters.
  Mr. ASQUITH: May I say at once that, as far as I am concerned, I am prepared to support the Motion in its amended form? As it stood originally on the Paper, I think it was open to criticism and oven objection. In view of the somewhat cumbrous machinery by which alone Parliament, having adjourned of its own Motion, can be brought into active Session, its forms are inapplicable to the conditions under which we live, and the possible situation which confronts us in the near future. I think, therefore, the Government have been well-advised in adopting what is a new procedure and a convenient one, well-adapted to the special circumstances which now surround us. But let us be quite clear. I do not think there is any ground, after what my right hon. Friend has said, for misapprehension or misconstruction. As I understand the situation, the Government hope, and indeed expect, that the contingency to which the Lord Privy Seal has referred will not arise. If in their view it does arise, if there be ground for thinking it has arisen, I understand the effect of this undertaking given to-day is this: In the first place, the House of Commons will have an opportunity for expressing its opinion as to whether or not the-contingency has arisen. Next, that no belligerent action of any kind, direct or indirect, shall be taken until the House has had an opportunity of considering the matter. In a matter of this kind, particularly in the situation in which the world now stands, as my right hon. Friend has truly said, the first, the dominant, the paramount interest is peace. It would be monstrous for this country to be committed to anything in the nature of fresh warlike operations, unless the Executive Government had behind it, from the outset, the assured approval and confidence of the House of Commons. In this I think I have clearly
  670
  stated the position. There ought to be no ambiguity or doubt about it.
  It is very much to be regretted that we are not in a position, before we adjourn, to-day to know the result of the deliberations which, I assume, have begun at Minsk between the Poles and the Soviet Government. I am not going into the question upon which my right hon. Friend touched, and which we discussed last week, as to whether the policy of the Government in regard to Poland has been from first to last consistent, or whether it has been so conceived or so executed as to prevent war. For reasons which I gave last week—which I will not repeat to-day, because they are not relevant to what we are discussing—I think, and I believe a very large number of other people, without distinction of party, think, that if the authority of Europe had been invoked—and I referred to the suggestion that it should be so invoked, formally made by the Soviet Government of Russia as far back as April of this year—if the authority of Europe has been invoked, the Polish adventure might have been nipped in the bud, the wanton enterprise on which she so inadvisedly embarked, and which led to these disastrous results would never have been carried through, and the retribution which she has brought upon herself—as nobody can doubt she has brought it upon herself—would never have been exacted.
  But since our Debate last week, there have been two or three new facts which we ought to take into account. My right hon. Friend has referred to one of them, perhaps the most important, namely, the publication of the terms that the Soviet Government proposes to the Poles as the conditions of an armistice, and subsequently of peace. These terms were not known to us when we had our Debate last week. I think, if I may say so, the Government have taken a perfectly proper course in relation to them, for while, as was only courteous and in accordance with international comity, they forebore from an open and explicit statement of their own view as to the expediency and justice or not of the particular terms, they did, as I understand, clearly indicate to the Soviet Government that if the terms as published be not enlarged, or modified in a sense which points to an ulterior intention to undermine the actual independence of Poland, and Poland chooses to refuse them, she

  671
  does so on her own responsibility, and this country, at any rate, will not give her any assistance direct or indirect. That is a very satisfactory assurance, and I take note of it with gratification. But there are one or two other things which I think we ought not to pass by on an occasion like this, without comment. There has been the publication in France, as we now know, though it seems to have been doubted at first, with official authority, not only of its recognition of General Wrangel's Government, but of its willingness, as I understand it, to give him further material support. It is not for us to criticise the action of the French Government in that matter. It has not as yet, so far as I know, been officially explained, and certainly not in Parliamentary Debate, by the Prime Minister of France to the Parliament of France; but I wish, speaking, I think, not only for myself, but for the great bulk of my fellow-countrymen, to say that this country ought not to associate itself with any proceeding of that kind. Speaking of the actualities of the moment, I say that, under the conditions which now exist,. it would, in my opinion, be an inexpedient, impolitic, and wholly unwarrantable course for this country to take to show any kind of countenance, and to give any promise or assurance, direct or indirect, of material support to General Wrangel.
  I say no more about that. But there is another new factor which has only, I think, come to the public knowledge within the course of the last twenty-four or forty-eight hours—I mean the attitude of Italy in regard to this matter. The Italian Government, as I understand it, have associated themselves, from what my right hon. Friend has said, with the advice that has been given by Great Britain to the Government of Poland. They have, as I read the communication of the terms, gone further, and are prepared to enter into direct, official, diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government. I cannot help thinking that, in the interests of international candour and regularity, we might be well advised, instead of indulging in more or loss veiled communications through unauthorised agencies—when I say unauthorised, I mean through agencies which are not accredited in any full, diplomatic sense—to treat the de facto
  672
  Government of Russia, whatever opinion we may have of its merits or demerits, as the Government with which we have to deal. The more regular, the more open, and the more orthodox are the channels by which you conduct operations of this kind, the better I think it is for the peace of the world.
  I want to finish as I began, first of all by commending this Motion to the House as adapted to the necessitiies of the case, and next by re-echoing, with all the emphasis that it is possible to command, the aspiration of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal that the peace of Europe and of the world is now a thing worth purchasing at almost any price short of dishonour. Nothing in the world is so important, and all minor considerations of amour-propre ought to be thrown to the winds if we can find a way, which in existing conditions ought not to be beyond the resources of the combined statesmanship of Europe, by which, not only in Poland, but in the whole of that vast troubled area, the East of Europe, hostilities may be brought to an end, and the conditions of peace and economic restoration be substituted. If, as I have Said more than once, the machinery so carefully set up at Versailles—the League of Nations, which all the civilised Powers solemnly covenanted themselves to observe and to exercise and to use—could now be resorted to, and brought into operation—I am speaking of Europe, and I do not think the intervention of our friends on the other side of the Atlantic is either desired by them in any other than an academic sense, or likely to be forthcoming, so far as our experience of the past goes, and so far as the probabilities of the immediate future go—but if we can—though I admit there are gaps in the constitution of the League of Nations—bring it into effective operation to determine these troubles, and wind up this tangled situation, and pave the way to a real and lasting peace, for goodness' sake let us use it to the full, and use it promptly and effectively, to the lasting benefit of mankind and advantage of the world.
  Mr. CLYNES: My Friends on this side have not yet had the opportunity of considering or deciding what, in their view, the House might do, in face of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, on the question of the Adjournment, but I agree that it goes some distance to meet the

  673
  natural anxiety that is felt, in view of the probability of the House having to adjourn at this moment. We could not be easy in our minds, in view of the fact that even now Warsaw is engaged in a life and death struggle, that there is a conference proceeding at Minsk, and that there is the recognition by one of the Allied Governments of General Wrangel. These are considerations tending, naturally, to create very great uneasiness, and we are reluctant to assent readily to the Adjournment of the House in the ordinary way, but the conditions which have now been announced do remove some anxiety, and it may be that the House will be able to accept the assurances which to-day have been given. I cannot myself assent to the Adjournment without offering a few comments on two or three of the observations which the right hon. Gentleman has addressed to the House this afternoon. He emphasised the statement that the policy of the Government had not been varied throughout these recent weeks. I suppose we may take it that the pronouncements of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War have in no way affected Ministerial decisions, and perhaps have gone far to strengthen the Government in their pacific purpose, and have, finally, helped them to reach the decision that under no circumstances, short of a threat to the independence of Poland, would this Government enter on a great war. I congratulate the Prime Minister on the assistance which, in that direction, he is receiving from the Secretary of State for War, and incidentally I might assure the Secretary of State for War that his act, I believe more than the act of any single individual, has been the cause of bringing into being the Council so often referred to this afternoon, namely the Council of Action.
  I do not assent without reserve to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House as to there being no variation in the peaceful purpose of the Government throughout these recent weeks, and I recall the fact that we have put and pressed from this side of the House questions pointedly addressed to Ministers as to whether materials were being supplied to the Polish forces. I asked, as pointedly as I could, the last time I spoke upon this question, whether it was a fact that materials were at that
  674
  moment being transmitted and unloaded in support of the Polish forces, and I asked to what part of the world the munitions were being scattered that were being conveyed from certain centres in both Belgium and France. We can get no reply to these questions, and we are entitled to act on the assumption that, in respect to the supply of materials, the Government has been giving, and may at this moment be giving, support to the Polish forces; and it is not a far cry from that act of war to the further act of war of even poromising money and men from this part of the world. We have therefore had to conclude that there was some fear of the country being committed to war, obviously against its will. Do all these Conferences at Spa, Boulogne, Lympne mean that there was no cause for alarm, that everything pointed to a continuance or an improvement of the peace of Europe? These Conferences in themselves are a proof of underneath disturbances, naturally tending to make Members of this House suspicious, and I suggest that we would be less suspicious if we knew a little more about what was going on at these Conferences. If the House of Commons could be used as something more than a mere minute book, in which the decisions of two or three men had finally to be recorded, the House could look with greater equanimity and composure upon these recurring negotiations.
  In every instance clearly it is the case that these supreme decisions are finally reached by just two or three men, men of enormous capacity and knowledge on these questions, but the position of Members of this House—and we may as well admit it to one another, however much we may cheer the Prime Minister when he has brought back his messages to us—our position has been that of having to wait and see what had been done, and we were expected loyally to support fully whatever decisions had been reached in secret by these two or three men. You may call that Parliamentary government, but it is not. On these great questions we are entitled to be told the lines of public action and policy which it is intended to pursue. If the Prime Minister is intending to reply by pointing out that he is only behaving exactly like Messieurs Lenin and Trotsky, I suggest that is not a sufficient answer, and he might find much more democratic personages in different

  675
  parts of the world who would object to Lenin and Trotsky settling matters regardless of the elected representatives, just as I object to the Prime Minister settling them in that way. In reply to a question earlier in the day the Prime Minister spoke of "swinging a hammer at an open door," but what was the position of that door only two or three days ago?
  Mr. PALMER: It was open wide for peace.
  Mr. CLYNES: I repeat that these negotiations have been conducted in secret, and that we have been kept in the dark until announcements were made in the House, which we were expected to sanction. When we have declared that munitions have been supplied, and that we were thereby committing ourselves to acts of war against Russia—and we have had no reply to those very pointed statements—we were justified in believing that it was not an open door for peace. It is clear there was some risk of war, and that some strengthening of the hands of the Government was at least desirable. To-day I observe that the statement of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) received very little response from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The serried ranks have not cheered the statement that we ought not to sanction what General Wrangel is doing. If it be that this House is united in its desire to maintain the peace of the world, and not to interfere in any military sense as between Poland and Russia, then I quite mistake their silence when statements are made such as those of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Paisley.
  Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Would the right hon. Gentleman go to war to stop General Wrangel fighting?
  Mr. CLYNES: I cannot conceive any Member of the party to which I belong undertaking to commit this country to war for any such purpose as the one in which General Wrangel is engaged. We heard something from the Prime Minister this afternoon about the constitution. The constitution is not a volume to which you can turn, and find exactly written down what should and should not in certain circumstances be done. It is a collection of practice, of legal and Cabinet decisions, of Parliamentary usages and customs, all of
  676
  which we come to understand to be our constitution. I am little capable of reading the law upon this matter, but within the constitution we have a League of Nations. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it may, indeed, be the only written part of the constitution of this Kingdom. In the settlement following the Great War, what is termed the Peace Settlement, there was placed in the forefront of those terms of settlement a provision whereby the different members of the League of Nations could take the necessary measure to prevent a recurrence of war.
  We have been told all along that the last great War was a war to end war. If it be that the League of Nations machinery is part of the constitution of this country, why was that power not used? I invite the Prime Minister to answer that question, and say whether what we understood to be the constitution provides within it the machinery for the pacific settlement of those quarrels as they occur between nation and nation? The Government refused to use that part of our constitution, that pacific machinery which, had it been employed at the right time, might have saved Poland from the terrible defeat and humiliation which she is now suffering. If the Government refused at a time when it could take pacific action to use that part of the constitution which makes for peace, I declare that workmen in this country must not forfeit their right to strike, if in the legal exercise of that right war can be prevented.
  Mr. PALMER: There is not going to be war.
  Mr. CLYNES: The hon. Gentleman is one of those who has least cause to assure us that there will be no war. I welcome generally the statements which have been made as to the intention to consult Parliament before any variation of the policy as it has been declared by His Majesty's Government. I ask the Prime Minister to take some steps in this matter to give us a united Cabinet, and give us a Secretary of State for War whose every pronouncement as he gallops from paper to paper will not be a provocation, week by week, for the disturbance of the world. If the Secretary for War cannot accept the Peace policy as announced by the Prime Minister, I fail to see how he can

  677
  continue to hold office in a Government whoso policy he so constantly contradicts, and whose actions he tends to frustrate by his provocative utterances.
  I hope, if we can agree to join to-night with the Prime Minister and his colleagues, that they will treat in the most serious and real way the assurances which have been given to the House this afternoon, and if that be done the right hon. Gentleman can depend upon it that he will continue to receive from Labour not the threat of a strike—[HON. MEMBERS: "Direct action"]—it may be necessary to take direct action at times. There is something even greater than one's reading of the constitution, and that is the peace of the world. There has been already great bloodshed, and if bloodshed could settle the world's problem, how happy the world would be to-day! It is the peace spirit of mind of which you are in need, and if the Prime Minister develop that peace frame of mind which recently ho has exhibited, and receive the unanimous backing of the whole of his colleagues, I believe their united action will guarantee the future peace of the world.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not intend to intervene for more than a few minutes, but I should like to say a word or two with reference to the statement made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law), with whom I often find myself in agreement. As the House knows, I do not quite share the views of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal as to the conduct of the negotiations of the Government on the Polish Question. On the contrary, as far as the information we have been allowed to see enables us to judge I cannot doubt that the conduct of those negotiations has not been successful and has not deserved success. I quite agree that there was much in what the Government have said and done during the last few months which bred, and legitimately bred, doubt as to their real intentions in the matter. There was their obstinate refusal in the House to say whether or not they had given any advice to the Poles. Then there was the message which His Majesty was unfortunately advised to send to Marshal Pilsudski. Then there was the statement of the Secretary of State for War and a variety of other circumstances winch threw an entirely false light on the intentions of the Government. I also agree with both
  678
  right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken as to the immense desirability of utilising the machinery of the League of Nations, and I deeply regret that it was not used earlier in the year. But in going as far as that I think I have gone a very little way indeed to justify the conclusion at which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) has arrived. It is one thing to distrust the Government and say that they have done a great deal to destroy their authority in Great Britain and the country and it is quite another thing to suggest what is really a form of insurrection.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went, and, having returned,
Mr. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to:

1. Appropriation Act, 1920.

2. Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920.

3 Duplicands of Feu-duties (Scotland) Act, 1920.

4. Representation of the People (No. 3) Act, 1920.

5. Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920.

6. Telegraph (Money) Act, 1920.

7. Resident Magistrates (Ireland) Act, 1920.

8. Merchant Shipping (Scottish Fishing Boats) Act, 1920.

9. Post Office and Telegraph Act, 1920,

10. Census Act, 1920.

11. Census (Ireland) Act, 1920.

12. Firearms Act, 1920.

13. Fertilisers (Temporary Control of Export) Act, 1920.

14. Public Libraries (Scotland) Act, 1920.

15. Dangerous Drugs Act, 1920.

16. Ministry of Food (Continuance) Act, 1920.

17. Indemnity Act, 1920.

18. Blind Persons Act, 1920.

19. Mining Industry Act, 1920.

20. Duchy of Lancaster Act, 1920.

21. Ready-Money Football Betting Act 1920.

22. Jurors (Enrolment of Women) (Scotland) Act, 1920.

23. Seeds Act, 1920.

679

24. Mayor's and City of London Court. Act, 1920.

25. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (New Windsor Extension) Act, 1920.

26. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Widnes Extension) Act, 1920.

27. Alloa Water Order Confirmation Act, 1920.

28. Coatbridge Burgh Order Confirmation Act, 1920.

29. Royal Bank of Scotland Act, 1920.

30. Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock (Finance) Act, 1920.

31. Merthyr Tydfil Corporation Act, 1920.

32. Cardiff Corporation Act, 1920.

33. Llanelly Corporation Water Act, 1920.

34. Dublin Port and Docks Act, 1920.

35. Huddersfield Corporation (General Powers) Act, 1920.

36. Yeovil Corporation Act, 1920.

37. London County Council (Money) Act, 1920.

38. Salford Corporation Act, 1920.

39. Manchester Ship Canal Act, 1920.

40. Workington Harbour and Dock Act, 1920.

41. London Electric, Metropolitan District, City and South London, and Central London Railway Companies (Fares, etc.) Act, 1920.

42. Bristol Corporation Act, 1920.

43. Southend-on-Sea Gas Act, 1920.

44. Londonderry Corporation Act, 1920.

45. Erith Improvement Act, 1920.

46. Osborne's Divorce Act, 1920.

47. Shekleton's Divorce Act, 1920.

MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
Question again proposed,
6.0 P.M.
"That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, 19th October, provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with His Majesty's Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time."
Lord ROBERT CECIL: At the moment when we were interrupted, I had sufficiently explained the view that I take, that the threat of direct action which has been made in this case is really comparable to a threat of insurrection. I am not quite sure whether hon. Members-opposite realise—I suppose they do—exactly what they meant when they made that threat. They said, in effect, that if a particular foreign policy is carried out in the interests of this country, and in the interest—which is a much more important matter—of the peace of the world, they will call a general strike. What does a general strike mean? It means that every trade is to be brought to a standstill; it means that the whole commercial and industrial life of the country is to be arrested. If the Government of the day yields to that threat, nothing more happens, I agree. But that is not a fair way in which to judge a policy. You must consider what is going to happen if it becomes necessary to carry your threat into execution. What would it mean? It would mean that the whole industrial and commercial life of the country would be brought to a standstill, and the constitutional Government would be forced to take every action in its power to remedy that state of things. That means fighting; it can mean nothing else. No one would desire that, least of all I myself; I should view it with consternation and dismay. But that would be the inevitable result. If the two sides hold out, it must mean something in the nature of armed conflict. That is a tremendously serious responsibility to take.
I listen very often to hon. Gentlemen opposite denouncing with great eloquence the events of 1914, when the people of Ulster threatened rebellion if the Home Rule Act in its then form were put into force. Just consider what the case there-was from the point of view of Ulster. We may disagree with them, but let us look at it from their point of view. They thought that they were going to be placed under a Government which would absolutely ruin them, which would imperil interests which were dearer to them even than life or material prosperity; and, threatened with that danger, they threatened, in return, armed resistance. I have to confess that, at the time, I thought that the case of Ulster was so strong that I was not prepared to condemn it. I have

681
rather changed my opinion. But whether what some of us thought on that occasion was right or wrong from the Labour point of view, just consider the seriousness of the view which it has been attempted to set up in this case. You have really laid it down that a group—it may be an important group—are entitled to take action of the most serious kind, involving, it may be, insurrection and rebellion, rather than submit to a particular policy. I could understand that—though I do not think I should agree with it even then—if the assumptions which were made as to the justification for it were well founded. If it were really true, as the Labour people suggested, that a Parliament elected under conditions which they thought did not produce a true representation of public opinion, and supporting a Government which they utterly distrusted, was no protection against this country being hurried into war without their being able to stop it—if that were true, it would be a strong case, and I can conceive that men might legitimately say, "Here is a terrific crisis; we must take a terrific remedy." What justification was there for holding such an opinion on Thursday? There was not the slightest justification; there really was not.
I do not think I should be suspected—certainly not by my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench—of being unduly favourable to the Gevernment, but I certainly did go away on Tuesday feeling absolutely confident in my own mind that the Government, if ever they had any desire for taking warlike measures against Russia, had completely abandoned it, and had laid down in the plainest way to this House that, save only in the case of a real danger to Polish independence, they would not suggest any warlike action against Russia. And they had already added to that—at least so I understood—that, before taking that warlike action, if it should be forced upon them, they would first come to this House. I should have thought that by Tuesday any danger of this country being dragged into a sudden war, if it can ever have been reasonably thought to have existed, had passed. When, in spite of that, the Labour party thought it right to utter the threat that they did, I confess that they seem to me to have taken a very unadvised step, and one which, I am afraid, will produce very unfortunate results in the future. I do not think they
682
will consider that I am generally unfavourable or hostile to them. I wish they would carefully think over what their political future is going to be. As far as any prophecy is safe, there is no doubt that in future Parliaments the Labour party will, at any rate, be a much stronger party than it is in the present Parliament. That is a view which they themselves hold, and hold strongly. They claim that they are fit to govern, and to make a Government to conduct the affairs of this country. I have never disputed that. But just consider, if they do this kind of thing, what a terrible task they would have. They tell people that the Government of the day—I am not talking about their policy, but about the actual institution of Government—is entitled to no loyalty, that, if they take action of which any considerable section disapproves, that section, if it be strong enough, may resort to something which, I repeat, is really indistinguishable from insurrection.
Hon. Members who have studied carefully the history of Poland know that one of the things that brought Poland to destruction at the end of the 18th century was a striking provision in the constitution of Poland that, if any minority disapproved of what the Government was doing, they were entitled to withdraw into what was called a confederation, that is to say, an armed insurrection, in order to resist the action of the Government. Among all the many curious features of the Polish constitution, that was the one which produced the most disastrous results on their national life. I should not disagree if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite took the most extreme political and constitutional action that they could in order to stop the policy of the present Government. That is well within the rights and liberties of every citizen of this country, but they really must realise that, if they once set the precedent—they, of all people—of action of this kind, they cannot tell where it will lead to; but they may be perfectly certain that, sooner Of later, they and the whole country will have to pay for it. I regret what has happened, but I should not be honest and fair if I did not add that I think the Government might have taken measures which would have made it less likely to happen. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to the declarations of Spa as being entirely in accord with

683
their present policy. I re-read the despatch of the 11th July, and I can only say that, if it were intended to lay down the policy which the Government are now pursuing, it was very unfortunately worded. I regret their want of clearness; I regret still more their failure to give full official information to this House of everything they are doing and of everything that is going on. I am sure there would be much less danger of misapprehension and misconstruction of their action if they would do that. But, when I have said that, I still desire to press with all my energy and all my conviction upon my hon. and right hon. Friends of the Labour party, my profound regret at the action which they thought fit to take at the end of last week.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): There is so much in the speech of my Noble Friend with which I agree that I cannot find it in my heart to say much about the part with which I disagree. There is the statement, which he made for the twentieth time, that, since he left the Ministry, neither at home nor abroad do we command that confidence which we enjoyed in those days. Then there is the usual paragraph about the League of Nations. May I, in all kindliness to my Noble Friend and to the League of Nations, just say one word as to that? I do not think it helps the League of Nations to use it as a weapon with which to attack the Government. There is too much of that, not only in this House, but according to all accounts that I hear in meetings in the country. That is un desirable. After all, the League of Nations was promoted in a very large measure by the action of the present Government. It would not have been in the Treaty had the present Government not given every support to it; and when we deem it desirable to bring the League into action, we shall certainly be the first to give every support to any proposal of that kind. As a matter of fact, we, who, according to some of the criticisms which have been directed against us, more especially in the country, are supposed to be hostile to the League, stand by it.
Lord R. CECIL: I never suggested it in the country or elsewhere.
The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that there is rather too much of it.
684
As a sincere friend of the League I very deeply regret that the promotion of the League of Nations should become a partisan matter. I do not think it does good to the League itself. I am quite willing to consider the question which has been raised, in the first instance by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) and afterwards by my Noble Friend, as to the desirability of having brought the League into operation in the Polish question, but I am still convinced that it could not have been done, and if anyone want to know the reason why, he has only to see what happened last week. The League cannot operate unless there be unanimity. It is quite clear that the Allies were not all of the same view with regard to Russia, and with regard to Poland. It is no use attempting to conceal that fact: How would it have benefited matters if we had had these discussions and differences operating through the League of Nations, instead of operating through the Supreme Council? We have done our best through the medium of the Supreme Council to secure some measure of agreement, but we could not have done it more effectively—I am afraid we should have done it less effectively—had the discussion taken place at the League of Nations.
The second objection to that course was the attitude of Russia itself towards the League of Nations. Russia in the first instance declined—she may have had good reasons; that has nothing whatever to do with it—even to receive a deputation from the League of Nations, and when it was proposed that the League of Nations should intervene—not by His Majesty's Government, but when suggestions of that kind were made in Parliament, the Russian Government took cognisance of the fact, and said that under no conditions would they have any intervention from the League of Nations What is the use under these circumstances of saying, "You cannot promote peace through the Supreme Council. If you had only taken the League of Nations into your confidence, and used it, there would have been peace and goodwill." It has no reference to the facts.
Now I come to deal with two or three questions which have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes). My right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) made certain statements which I do not think were of a challenging character. The

685
right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) was under the impression that there were certain secret meetings of the Supreme Council where decisions were taken which were kept from the public of the respective Governments we represent. What decisions? I have never seen meetings of Ministers and diplomats to whose transactions such full publicity has been given as to the meetings of the Supreme Council. Not only have the decisions been communicated to the Press almost the very day when they were taken, but, as a rule, there have been accounts of the actual discussions which took place. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean? What have we decided that has not been made public? Not merely do we communicate the decisions day by day as they are taken, but the moment I come back from these meetings I take the first opportunity of communicating those decisions, as a whole, to the House.
I cannot think of any decision of any moment—of any decision at all, in my recollection—which has not been immediately communicated, in the first instance, to the Press, and afterwards, in the aggregate, to the House of Commons. To talk about these secret meetings has no relation whatever to the actual facts. I know the right hon. Gentleman does rot wish to mislead the public, but, as a matter of fact, he does mislead when he talks of secret meetings. Words of that kind, which have no meaning here—where everyone knows that they do not represent the actual state of things—have a very injurious effect when they are communicated outside by means of the Press and are distorted in newspaper articles in order to convey the impression that these meetings of the Supreme Council are a kind of secret conclave, where there are conspiracies between leading statesmen of various countries, in order to transact business of a kind which none of them would dare to reveal to their own public. That is not in the least the truth about these matters.
The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) seemed rather to quarrel because these meetings were not of larger dimensions. He said that two or three leading Ministers met. But surely that is the way to transact business. Even the trade unions transact their business in that way, and I have yet to know that everything that passes at these bodies is revealed to the public
686
with that candour and openness which the right hon. Gentleman demands in our transactions. I think that it would be rather useful if some of those discussions were made public. They might be instructive and entertaining; they would contribute to the instruction, the entertainment, and the amusement of the public. But when you have got to transact business, how many men would the right hon. Gentleman wish to have at these conferences? You cannot transact business by a soviet of twenty, thirty, or forty men. The right hon. Gentleman talked about a Parliament. Does he think we should do any good at all if we had a Parliament representing half a dozen Allied countries coming together in some centre? We should never come to the end of our business, and we should never transact it. It is perfectly useless to deprecate the choice of two or three men to represent each individual country to transact business of this kind. Would he have the League of Nations meeting under these conditions? If he would, he is no friend of the League. The only way in which the League can do any business is by getting one or two leading men of the various countries together, whenever there is any crisis in European affairs to discuss it frankly, not to discuss it by hurling speeches at each other for a kind of new League OFFICIAI. REPORT, but to have a frank interchange of views with the object of coming to conclusions. Naturally, when we meet, we have our different points of view, we are instructed by different public opinion, rooted in different ideas, and it is vital, if we are to agree, that there should be a very free interchange of views which may end in the modification of the views adopted by each at the commencement. You do not get that by a sort of oratorical performance. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] No, you do not. I do not know whether the hon. Member thinks he might be able to do it by that means, but, having had some experience of both, I have come definitely to the conclusion that that is not the way to come to business. I therefore earnestly hope that the right hon. Gentleman was not really giving his innermost mind when he said that this was a mere performance for the benefit of some public outside.

687
But that was not the dangerous part of his speech. The dangerous part of his speech was that in which, to my intense amazement, he defended the language and the decision taken on Friday last. He is the last man in the House whom I should have expected to do so. I thought he was a democrat and a constitutionalist. [An HON. MEMBER: "So he is!"] He is not. I wish to speak in all seriousness. What does the right hon. Gentleman say of our constitution? He says that the constitution is unwritten, that there is no volume you can take down in your library, in which you can find an account of the constitution—that is not correct to begin with—and that therefore, it being a sort of amorphous thing, without any definition, nothing that you can reduce to formulæ, you can engraft upon it, without in the least interfering with its action, a soviet, and substitute that for Parliament. What a dangerous doctrine that is! Merely because it is an unwritten constitution, a body of men can suddenly say, "We are going to meet in the Central Hall, and we will formulate a part of the constitution for ourselves. We will not submit it to Parliament. The elected representatives of the nation do not count, and therefore we are going to declare, by resolution carried after two or three hours' disecussion that henceforth the constitution shall include a Council of Action, which will represent one section of the community." That is one of the most formidable challenges ever given to democracy, and without hesitation every Government must accept that challenge.
Captain O'GRADY: I hope they will.
Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: And fight it.
The PRIME MINISTER: As my Noble Friend just pointed out, there never was the least justification for extra-constitutional means. The Labour party knew perfectly well what was the policy of the Government. I explained it quite clearly to this House. Had there been any doubt about it, questions could have been put, and I could have answered them. I never heard anyone suggest, after Tuesday's Debate, that there was the slightest doubt in anyone's mind as to the policy of the Government; and to declare extra-constitutional action—wrong under any conditions, dangerous under any conditions, when there was no issue which
688
involved any peril to the community, and where the Government was taking upon itself responsibility in the teeth of public opinion—was one of the most unjustifiable actions ever undertaken by any responsible body in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "They did not divide."] Of course, I know why it was done. It was done merely in order to impress the public with the idea that they did it, and that had it not been for this dire threat this country would have been plunged into war. There is not a responsible man sitting on those Benches who does not know that that is true. There is not one of them who does not know that my colleagues and I have been fighting strenuously for peace during all these weeks in the Council at Spa and in the Council at Lympne. They know perfectly well what we stood for—
Mr. FINNEY: The right hon. Gentleman says that they have been fighting for peace. [HON. MEMBERS: "Striving!"] Who have they been fighting? [HON. MEMBERS: "Striving!"]
The PRIME MINISTER: Really it shows the spirit in which these things are done when a question of that kind can be thought relevant. We have been striving here for peace. The policy we have adopted with regard to Poland has been a perfectly consistent one from the very start. I hope soon to be able to lay on the Table of the House the despatches. I doubt whether we can do it now. It would be undesirable. I do not want to be put in a position in which it may be said that we publish despatches with a view to weakening the hands of any one party in this controversy at this most difficult moment. We do not want, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, to publish the despatch to Warsaw. We gave it as our confidential opinion to the Polish Government, because we knew that they were leaving for Minsk. That was our information, and we considered it right to let them know before they went there what we thought were the limits within which it was possible for us to give them support. Otherwise they might have complained If we had not done so, and if they had come back and had rejected the terms, they might have said, "Why did you not tell us that before we went?" Therefore there was no time to lose. We accept the reaponsi-

689
bility, and we do not in the slightest degree recede from it.
I think that the House and the country will be convinced, when these despatches are published that our course of action in regard to Poland has been perfectly consistent. That there have been difficulties the events of the last week have demonstrated. The course of the British Government has been an absolutely clear one. We deprecated any action on the part of Poland that involved the invasion of the rights of any people not of their own race. They have never taken any step of invading territories outside their own frontiers that we have not protested against. We have even warned them solemnly that if they did so they could not count upon the support of British public opinion. We used the same language in January that we are using to-day. Therefore we have not deviated by a hair's breadth from the policy which has been adopted throughout upon this subject, and I regret, and I think Poland regrets, that the advice—I will not say advice, because it is hardly the word to use when you are dealing with an independent Power—I will say that the opinions then expressed were opinions which they did not accent, because if they had been deferred to they would have averted a great disaster to that country.
I must say a word before I sit down about the language that has been used in regard to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. I cannot help thinking that those who criticised his statement are men who have not taken the trouble to read the article which he wrote. The views which he expressed in that article are views which I expressed here on Tuesday last. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, No!"] I have taken the trouble to see side by side the statements in that article and the statements which I made. The language, of course, is more picturesque. I cannot command the striking language which my right hon. Friend uses, and which he has always at his disposal on these occasions. It is perfectly true that my right hon. Friend does not like Lenin and Trotsky. Does my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) approve of them? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] My right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill) does not like the despotism of the Soviet. Does my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Clynes)
690
like it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] He regarded the silence on this side when he was referring to Wrangel as a proof that Members on this side did not support the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Am I to take the silence on that side now as proving that hon. Members there approve of Soviet rule and its despotism? I again invite hon. Members who take the line of denouncing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War as if he were responsible for all these things to take the trouble to read that article, and they will find that, substantially, the proposals which he put forward are the proposals which were put forward by me on behalf of the Government in my speech on Tuesday last. [HON MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I again invite my hon. Friends to take the trouble to read that article. It will repay perusal for many reasons.
We are now about to separate. I hoped that before we separated, I should have been in a position to inform the House of Commons exactly what the actual situation is in Poland, but a terrible struggle is proceeding there at this hour, and I am afraid that we shall not know, perhaps, for some days. When the decision is reached, we must take our resolve here, calmly, upon a basis which is accepted by all. I am anxious that the unity of the nation should be preserved here, as it was when a greater issue was at stake. That is why I regret introducing, I will not say introducing, but perpetuating, any controversy. I should certainly not have done it, except that I felt bound to reply to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Clynes).
May I say in all sincerity to my hon. Friends opposite that resolutions like those taken on Friday do not help the cause of peace? May I point out to them why? They arouse a deep fear and anxiety in the minds of millions of people in this country as to what all this means, and fear is the most prolific cause of war. They threaten the people of this country with the very consequences which, I think, upset the judgment of Polish statesmen. I ask them to reflect upon that. The fear, it may be an unreasoning fear, that democratic institutions are to be subverted, that some new tyrannical idea is to be imposed by force of arms, disturbs the balance of the minds, not

691
merely of statesmen, but of the people behind them. There was nothing that conduced more to revolutionary wars than that fear which thrilled and frightened Britain. I ask them not to repeat that experiment. Resolutions of that character create a new dread in the public mind. They see them, and they say, "What is it coming to?" If that is done, then when the hour for decision arrives it will be difficult to preserve that atmosphere of calm judgment which is essential if the peace of the world is to be preserved.

MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.

  IRELAND.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The Debate so far has been confined to the two Front Benches, and I hope it will not be considered an indiscretion or an indelicacy if I venture to introduce another topic. The eyes of my right hon. Friend and the eyes of both Front Benches seem at the present moment to be at the ends of the earth. Poland and events in Poland are very important, but I suggest that what has happened, what is happening, and what may happen in Ireland is every whit as important, even more important, than what is happening in Poland. The war in Poland and the negotiations that are proceeding in Poland are important to Europe; but events have happened, negotiations are taking place, and events may happen in Ireland which may have a much more important effect, and be of much more immediate and direct interest to the people of this country than anything that may possibly under any circumstances happen in Poland. I will only make one comment on the Debate which has proceeded so far, and it is this, that there is a Coalition as regards office and responsibility, but it is a coalition which is confined to some Members and some parties in this House. The Debate has proved so far that on this question, as has happened on many other questions during the term of office of this Parliament, there is on policy a real and effective coalition which extends to the whole House.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Certainly not.
  Mr. SCOTT: My hon. and gallant Friend says "Certainly not." I was present at a Debate last Tuesday when this question of Poland was raised, and the policy of the Government was challenged. There was not a single Member opposite
  692
  who thought it proper to go to a Division on that subject. They accepted the policy of the Government; they ranged themselves behind it; and they are now preparing a "Council of Action" in order to enable the Government to enforce the policy it has declared. Those of us who have studied the policy of the Prime Minister with regard to all matters affecting Russia, from the time of Prinkipo, through the spring of last year up to the present, have observed that he has been putting forward, and has striven for a perfectly consistent policy, and that the policy he puts forward to-day is the logical outcome of the policy he has insisted upon all the time. I am not so alarmed as others with regard to this so-called "Council of Action." There is nothing new in it. They are merely repeating the policy of a certain type of newspaper. All along it has been the policy of such newspapers to find out what is to be done, and then to come out a day in advance to declare that unless that thing is done something terrible will happen! The policy of the Council of Action in this particular matter is the policy of the "Skibbereen Eagle."
  What I want to refer to particularly is the Irish question. There are many Members on these Benches who take the most serious and grave view with regard to the situation in Ireland. Last week, when we were discussing a Bill relating to Ireland, a number of my hon. Friends had Amendments on the Paper. We had no opportunity of speaking in support of them, owing to the operation of the guillotine. Those of us who had put those Amendments down were not hostile in any sense to the policy of the Government, for we were supporters of the policy of the Government as we understood it, as embodied in the Government of Ireland Bill and in the further willingness of the Prime Minister to go beyond that policy, if the Government could find anyone willing to negotiate with them. We regarded it as a case calling for expedition. We desired to suggest that this House should not adjourn without proceeding, so far as it could, to carry out the whole policy of the Government with regard to Ireland.
  If it were desirable to retain this House in session because of events in Poland, I submit that it was many times more important, in view of the gravity of the issues, and in view of the dreadful and

  693
  bitter guerilla war going on in Ireland, that the House should have remained in Session to decide whether it would support any policy of remedial measures with regard to Ireland. I am glad that it will now be possible for the Government during the Recess to call this House together expeditiously. What is to happen in the two months between now and 19th October? Those two months may be of vital importance. Are we to have merely a policy of coercion? Is any other policy being promoted in the meantime? Are any negotiations taking place? What is the present situation? Is it in hand? Have the Government found any readiness on the part of any section to negotiate with them? Can we have an assurance that in the meantime the Government will have thought out its full policy during the Recess, and that when we meet again in October, the Government will be prepared to proceed forthwith with its remedial policy for Ireland?
  It has been a favourite device, when hon. Members opposite have criticised the policy of the Government, to stump them with the query, "What is your policy?" The Government's policy does not obtain much enthusiastic support in Ireland. Suppose that daring the next two months no considerable body of opinion appears in Ireland willing to support any policy of the Government. Are we to accept that as a non possumus? The Government cannot throw the burden of policy on others, either on hon. Gentlemen opposite or upon the people of Ireland. The Government must take the responsibility of deciding what is the right policy, and of proceeding with it experimentally in Ireland. I am sure they will have to do that in the long run. There have been various announcements in the Press during the last day or two that some pronouncement with regard to Ireland was to be made to-day. I have listened to the speeches of both my right hon. Friends in the hope that some such pronouncement would be made. I see that the Chief Secretary for Ireland is present. I think a pronouncement of such a kind ought to come from the Prime Minister. I hope my right hon. Friend will find it possible to give us some indication of how matters stand in Ireland.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I can only answer the question by leave of the House, and I shall do it in a very few sentences.
  694
  I hope I have made it quite clear what our position is with regard to remedial measures for Ireland. The Government have made certain proposals in order to meet Irish public opinion. I have on more than one occasion gone beyond that, and have said that, subject to three clear and definite conditions, we were prepared as a Government to discuss with any body which could claim to represent Irish opinion, any proposals which they put forward, which in their judgment would satisfy Irish opinion. I agree that the fact that Irish opinion accepts a proposal is in itself an element in the merits of the proposal itself.
  These conditions are: First of all, that the six counties which represent the North-East of Ulster must be accorded separate treatment. The second is that under no conditions will we assent to any proposal which will involve, directly or indirectly, the secession of Ireland, or any part of Ireland, from the United Kingdom. The third is—though hardly in a different category I put it separately in order to make it clear—that we could not agree to anything that would involve any detraction from the security of these islands and their safety in days of war. That is so important a matter that, although it might be said to be included in the second condition which I have laid down, I think it is essential that we should dwell upon it as something which is distinct and apart. Subject to those three conditions, which have been laid down from time to time, we should certainly be prepared to consider any proposals brought forward by any responsible persons who claimed to have behind them Irish public opinion. My hon. Friend asked me whether there are any negotiations. We have had no response to that invitation, clear and definite, from an authoritative quarter.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does not the third condition rule out Sinn Fein?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I should hope not. That is a matter for themselves. If they accept it, well and good. I should be very sorry if any condition would rule out the majority of the Irish people. For the moment they are undoubtedly claiming to speak on behalf of the majority of the Irish people. If they are prepared frankly to accept these conditions, we are quite prepared to discuss any proposal they put forward.

  RUSSIA AND POLAND.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I want frankly to face the challenge which the Prime Minister has made, and I would like to supplement what my hon. Friend has said with regard to Ireland. I would repeat my previous statement which, since I made it, has brought an abundance of evidence to confirm it. The Prime Minister knows that there are taking place in Ireland daily conferences of representative men, men who hitherto have refused to have anything to do with the Dominion form of Government. I frankly admit that the information he has given to-day is not inconsistent with the previous statement he has made. If I would suggest anything it would be that the Government should decide not to go on with their present Bill. Whilst these statements are being made they are inconsistent with the Bill which is now before the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] They are inconsistent, or, let me put it in this way, they are not accepted as consistent by the Irish people. I think the best evidence would be for those who share that view to continue to influence Irish opinion, as I believe it is being influenced to-day. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin laid down a general line of policy to those of us who were associated with Friday's proceedings. He said that he had read with amazement and dismay the decision because of the possible consequences. No one is a greater constitutional authority than the Noble Lord. I sat through the last Parliament and the previous Parliament, and I never remember the Noble Lord taking exception to the unconstitutional doctrines which were preached inside the House, and outside of it by himself and others on the Welsh Church Bill. The Noble Lord and the Member for Oxford then threatened to lead a revolt.
  Lord R. CECIL: No. no!
  Mr. THOMAS: I hope the Noble Lord will look up his speeches on that subject. Hon. Members who were in the House during that time will remember the attitude of the Noble Lord.
  Lord R. CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is a very serious charge to make. I have no re-collection of ever having said anything
  696
  which could possibly even be twisted into such a statement. I think if my right hon. Friend will look the matter up, he will see that I never said anything more than to use very strong language about the measure itself, and language which I do not repent now.
  Mr. THOMAS: I am quite sure the Noble Lord does not repent it, and I am quite sure it was construed by others in the way I have said, and certainly if it was not intended it could, at any rate, be easily so construed.
  Lord R. CECIL: No!
  Mr. THOMAS: I freely accept the Noble Lord's intimation that so far as he was concerned he never intended in any language that was used to be unconstitvutional in his position.
  Lord R. CECIL: I never suggested anything like revolt.
  Mr. THOMAS: The worst that could be said about it is, I suppose, that it was a theological revolt. But so far as unconstitutional action was concerned, I will quote other authorities in the House. The Prime Minister himself warned these Benches against those dangers. Was not the passive resistance movement a revolt against the constitution of the country. I would ask the House to judge as to whether deliberate defiance of an Act of Parliament is not an unconstitutional act. I go further and I would ask the Leader of the House, the Lord Privy Seal, if he does not remember the far more dangerous doctrine preached from these Benches when the Curragh revolt took place and when officers refused to obey the King's Regulations. I well remember when the question was raised the present Lord Privy Seal, from this box at which I am, speaking on behalf of the whole of the Conservative party and speaking as Leader of the Opposition, said that those officers were not only justified but were entitled to obey the dictates of their own consciences and to refuse to obey the King's Regulations. I was sitting below the Gangway on the opposite side, and I immediately asked whether the same policy would apply to a private soldier in the case of an industrial dispute, and the Lord Privy Seal answered at once by saying "Yes." I quote those facts as showing that, so far as constitutional action is concerned, we at least are not

  697
  the first party to raise it. Incidentally, if any further evidence were required I need go no further than the present Lord Chancellor and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson), and nothing that was said at Friday's conference equals the treason preached by those responsible people.
  Mr. PALMER: The old game.
  Mr. THOMAS: Probably the hon. Member is a much better hand at the "old game" than I am. I am going to say quite clearly that the issue of Friday does raise, and I want to submit it to the House quite honestly, a constitutional issue. I could easily have said something entirely different from what the resolution actually conveys; but I was entitled not only to say what it contained, but what it exactly meant. I frankly admit that I have been, up to this moment, a consistent and persistent opponent of direct action. At every conference I have always declared that to ask men to strike for what they could gain by a vote in a ballot box is wrong and inconsistent, and upon that ground I have always opposed direct action. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether that issue is consistent with the statement he himself made, that he and his colleagues not only had striven for peace, but that there is no inconsistency or divergence of views between him and the Secretary of State for War. We heard the Prime Minister's statement last week, and I will read a paragraph from an article by the Secretary of State for War, and we then can see as to the consistency of the two views. This is from the article in the "Evening News":
  "If the Germans were able to render such service not by reckless military adventures or with ulterior motives, they would unquestionably have taken—"
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): Read a little earlier.
  Mr. THOMAS: Anywhere you like.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Read from the paragraph beginning
  "It would be open to the Germans,"
  and then you will get the sense of the paragraph you were about to read.
  Mr. THOMAS: I will read the whole paragraph—
  "It would be open to tie Germans either to sink their own civilisation in the general Bolshevik welter and spread the reign of
  698
  chaos far and wide throughout the Continent, or, on the other hand, by a supreme effort of sobriety and firmness, by self-restraint and courage … to build a dyke of peaceful, lawful, efficient strength and virtue against the flood of the red barbarism flowing from the East. … If Germany were able to render such a service not by reckless military adventure and without ulterior motives, they would unquestionably have taken a giant step on that path to self-redemption which would lead them surely and swiftly as the years pass by to their own great place in the councils of Christendom, and would have rendered easier the sincere co-operation between Britain, Prance and Germany, on which the very well-being of Europe depends."
  I notice the general acceptance of that in' concurrence with the general election cry of no more trading with the Germans, and with the cry upon which the Government were to turn. I ask how many Members preached that policy to the electorate at the General Election. Incidentally, I want to ask the Prime Minister how it squares with his policy? That is a direct invitation to the Germans to repudiate Russia. It is a direct incentive to make the Russian people mistrustful of us, and at a time when the Prime Minister was himself negotiating with the representatives of the Russian people. How can the Prime Minister square those words with the fact that when they were written he was meeting representatives of the Soviet Government? If the danger was Russia, as the Secretary of State for War says, and if those people were so wicked and dangerous that they could not be trusted, and if we had to rely on our former enemy to come to the rescue, where is the consistency of the Prime Minister's position in negotiating at that time with the representatives of the Russian people. It goes beyond that, and rather suggests, and this is why I regret it, that the Russian people and the representatives of the Russian Government are entitled to say now that if the Prime Minister's views are the views of his-colleagues, there is something very insincere in the negotiations that are taking place. I am afraid that is the construction that they at least will put on it. Lord Curzon, speaking on 5th May, declared what were the Government's views with regard to Russia. The Russian Minister acknowledged that on the 21st May, and said:
  "The Russian Government will consider in a most friendly spirit proposals of amnesty for Whit Guard remnants which

  699
  the British representative will put forward during the pending Armistice negotiations."
  That was in May, and it was when Denikin was in trouble and when we were making representations to the Russian people to help Denikin merely because he was in trouble. Are they not justified now in saying "we interpreted your anxiety for an armistice or your anxiety for peace not only as applicable to one section but as applicable to every section who are attacking the Russian people."?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not see where is the complaint of my right hon. Friend. It was purely a proposal—to use the very words of the article—" to set up a peaceful, lawful, patient barrier against Soviet principles in Germany." We hope to set up that peaceful barrier against Soviet principles in this country, and if it is to be said that it is inconsistent to negotiate with the Soviet Government about Poland or about trade, then it is quite inconsistent at the same lime to set up a barrier against Soviet principles. I have no hesitation in saying that we shall certainly put up a peaceful barrier against Soviet principles.
  Mr. THOMAS: The Prime Minister's ingenuity was never displayed with greater effect, but it will leave the Russian people cold. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which Russian people? There are fifty millions of them."] The question is asked, Which Russians? That is an answer for the Government not recognising anybody. I am merely dealing with the fact that, while the Secretary of State for War says that, in his opinion, the Russian Government and their methods are so dangerous that Germany should be used as a dyke against them—
  The PRIME MINISTER: A peaceful dyke.
  Mr. THOMAS:—at the same time the British Government are negotiating with these same dangerous people. The House can draw their own conclusions. The Russian people are entitled to be suspicious when those methods are employed against them. I have read as much of the information about Russia as I can obtain. I have not hesitated to say that, so far as Soviet methods are concerned, I personally do not agree with them. I do not agree with either Lenin or Trotsky,
  700
  but that does not prevent me from saying that if the Russian people believe in it, that is their business. I say that the action of the British Government in these matters is calculated, not to weaken the Bolshevik Government, but to strengthen it. I say that of their action all through, by saying that they were not going to sup port Poland, on the one hand, and then, on the other, in sending munitions and raw materials to them.
  Mr. BILLING: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is his wish, as representing the Labour party, to weaken or to strengthen the Bolshevist Government by their action?
  Mr. THOMAS: I am not concerned with weakening or strengthening the Bolshevist Government, but I am concerned with preventing this country wasting money and material that it can well do with itself, and I believe the better Way is to frankly and fully recognise the Soviet Government. I believe it will tend to an earlier and speedier peace, and I believe the best way to do that is, regardless of whether Poland accepts a reasonable peace, as outlined by the Prime Minister. I agree entirely to the independence of Poland, but if Poland refuses what this Government has already said would be a reasonable and fair peace, then it is the business of Great Britain—and I hope the Government will insist on it—to have nothing more to do with the Polish situation, but to fully recognise Russia in every respect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which Russia?"] That, I believe, is the view of the overwhelming mass of the British people. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There is only one way of testing it—[HON. MEMBERS: "A General Election!"]—and no one will welcome that more than we.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In the event of the independence of Poland being really threatened, will the right hon. Gentleman then object to any naval or military intervention?
  Mr. THOMAS: I can only say that I have heard the clear and specific statement made by the Prime Minister, which clearly answers that question, and if these people lie, and if their word cannot be relied on, if they violate the pledge that they make, then it is for us not blindly to follow anybody, but to deal with the situation as it then arises. That is, at

  701
  least, the answer we get from that Bench. I submit that it is unfair to be subjected to these questions. I now proceed to ask the Prime Minister this specific question. Ho challenged my right hon. Friend to say how the discussion with the League of Nations would have altered the Polish situation in any way. He gave what ho called the free, frank interchange of views that took place at Hythe. I would ask him to remember what took place last Wednesday night in this House when he was asked by my right hon. Friend (Sir Donald Maclean) if there was any truth in the French statement that was then reported. The Prime Minister said that he could hardly believe it was true. He entirely discredited it because, as he said, he could not conceive, after what happened at Hythe, the thing being true. How can he reconcile that statement with the "free and frank discussion" which took place? How can you talk about free and full discussion two days before when the right hon. Gentleman had to admit himself that he could not conceive of France taking the action she did? Therefore I answered by saying that in a League of Nations, with all countries represented, there could not have been the misunderstanding that apparently arose. At all events, it could not have been with more disastrous results. It is because, in spite of all that has taken place, in spite of the Prime Minister's stating that we are forcing an open door, there was and is in this country a great mass of working class opinion that believes that we might easily have drifted into war, and that war would have been disastrous. It is because we believs that, and because we believe, with the Prime Minister, that peace is the one essential that, serious as would be a national strike, we believe that of the two alternatives the national strike would be the lesser of the two evils.
  Mr. SEDDON: I have listened carefully to the whole of the discussion, and, if I am not under a delusion, I think that this Debate will rank as high as any in the history of the House. I have no desire to follow my right hon. Friend in his tu quoque arguments. He refers to the passive resisters and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson), but he seemed to forget that this discussion touches the particular constitution of this country, and he lays down the principle that a faction in democracy is greater than the country as
  702
  a whole. I sincerely regret that last Friday's decision was taken. I challenge those who were at that conference to say that they represent even the 6,000,000 organised workers of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!] Wherever the cheers come from, I have stated a fact, and if the cheers do not come from that side it is because they evidently do not like the fact. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the trade unionists who are cheering you."] Speaking for myself, and there are some members who know I have done something for trade unionism, I am convinced they do not represent the 6,000,000 organised workers, nor even a substantial minority of them, when it laid down the doctrine that the trade union movement was greater than the mass of the citizens, and that democracy came second to the trade union movement of this country. I want to point out to my right hon. Friend and others opposite—and, after all, it has got to be said—that it is well to analyse the 23 names who have now been constituted this great super-authority to have the power of life and death over 45,000,000, who in their wisdom, expressed at the Central Hall, can say to 45,000,000 people, "We, the 23 wise men of England, have decided that you must stop the wheels of industry and starve the people into submission"—what the German hordes could not do during five years of war. In the early days of the War my right hon. Friend the Member for the Platting Division (Mr. Clynes) took a very heroic part, and he knows very well that I and a few others took the platform outside in defence of his character and the action he had taken during the War. The majority of the people who are now his associates were the people who were opposed to the War.
  Mr. CLYNES indicated dissent.
  Mr. SEDDON: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I will give him the names if he likes, because I took the trouble to read them very carefully yesterday. When he and a few others were trying to uphold the honour of this country, they were being assailed by these very men who are his colleagues to-day—the men who were responsible for the League of Democratic Control, the Conscientious Objectors' League, and all the other organistions of that kind. We were out to see to it that the right bon. Gentleman and his Friends should at

  703
  least have it stated to the workers of this country what the reasons for standing by this country when she was fighting for her existence.
  Mr. LAWSON: Where were you?
  Mr. SEDDON: I was where age put me, and not in a Y.M.C.A. camp looking after the comforts of the troops.
  Mr. LAWSON: The hon. Gentleman has made an insinuation that I was at a Y.M.C.A. camp. I want to tell him that he knows very well I was a driver in the Field Artillery, and he and his party fought me as an ex-soldier at Chester-le-Street, and got 5,000 out of 23,000.
  Mr. SEDDON: I never made any insinuation against the hon. Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I withdraw as far as he is concerned, but there are a number of men now his associates who were connected with Y.M.C.A. camps abroad, and who seemed to think they were fighting the battles of their country. It was doing a good work, but it was not fighting. I made the observation, and if the hon. Member took it to himself, I fully withdraw as far as he himself is concerned, but these people, when we were fighting for our very lives, were the people who were giving all the support they could to Germany. In 1917, at the Labour Party Conference at Manchester, what was the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. A. Henderson)? He was then being mercilessly pursued by the very people who are responsible for the creation of this Council of 23. Then the right hon. Gentleman's friends thought it was wise to leave the Coalition Government, and they have been taken into which fold? The fold of the majority of men who are on that Council, and who are the bitterest opponents of this country, and if they had had their way, Germany would be dictating terms to us so, if these people who were prepared to deluge this country with blood in the interests of the Germans are in charge of this Council, what do we find? They were not conscientious objectors because they objected to the shedding of blood, but because they objected to the shedding of German blood, or of their own precious blood, but now, to assume over the
  704
  democracy of this country the authority of a minority, they are prepared to bring about a general strike, which must mean that the country must defend its constitution, and those who are willing to be constitutionalists, no matter what happens so far as the workers in the trade unions are concerned.
  After all, a general strike is a declaration of civil war, and civil war means-the killing of women and children, and the killing of the women and children of our own flesh and blood, and I say that any body of men, however responsible they may be in the trade union movement, who, having the machinery of democratic government, and who, by converting? the electorate, can turn out the present Government and place themselves in power; any body of men in these circumstances who would even suggest a means whereby civil war would become a reality, are assassinating democracy, they are destroying liberty, and they will only become the shedders of the blood of the women and children of their own country. I regret to have to make this speech in this House. I am not particular about electoral consequences. I have gone through and lost what is dear to honourable men, namely, friendship with men whom I have admired through life I have done it for the political convictions I hold, and in delivering this speech I may have aroused the ire of some of my still existing friends, but I say, by the living God that made me, that I could not sit in this House a silent Member, and listen to revolutionary talk preached by the leaders of Labour without offering my voice in vehement protest.
  Captain O'GRADY: It is always an undesirable thing for old friends on either side to make speeches against their former colleagues. The hon. Member who has just sat down is a very old friend of mine, and I should be very reluctant to say anything to offend his feelings, but the exhibition to which we have just been treated is very ill-deserved. As a matter of fact, I knew him many years ago, when many of the things he has spoken against to-night he backed for all he was worth. He has talked about a general strike, but I have a knowledge of the fact that my hon. Friend has backed that more than once when some of us, including myself, have been against it, and his change of view is rather astonishing

  705
  at this particular moment. In regard to the Council of Action, my hon. Friend knows that time after time, in industrial crises, there are bound to be conferences of this character, and conferences after all are given a mandate, that is to say, they are sent to discuss questions on the agenda with power to act as they think fit. At this particular time, having regard to the fact that the large bulk of our Members are making munitions of war, which we still think are going to be diverted to be used in Poland, or for the help of General Wrangel, we thought we should at least attempt to take a certain course of action. This talk of revolution is all very well on the face of it. It is a fine story for newspapers and platforms, but my hon. Friend will agree with me that after all the men who form the Council of Action have got some sense of responsibility and know what they are doing. If the Government tell us not to do a thing in the sense in which they have told us to-night, using this tosh about sledge hammers and open doors, and things of that kind, for my part, if there is anything that would make me do what they did not want me to do, it is that kind of talk However, we have been in a responsible position, and we are going to see that the resolution is carried out as the conference believes it should be carried out.
  This subject is an intrusion in the Debate that I scarcely expected, for I thought we were meeting to discuss the Amendment to the Motion on the Paper. So far as I am concerned, I am not going to contest that Amendment at all. On the contrary, I think it is a policy that we would all desire. Certain statements have been made to-day from the Front Bench opposite in regard to their attitude towards Poland. I have been do-lighted to hear that that has been their attitude all the way along. I had not recognised it, and I do not think the people of this country recognised that that was their attitude all the way along. In fact, there have been numerous newspapers pointing out the contrary, and it is only at the last moment, when this door has been beaten open by the sledgehammer, that they have made that declaration. The documents show that the independence of Poland was never in jeopardy. There are documents in the archives of the Foreign Office proving that conclusively. We are suspicious now. I think
  706
  I speak for every hon. Member on these Benches when I say that and when I say that we are not going to adopt any different policy until that suspicion has been absolutely removed. We are going to make sure, as far as we are concerned, that there is going to be no war with Russia on any pretext whatever, indirect or direct. We have not heard yet what is the position of General Wrangel. It has come to us, I suppose on almost as good authority as Government sources, that there are still being munitions used by General Wrangel for nefarious purposes against the Soviet Government, and that in spite of the fact that the Allies themselves about six weeks ago made provisions for the surrender of General Wrangel. Those provisions were, in my judgment, very generous, but what do we find? In spite of that decision, come to, I think, at Spa, with regard to the surrender of General Wrangel, he is fighting more ferociously than ever, and the suspicion in our minds is that he is backed by one or other of the Allies. If our Government has nothing to do with it, good luck to them, but we are still suspicious, and that is my point.
  It will be said that we have no right to have that suspicion, but there is suspicion all the way round. Declarations have been made publicly, both before the Congress of last Friday and since then, from the Soviet Government, and yet the British Government are still suspicious that something is going to happen in Minsk, and if that happens, they will collect all the forces they can in order to help the Polish Government I do not think negotiations can go on between two Governments when that suspicion remains. Finally, I want to say quite frankly, as a member of that Council of Action, that I will agree with my colleagues up to the time when this cloud of suspicion is swept aside and when there is no possibility of this country being jockeyed or engineered into war in the case of this controversy going on between Poland and Russia. I would it were possible to publish the documents that are in existence. I do not suppose they ever will be, but if that story was told I venture to say that all the blame would not be on the Soviet Government but the blame would remain elsewhere, and I am perfectly certain that when the story is told, as much as can be told, the people of this country will justify the Labour

  707
  movement in the action they took last Friday.
  Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Before dealing for a moment with the question of Poland as regards the Poles themselves, I should like to offer this comment on the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He has convinced the House, I think, that on a mere suspicion he has been prepared to throw over his constitutionalism and to range himself on the side of those who, however you may choose to describe them, have set up an imitation of a Soviet Council of Action. It is something which we ought to remember, and I hope the hon. Gentleman in future will regret the speech he has just made in trying to excuse the inexcusable. I want to say one word on behalf of Poland, as it is time, I think, that something was said on behalf of a people to whom this country owes a very great deal, who have always been friendly to this country, and against whom, for some extraordinary reason, the Labour party in this country appear to have a vendetta at this moment. When General Denikin and Admiral Koltchak were fighting the battle of constitutional Russia, Lenin and Trotsky issued a message to the Russian people that when they had destroyed Denikin and Koltchak they were going to turn their attention to Poland. That has been forgotten by those who have not made a very long study of this question, but have apparently taken up their party attitude on the situation of the last month or two Russia was at war with Poland long before the Polish advance took place. That is another fact which is forgotten by the Labour party. The Poles, wisely or stupidly, decided, on first-hand information that the Bolsheviks were going to attack them, to hit first at the power which had sworn to destroy them.
  That is another fact which the people of this country ought to remember, and I submit that it we bad realised these facts, then it is the sheerest cant to suggest that the Poles were the aggressors. They took what is the ordinary military precaution when you are at war—I admit, so far as the evidence goes to show, a most unwise decision—to hit before they were hit in greater numbers and before the enemy were concentrated. Poland is a republic with a very wide franchise. It has a democratic Government Most
  708
  loyally have the Poles fought for us all through the Great War. Part of Poland at the commencement of the War was German, part was Russian, and part was Austrian. Germany naturally mobilised all the Poles she could, and the Russians mobilised all their Poles, and the consequence is that this poor little people has been practically wiped out, so far as the most vigorous part of its manhood is concerned. The War has raged over Poland again and again, recurring with almost the regularity of tides, ever since 1914, and to suggest that these people desire war, when no country in the whole world has lost so much as the Poles, is absurd. It is obvious that no country would desire less to have prolonged warfare than the people of Poland. Poland has been our ally, and when at last she is free and has become a democratic country, when she has shaken off what hon. Gentlemen here would call the shackles of autocracy, we now find the British Labour party entirely ignoring the fact that she is a little country and that she was not the aggressor, and for some extraordinary reason has been influenced, I am sure, by some power outside this country which has brought propaganda to bear, and made them believe that this torn and bleeding country Las become a capitalistic aggressor.
  I want to say one word with regard to the speech of the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). He made much at that box of the sins of others. He quoted the Prime Minister, the Lord Privy Seal, the leader of the Ulster party, and the Lord Chancellor. But he has also, I believe, in the past spoken with great sincerity when declaiming against the right hon. Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson). Did he not then mean what he said, or does he think that, by adopting measures which" he has deplored in the past, he is going to excuse the action of last Friday by raying, "I too have become a sinner"? I think, with regard to the Ulster situation, which is rather old history, the possibility occurred of British officers having to take action and to fire against their fellow-countrymen, which was rather a different situation from that with which we are faced to-day. In that case I think every single officer resigned his commission in order that he might not be asked to obey such an order.
  Mr. SPENCER: Would you allow the private to do the same in a strike?
  Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: I say that every one of you ought to resign your seats, because you have taken an oath at that Table that you will bear true allegiance to His Majesty, and you have set up a Soviet Government which is a rival of this Parliament.
  Mr. WIGNALL: It is untrue.
  Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: The right hon. Member for Derby himself declared on Friday that this was a challenge against the whole constitution of this country, and those hon. Members who have taken the constitutional oath sit there on those Benches and seem to think they have done something which hardly calls for attention. The right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) said he took exception to the action of the Prime Minister in not publishing his conversation with one or two other of the Prime Ministers, and the right hon. Member for Platting said he would oppose Lenin and Trotsky also if they acted without the consent of the elected representatives. What is the use of talking in this House about elected representatives in Russia, when the right hon. Gentleman knows there is no such thing? Is the Labour party aware, or is it not aware, that the Constituent Assembly in Russia has been destroyed, that the Duma no longer exists, the will of the people has been obliterated, and they axe ruled by those who hold sway by the most brutal military system ever known, and who can only keep power by the sword? That is the fact, and I do not think anyone would dispute it for a moment.
  With regard to France, it is an extraordinary fact that, in the last year, we have been gradually losing our friends. I realise there are alwaysgreat difficulties in discussions of this kind, but it does seem deplorable that, though we ended the War absolutely the supreme Power of the whole world, looked up to by all our Allies, at the present time we appear to be getting more and more unpopular with those who have been our friends. I do urge that we should do nothing to impair our friendship with our Allies, and more especially our friendship with France. France, after all, has made it perfectly clear from the very start, that, so far as her statesmen were concerned, they did not want to have anything to do with the Bolshevists. Time and again, when advances have come from other
  710
  quarters, France has made it very clear that she would not have any truck or lot with the Bolshevists whatever. Let us also remember, when we are criticising our friends in France, that several months ago they stated perfectly clearly that they were going to support General Wrangel, provided certain conditions were accepted, and, therefore, do not let us imagine that this is some new situation. France has been consistent. I think the right hon. Gentleman speaking from the Front Bench this afternoon had some cause to complain. I agree that our policy with regard to Russia has been a wobble from start to finish. I entirely agree that, unless we saw that the Soviet Government were absolutely determined to wipe out the Polish people and their independence, we could not possibly intervene; but we should not have reached this situation if the Government had known where they were from the very first. At times they would not shake the hand—I am not sure it was not the bloody hand—of these people, and to-day we have conferences, and so on. We must first decide one way or the other. Either you have got to recognise the Soviet Government or have nothing to do with them. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that you cannot go on with this policy of repudiation on the one hand, and coffee-housing with Mr. Kameneff on the other. The issue raised by the Conference on Friday last is so grave that, as a humble individual, I can only say that if that kind of policy is going to be pursued by the Labour party, all those who are Constitutionalists, though they may not agree with everything the Government may do, will be prepared to drop everything else in order to support the King's Government in seeing that a rival institution is not set up which is really a challenge to the constitution, and which, if persisted in, can only lead to a clash between the people of this country and to civil war, and, therefore, can only lead to the complete misery of all the people who make up this country.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. SEXTON: I am not going to follow the last speaker through all the phases of his argument, but there is one point to which I will refer, and that is our alliance with France. I agree with him that an alliance with France is an advantage to this country, but if France is to call the tune, and we are to pay the piper, then

  711
  it alters the situation very considerably In this case France is calling the tune, and I think it will be apparent to the hon. and gallant Member himself that, without our assistance financially, France could not go on supporting General Wrangel. Therefore, if we are to pay we should call the tune that suits us best. I protest against the description of the Labour party as a Soviet party. Like the right hon. Member for Derby, I am one of those who have not much faith in the the Soviet Government. It may be good or bad; it does not commend itself to me. I am not in favour of military despotism. I do not care where it is, and under what circumstances it is created. But I do say that the Russian people are the best judge of that. I regret sincerely the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Mr. Seddon). He and myself have been associated with the Labour movement for more years, I was going to say, than I care to remember. He has held a position of responsibility in a trade union movement; but the difference of opinion to-night will not interfere with that, friendship, so long as the opinions are honestly held. I would, however, remind him when he says that the vote of the Conference on Friday represents only 6,000,000 people, against 45,000,000 that that is not a fair argument to use. The 45,000,000 people that he quotes represent men, women, and children. The 6,000,000 represented at the Conference may be multiplied by 3 at least—[HON MEMBERS: "More"]—and therefore they represent 24,000,000. The hon. Member for Hanley cries "Question." Nobody in this House or outside would question my attitude on this matter. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I take some credit for having converted the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hanley to a pro-Britisher, because he was not that at the beginning of the War. I want to assure him now that he is out of touch with the whole Labour movement of this country, and that he does not know in the least what is going on.
  I am against direct action, and in connection with our own domestic troubles I shall be against it again when this matter is over. The Prime Minister made a Statement to the effect that there was no time to waste. That is our position.
  712
  There is no time to waste. I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister himself, from my own experience of the country, that those men who are opposed to Bolshevism and would to morrow protest against being allied with Bolshevism are solid behind the vote of last Friday on the question of war. They are not concerned about Russia or Poland. I do not suppose they are concerned for a moment about the independence of Poland. What they are concerned about is that under no circumstances shall this or any other Government compel them to go to war with any country. That is the feeling that has united the Trade Union movement of this country. I had reasons for this given all last week from men actively opposed to each other. The united opinion of the rank-and-file is that war under any circumstances must stop. Although they are anti-direct actionists they are prepared to use the industrial weapon on this occasion and vote for stopping the war. That is the whole position so far as the vote of the last conference is concerned. They view with some suspicion the attitude of the Government towards Russia, and they are not without suspicion as to munitions going to Poland, and that they consider has united the Russian people. The Prime Minister's memory is a good friend to him no doubt; but I would like to call his attention to one passage in the article of the Secretary for War which has not been quoted here to-night, a passage which struck me very much when I read it. I am glad that the Prime Minister has just returned to the House, so that I may quote this particular statement to him from the article. This is the statement:
  "Peace with Soviet Russia means another form of war."
  That utterance struck me as the most remarkable statement in the article, and this was written at a time when delicate negotiations were going on between the Prime Minister and the Soviet representatives. I am not enamoured of Soviet Government. I do not believe that under any circumstances it can find a home in this country. I sincerely trust it will not find a home, but at the same time it is the business of the Russian people as to what kind of government they will have. We have no right to interfere. I may repeat now that the Prime Minister is here that

  713
  the power behind the Vote of last Friday was not the question of whether you go to war with Russia, or the question of Polish independence. It was a question of the opinion of men who differ on these questions against war at any time and under any circumstances.
  For this reason there is a revulsion or revolution of feeling in the Trade Union movement to-day. I am anti-direct-actionist, but the Prime Minister himself only last week made a statement. Mention was made under certain circumstances a blockade of Russia would take place, that measures would be taken in respect to Poland. The inference was that if certain circumstances occurred Russia would be blockaded, and war stores would be sent to Poland. The Prime Minister now, I say in all seriousness, probably realises that the very moment an attempt is made to involve this country in war again, at any time or under any circumstances, there will be an upheaval of the industrial population of the country. One of my consolations in this matter is that matters are tending in the direction of avoiding any trouble of this kind. For this I am thankful; because I am one of those who want to give this old country a, chance to get on her legs. I want to see the country progressing. I trust the Prime Minister with his characteristic ingenuity will find some way of dragging us out of the difficult paths.
  Sir J. D. REES: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby made a speech which left me in some doubt as to which side he really belonged. He evidently agrees with the writer who said:
  "The greatest saints and sinners have been made
  "Of proselytes from one another's trade."
  I do not know in which camp he is going to billet. I do not wish to traverse any of the ground covered by anyone else on this day at this time. All I want to say in regard to the subject we are just leaving, is that in the Eastern Division of Nottingham I venture to say they would not vote for war for the independence of Poland, and I do not think in any other part of Nottingham, nor in Derby, nor in the great Midland cities would they do so either. If the League of Nations prescribes that those who belong to that high-sounding, nebulous, perhaps hardly-existing
  714
  body—if Clause 10 prescribes—as I confess I think it does, "That the Members of the League must actually make war to protect the existing political independence of Members of the League," and its proteges—then I say, so much the worse for the League of Nations, and so much the wiser are the Americans in seeing into what a dangerous situation it may lead them; so much the more practical are the French in refusing to be guided by it on an occasion that it appears they should appeal to it, than we, who are really the advocates of it, or amongst the greater nations of the Allies, whether or not we deserve it, have the reputation of being so in favour.
  My theme is Mesopotamia. I confess that I am sorry that those who are Oriental experts in this House have so much difficulty in being heard at all, or being attended to when heard. I had an opportunity of addressing the House on this subject some months ago. I made a protest against the introduction into Mesopotamia of anything like that system of administration of which we are so proud in British India, and which may be very good for British India, but which is, amongst other things, too elaborate and far too expensive to introduce into Mesopotamia. I want the Government to give the strictest and the straightest instruction to Sir Percy Cox, who, I am sure, is the man to carry out such instructions, that he is not to he led away or guided in any way by what has been already done in Mesopotamia, but to bear in mind what have been the results.
  That admirable publication, "The Statesman's Year Book," is founded upon official information. I find this in the edition just out:
  "Until the British mandate is defined"—
  I do not think that will make things better, if the mandate is given by the League of Nations:
  "The Civil Administration set up for this country is defined to be government by military administration."
  If that was a rough-and-ready administration without going into elaborate detail it would be a very good administration, but will the House observe what it has done? They take pride in the mischief they have done:
  "Under the direction and control of Civil Commissioners there are local and political

  715
  officers of districts, on a system not unlike that of the North-west Frontier of India."
  I daresay the likeness becomes daily more and more strong to the greater and greater disgust and annoyance of the wretched Arabs who are exposed to it. I do not think the British Administration is not at the best extremely good, but they do not want it amongst the nomadic Arabs. It is much too good for them. If they are content with their second-best, why thrust upon them our best? The Year Book goes on to say:
  "The work of the Government is carried on by various departments and includes education, law, customs … municipalities, agricultural development, and so on."
  The other day I asked the Secretary for War of the condition of things upon the Lower Euphrates. He replied "that the raids were still going on." That is quite natural. Let me continue the "Statesman's Year Book":
  "Municipalities have been established wherever possible."
  Municipalities in Mesopotamia! I remember not so very long ago going up the Tigris, an unmanageable river, which forsakes its bed and makes a new one, the boat, a steamer of shallow draught, came near the banks, and the Arabs, in their light-hearted manner, loosed off their guns at the ship. Nobody in particular minded, and nobody was hurt. But the guns were loaded and I happened to be on the deck—and these are the people who are now to have municipalities established wherever possible! And:,
  "Tribal Councils set up for Tribal Districts."
  That might be all right, but observe what follows:
  "These Councils are developing"—
  no doubt greatly to the disgust of the Arabs.
  "These Councils are developing into Divisional Councils, which are charged with the expansion of railways, standardisation of weights and measures, health service, education, agriculture, and the maintenance of law and order."
  I do submit that whatever the League of Nations may prescribe in this matter, whatever may have been the arrangements made by the Anglo-French Declaration of November, 1918, that the British Government, in taking the action it does in Mesopotamia, is making itself unpopular and the Arabs uncomfortable. I am aware
  716
  that the Secretary of State for India is not really responsible for the details of this administration. Except technically, I doubt whether he is responsible at all. But in an answer to me he says that the administration "was continued with more or less inefficiency by the old Turkish Government." That inefficiency was what made that Government dear to the Turks. Hon. and gallant Gentleman make speeches here suggesting that the Arabs disliked the Turks. Well, they did, because the Turks occasionally collected a little revenue—quite small and only occasionally—and then let them alone, and, further, the Turks are their co-religionists, and they would combine with the Turks against the infidel; but it was because the Turkish administration was inefficient, from our point of view, and because the tax gatherer rarely came and tax gathering was not the regular, inevitable process to which we are alas! accustomed, that the Turks have governed Mesopotamia without any real difficulty for two or three hundred years. This is really an extremely serious matter. We want Mesopotamia. The British Government must have Mesopotamia. We have always been powerful in Mesopotamia even when the Turks were there. The British Resident in Baghdad has always been a powerful man. We must keep Mesopotamia; it is on the road to India; but we cannot keep it if we are going to have continual raids. I have no wireless telegraphic communication with Mesopotamia, but I will undertake to say that it is solely because of this high-class, first-class Anglo-Indian administration that we are having this trouble in Mesopotamia. I must turn again to the "Statesman's Year Book," which is my Holy Writ for the moment, and quote this sentence:
  "The present administration is paying its way, and in 1920 a surplus of half a million was provided for railway equipment."
  This is stated as a subject of congratulation and eulogy, but I regard it in a wholly different spirit. To make this administration, with all these incidentals of high-class, first-class democratic government, pay, is to overtax these sons of Ishmael, these Arabs of the desert. They cannot pay these taxes, and if they could they would not, and why should they? What we should do in Mesopotamia is, as far as possible, to leave the Arabs

  717
  alone, in which case they will let us alone; but if we are going to impose all these services of civilisation upon them, we shall make them our enemies, and we shall have perpetual trouble, and finally the taxpayers of this country will get restive as to our retention of Mesopotamia, although its retention is necessary to us because of our position in India. I asked the Leader of the House a question on this subject the other day. He said one of our main difficulties in Mesopotamia was the absence of unanimity as to the form of an Arab State. The less form it has the more agreeable it will be to the Mesopotamians. Then a right hon. Gentleman opposite asked the Prime Minister if he were sure that the British officials occupying high posts favoured the Government policy of establishing there an Arab State. What has happened there, I believe, is that administrators from British India have gone there and are working there. The besetting sin of these adminstrators is that they want to bring any place of which they are put in charge up to the standards of "my district" in India. I have seen it over and over again. I myself have been in charge of a district and have been British Resident in a native State, and every one of my predecessors spent his whole time in doing exactly what he ought not to do, destroying the individuality of the native State and making it like his own particular district. I will undertake to say that that is what is going on in Mesopotamia. These officers are most valuable in their own districts and are doing valuable work in India, but I do not want to see them carry on this class of administration in Arabia. I want to see these nomads let alone. Already we have seen the sham Arab Kingdom of Damascus fall and the Emir Feisal flee. It would be ridiculous to attempt to place him on the throne of Mesopotamia. His authority never extended outside the walls of Damascus, and, similarly, in Mesopotamia you may have a Government in Baghdad, and it may administer Baghdad and administer the Arab fellaheen—that is to say, those nomad Arabs who have lost the virtue of their wild state and have settled on the banks of the river and become regular cultivators. You may possibly govern them,
  718
  though they will not want municipalities or schools, but the nomads of the desert can never be governed until they lose every virtue they possess. I cannot say how I feel when I hear people talk about Arab feeling. Do people really remember that Arabia is ten times the area of the United Kingdom, with less than the population of London, that it is 2,000 miles long, and at its broadest point 1,500 miles wide? There is no one Arab voice, there is no national conscience, there is no similarity between these different tribes which could make them proper subjects for the introduction of regular government, that kind of government of which we are so proud that we insist on forcing it on everybody else, whether they want it or not. If we are going to govern this country, and it is going to fulfil the functions which we all hope it will, we must give it some very simple, unscientific administration, and we must get out of the way of judging things by percentages, or thinking the people want to go back to the good old days of Harouin al Raschid, and all that sort of nonsense, and supposing that the tribes of Harouin al Raschid's day were other than nomads though a few clever people were about the court. We must get out of our heads the idea that Mesopotamia was once the garden of the world and that it will be so again. The Turks themselves performed some very creditable feats of irrigation, and we must not run away with the idea that we are going to make these deserts blossom like the rose and turn them into everything they are not at present, and turn the people inside out, upside down, and reform them out of every semblance of that which the Almighty, I firmly believe, intended them to be. I have spoken with some vigour, and if I have succeeded in explaining what I firmly believe to be the root of the present difficulty in Mesopotamia, which is leading to the maintenance of a large army there and the spending of money which the British taxpayers can ill afford to spare—if I have succeeded in doing that, I shall not be sorry I have spoken in this way. Mesopotamia is all important because of its proximity to India.
  Let not the House think that I am going to abuse its patience by dealing at length with the subject of India, and I will say what I wish to on this subject in a few sentences. As the only Indian Civil Servant

  719
  in this House I have been placed in a very painful position. At one time I actually represented over 40,000,000 people on the Viceroy's Council for five years, and I have now been placed in a painful position as regards my friends out there and the European services because I have not expressed any opinion regarding the riots at Amritsar. I only wish to say that had I had the opportunity I should have said what I say now in the most explicit manner, that I approve of the action of Sir Michael O'Dwyer and I disapprove of the action of General Dyer, and there is no inconsistency in that. I believe that if Sir Michael O'Dwyer had not approved of the action of General Dyer and acted like a worthy successor of Lord Clive in approving first and considering afterwards, he would not have been the man to administer the Punjab, and he would not have been the great Indian administrator which he is. If this statement appears irrelevant, my excuse must be that the circumstances that led me to take this opportunity have been wholly unparalleled in character.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is delightful to hear an ex-Indian official like the hon. Member who has just spoken laying down the principle that Mesopotamia must not be administered by Anglo-Indian officials. There is always a passionate desire to run a new country on really sound lines, which are very often expensive, and if Mesopotamia is costing £30,000,000 a year it is due to the expenses which the Indian administration is forcing upon that country. I candidly admit that if I were the Government I should consider the practicability of sending out to Mesopotamia Colonel Lawrence and cutting off all telegraphic communication with that country, because I think he would develop it on satisfactory lines, and I feel it would be in the hands of a man who loved the Arabs and who definitely wanted a self-governing autonomous Mesopotamia with the least possible call upon the British Empire and the least possible drain upon our financial resources. What the hon. Baronet forgot is that Mesopotamia is not merely a question of finding jobs for officials, but one of finding dividends for shareholders in oil, and that is at the bottom of most of our trouble out there. The searching after dividends has become almost a mama. The whole world has been
  720
  mapped out into oil areas and spheres of influence, and no corner of the earth can escape their explorations and exploitations.
  With regard to the subject discussed to-night, the speech to which I listened with the greatest amount of interest was that made by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil). That speech was a real inquiry into the foundations of government, and I was particularly glad to see that the Noble Lord laid it down as a principle that there might be some justification for extra-constitutional action when it was a question of preventing war, and that if this last example of extra-constitutional action had been necessary to prevent war, it would have been justified. I think I might go even further than the Noble Lord I think there are other occasions when the citizen must puthimself above the Government, and hold it as his duty to go against the Government in order to follow out that which he believes to be right. I am content to argue this case on the grounds laid down by the Noble Lord, who said that if this was a case of stopping war the Council of Action would have been justified, and indeed, that it was the duty of every responsible citizen in this country to support action which would prevent war.
  I think there was a danger of war in the circumstances under which this Council of Action was formed. It was formed last Monday, before the Prime Minister made his speech on Tuesday. It was formed on Monday and it immediately passed a very strong resolution urging that the workers should down tools in order to prevent war. The next afternoon the Prime Minister made his speech, and not only had he that declaration before him, but that very morning he had an interview with the Council of Action in which he expressed himself perfectly frankly on this question. At that interview, as in his subsequent speeches, he laid insistent stress upon the fact that there was no guarantee of the independence of Poland. He asked what would you do if Polish independence were interfered with by the Soviet Government' While he was making that point, without the knowledge of the rest of the House, he had before him three declarations made by the Soviet Government guaranteeing not only the independence of Poland, but an undertaking that they would not force a Red Government upon them. What are we to think of the honesty of the negotiations

  721
  of the Prime Minister who will deceive this House as to the problem really before it in order to strengthen his hands for refusing peace. That was the real thing.
  He tells us now that all along he has been anxious for peace, and that he and his colleagues have been fighting and striving all along for peace. He was asked who he had been fighting for peace, but he passed that question by. Everybody knows that the person he has been fighting for peace with was his own Secretary of State for War. When dealing in this House with a series of men bound together apparently by no Cabinet responsibilities, when dealing with people who over and over again have said one thing in this House while the services outside and abroad are doing something very different. I think we were justified, even after that speech on Tuesday last, to consider that it was the duty of the citizens of this country to keep a firm hand or this Government so that she shall not go back to the perpetual series of wobblings to which we have been subjected. Ever since the Armistice the Prime Minister has tried to secure peace, and one effort after another has been made. But every time pressure has been put on him from the other side, the Secretary for War has flown over to Paris, or financial interests have got hold of him, and he has got back to the war line again. Every time he has made for peace, he has been dragged back towards war, and the workers of the country deter mined that he should not again be dragged back. As long as that risk remains the Council of Action will continue in existence to see that we are not again dragged Into the pit of war.
  We are told that the House of Commons is to adjourn. If I had my way it would not adjourn until the Minsk negotiations have come to a conclusion, and until we know where we are. Everybody knows what is likely to happen at Minsk. The French have recognised General Wrangel since the Prime Minister's speech on Tuesday last, and they are sending out a High Commissioner, although they now discover that they cannot send any troops. Yet the fact remains that General Wrangel has the support of the French Government, and he may have the support of their armed forces. The immediate effect of that will not be to strengthen Wrangel, but it will be to stiffen the backs of the Polish Government. After infinite delay
  722
  which has been put down to bad faith on the part of the Russian Government, but which was due to the natural reluctance of the Poles to go into negotiations as long as they were not quite sure of what backing they would get from the Western Powers, the Poles have reached Minsk, and they are now going to discuss the peace terms read out to the House six days ago, terms which met, I will not say with the approval, but caused astonishment to nearly all politicians in this country by reason of their generosity and moderation. The Poles are going to discuss these terms. What will be the effect of the French recognition of Wrangel on the Poles when the terms come to be discussed? The Prime Minister tells us that if the Poles accept the terms it will be all right, and there will be no more trouble. But if the Russians ask for more than these terms, and if they press on the Poles additional terms which may in his opinion interfere with the independence of Poland, if that happens, then Mr. Speaker is to call the House together and we are to discuss how we should declare war on Russia.
  But there is a third alternative which the right hon. Gentleman apparently has not thought of, or if he has thought of it, he has well concealed his thoughts. That third alternative is that the Russians may present these moderate terms, these generous terms, but the Poles may turn them down. That seems to me to be the most probable thing to happen. We can exercise no pressure on Poland. The only great Powers who can do that are France and America. Those two Powers have so far given more support to the Poles than we have, and their views will have great influence on the Polish Government. Suppose the Poles refuse the terms? What then will be the position in this country? Will the Prime Minister feel himself in a position to admit of trade intercourse with Russia? Of course we can get no answer to that now. The House will be rising in half an hour. Will the right; hon. Gentleman feel in a position to recognise the Russian Government and to follow the example of Italy, and make an end of this semi-war which we have been enjoying, but which the Russians have not been enjoying, for the last two years? If I had my way, this House should not be adjourned till that point has been made clear, and until we know for certain that if the Poles reject these

  723
  terms, the Prime Minister will feel his hands absolutely free to fully establish trade relations with and to recognise the Soviet Government of Russia.
  The right hon. Gentleman blames us for not understanding that he was always in favour of peace! I would ask anybody who can go back through the long range of negotiations and correspondence between this country and Russia during the last two years to say whether we on this side of the House are not justified in having some suspicion of the action of the present Government, and whether the Russians also may not likewise have just grounds for suspicion. Take the whole of the Wrangel episode. The whole correspondence with the Soviet Government about the Wrangel expedition has yet to be made public. I believe a considerable amount of it will be published to-morrow. I do not intend to go into that to-night. What, however, could be more damaging than, for instance, Lord Curzon's appeal to the Soviet Government in April last not to exterminate the remains of Denikin's army, the acceptance of those terms by Russia, the rest given to Wrangel, Denikin's successor in the Crimea, and his refitting, not only by the French, but by the British also since May in this year—a refitting which was denied over and over again from that Front Bench, and which has only recently been admitted. The refitting was done from Batoum. The excuse was that no munitions were sent from England. They only went to the Crimea indirectly. Wrangel was re fitted, and then when the Poles were successful, and when the Secretary for War was again jubilant that at last Bolshevism—this bloody buffoonery—was to be exterminated, then Wrangel comes forward again, not perhaps with our blessing, but with our permission, with our uniforms, with our munitions, our guns—be comes forward to help the Poles. Yet we on these Benches are expected to have implicit faith in the statement that the Prime Minister is out for peace! He may be out for peace, but he is much too weak to get it if the Secretary for War does not want him to get it.
  He told us the other day in his speech what were his conditions for peace. His speech is still within the memory of most hon. Members of this House. But let them cast their minds back to that speech.
  724
  The whole of the first half of it was devoted to developing what we should do. It was a statesmanlike speech. He assumed, all through that first part, that the Russian terms would be intolerable. He said that there was a possible chance that the Russian terms would allow a self-respecting Poland to make peace, but the whole of the first half of his speech was directed towards the possibility that those terms would not be tolerable, and that England and France together would have, somehow, to support Poland against Russia.
  Then, the second part of his speech was directed to a most offensive attack upon the Russian Government—the Government with which he hoped to make peace, and with whom he was, at that moment, in negotiation. I say frankly that, all through these negotiations, the Russian Government, whether it be justly or unjustly formed, whether it be a tyranny or a democracy—all through these negotiations the Russian Government has shown extraordinarily good faith. There is not one occasion that I can remember on which they have gone back from their words. They have stated over and over again exactly what they wanted. They have stated that they do not want to annex the border States. The people who talk about annexing the border States are the imperial people in Germany. They have recognised the independency of Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Armenia. They have done the right thing all along, and they have been doing it against the suspicions, innuendoes, and accusations of all the West of Europe. Every time they said they would do a thing, that that was their policy, they have stuck to it. The terms that were stated in this House last Tuesday might well have been modified since then. The very day they were stated in this House, or, at any rate, a day or two afterwards, France recognised General Wrangel; France was supporting General Wrangel against Russia. Think how that altered the situation so far as the Soviet Government was concerned. They might have had 80,000 French troops from Syria put into the Crimea. Did not that alter the whole military situation in Russia? Would it have been surprising if Russia had said that, since France recognised General Wrangel, since France furnished assistance for General Wrangel—would they not have been justified in saying,

  725
  in view of the increased military danger, "We said before that we would reduce the Polish army to 50,000 men"—a very generous number, as a matter of fact, if we compare the treatment of Germany by ourselves—"We said before that we would reduce the Polish army to 50,000 men, but we are very sorry that we shall have to alter those terms, and shall have to reduce the Polish army to 30,000 or 25,000 men"? That would have been perfectly natural, and I am bound to say it is what I expected. Instead of that, their representatives, after they had been approached by the Council of Action on the matter, wired to the Russians telling them on no account to modify their terms. The reply comes back to-day, "We stick to our terms. Having once laid them down, we do not propose to alter them, although the circumstances have changed in which we considered those terms suitable and proper." That is the action of a Government which I respect. However much we may disapprove of that Government because it is an autocracy, I do like a Government that sticks to its word, and I love a Government that is not imperialistic and does not want to grab other people's territories.
  It did occur to me, I must say, when I first saw those terms, that perhaps the Soviet Government proposed to annex Eastern Galicia to Russia, and to get included in Russia populations which did not desire to be Russian, but only desired to be free from the Poles. But they offered autonomy to that people. That is the right democratic thing to do. We may go on shouting till we are deaf that the Government of Russia is not democratic, but, at any rate, their foreign policy is democratic. They understand the liberties of small peoples; above all, they understand open diplomacy. In all these negotiations the Russian Government have played straight and given us a square deal. Is it too much to ask that we also should give them a square deal; that the Government should cease perpetually to sneer at the Bolshevik Government of Russia; that it should cease perpetually to twit the Labour party on these Benches with not being in accord with the ethics and morals of the Soviet Government of Russia? Is it too much to ask that the Secretary of State for War should cease contributing articles to the newspapers for two
  726
  months? It would be worth increasing his salary, if that is the difficulty. Is it impossible, now that we are approaching peace with Russia, that the people and the Press of this country should change their tone, and should try to become friendly with a pepole who, to my mind, during this last year have given an admirable example of statesmanship and moderation?
  Mr. JAMESON: I think the Government are much to be congratulated in the course which this Debate has taken. I have seldom seen a poorer case put up against the Government in this House. I think the worst that the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said about the Prime Minister was that, when he came down to the House and approached this subject of Poland, he said that only in the event of the independence of Poland being jeopardised would he intervene—not, be it noted, to make war, not to send troops, but intervene in order to assist with munitions and money, and with counsel and advice to Poland. I think that that, in the circumstances, was an extremely moderate statement. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to think that it implied a doubt as to the honesty of the Soviet Government; but at that moment the Soviet Government had not tabled their proposals for peace with Poland.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: They had tabled proposals about recognising the independence of Poland.
  Mr. JAMESON: They had not been received. It was later on that evening that the Prime Minister received those proposals. He was doing his duty by hon. Members, and telling them, when, as they thought they were dispersing, what was the only event in which any sort of assistance would be given to Poland. I think that that was a very mild thing to do, and that, in the circumstances, it did not require a great stretch of imagination to fancy that the independence of Poland might be put into some sort of jeopardy. At that time we had seen the Soviet Government of Russia indulging in procrastination after procrastination, putting oft and putting off, refusing the intervention of the Supreme Council of the Allies, and still the troops of the Red invasion pressing further and further towards the Polish capital. They are still continuing-that pressure, and certainly, in those

  727
  circumstances, the very least that the Prime Minister could possibly do was to come down to this House and say that, if a certain event happened, which was far from impossible, and is, I think, far from impossible just now—that in that event, and in that event only, he would give counsel and assistance and munitions to Poland. On the other hand, it was plain that he was not going to send troops to Poland. To go back to the arguments before that, the speech of the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) was a sort of disclaimer and apology. In the first place, he gave a guarantee of good faith for himself by saying that he had never been a supporter of direct action; and, in the second place, he said that he was not a supporter of the Soviet system. He did certainly seem to be indulging in a rather efficient imitation of the Soviet system and of direct action when he enjoined and supported a council for direct action, and when he enjoined the perfecting of a whole organisation of councils for direct action all over the country. That seems to me to bring him very near to an apostle of direct action and an apostle of Soviets.
  But he gave an apology in addition to that. He said he only indulged in what might seem an inconsistency because there was danger of war. How could he say that? All through this week-end war has been a sort of Aunt Sally that the Labour party has put up in order to batter it down. They were told time and time again last week that there was not going to be war, that at the very worst, if the independence of Poland was threatened, there would be assistance with advice and assistance with munitions, and that there would not be the assistance of troops. At least, that is my recollection. And yet in the face of that, in this tremendous hullaballoo in the country, the hon. Member thinks he is justified in threatening to subvert the constitution, calling into existence a sort of Soviet and indulging in the full policy of direct action. I could not imagine a more flimsy excuse or more serious and terrible threat than that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain O'Grady) from beginning to end was raising up a great cloud of suspicion. His only objection to the Prime Minister was the objection that Cæsar had to his wife, that she was not
  728
  above suspicion. I suppose Caesar in this case would probably be represented by Mr. Bob Smillie and the Prime Minister would represent the repudiated Calpurnia. As long as there was any suspicion weighing on the Government, as long as they did not banish from the minds of the Labour party any sort of iota of suspicion or leave anything in their imagination which could possibly incur any bad faith on the part of the Government, as long as that state of affairs survived the Labour party and the direct actionists and the council were entitled to remain as watch-dogs and threaten and bully the King's Government of this country. Again, I cannot imagine a more flimsy ground for more drastic and more subversive action than that.
  9.0 P.M.
  Then I think if you come to the worst reason of all, and the slightest reason, you come to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Thomas). As far as I could see, from beginning to end of his speech his indictment of the Government rested merely upon this, that while the Prime Minister was negotiating with Krassin and Kameneff the Secretary of State for War happened to be writing articles in an evening paper, or was it a Sunday paper, and he read the article. I had not read the article before, but I certainly was amazed. I thought the article, of which I had heard so much, as it came out from the right hon. Gentleman's mouth was a singular instance of Christian forgiveness and moderation towards the Hun, and after all, are we not rather too tender towards the susceptibilities and the sensitiveness of this Soviet Government when we think that peace may be stopped in the world and the most dire events may happen simply because the Secretary of State for War has written an article in a Sunday paper? Is not that rather extravagant? I wonder if the boot is not rather on the other leg. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Opposition Benches has read any of the sort of things that Lenin and Trotsky say about the British Government, or even about the Labour party. Of course they denounce the British Government as the most inhumane and capitalistic concern that ever was, in the grip of exploiters and profiteers of the very worst order-But even read the things they say about

  729
  hon. Members opposite. Perhaps they do not denounce them as capitalists, but they denounce them as bourgeois ruffians of the very worst kind. They may thank their stars they are in London in the House of Commons and not in Moscow. In London they are having a good time of it. They can indulge in their Council of Action and all the rest of it, but in Moscow they would be led out to instant execution. There is no doubt about that. Lenin said there was only one righteous man in Sodom, and that man, to use an Irishism, was a woman, namely, comrade Sylvia Pankhurst. She was the only woman who redeemed this ruffianly Labour party and the whole ruffianly House of Commons and the British Government altogether. If that is the sort of way they talk about us, I think that article, which for the first time I heard read out by the right hon. Gentleman, is an extremely mild retort after all.
  It is a most absurd thing to represent the Soviet Government as it has been represented here, as a Government thirsting for peace, as a most lamblike concern that wants nothing but self determination for everyone all round and peace for all the world. Why then denounce wars upon us and they are never tired of denouncing war upon us—and not a war in Poland or on the Vistula? What they have denounced against us and proclaimed in the last three days against us is a bloody civil war in this country. They say the proletariat in this country is not going to come to its own by constitutional methods, but by a bloody civil war. That is what they say They do not want peace with us, and they do not say or pretend that they want peace with us. They want war all over the world, and that is my last word to hon. Members who have spoken from these Benches. The Prime Minister, I think, can be trusted to do everything to maintain peace on the Vistula and on the borders of Poland and Germany and Russia. Let them see that they do everything to maintain peace in London, in Manchester, in Birmingham, in Edinburgh, and in Glasgow. That is where the danger of war is. That is where their whole effort should be directed. That would be a disaster which, I believe, would be even greater than the German War.
  Mr. SPENCER: It seems that the unpardonable offence of the Labour party
  730
  during the last few days has been that they have dared to crystallise and to postulate what was the paramount wish and desire of the great body of public opinion in this country, and but for that articulation the probabilities are that we might to-day have been drifting nearer to war than we actually are. Two things stand out perfectly clear in respect to this question of our relationship with Russia. One thing that has been amply and abundantly clear during the whole of this year, and before the year commenced, is the desire of the Soviet Government to maintain the independence of Poland. They have by public declaration more than once intimated to the Polish people that they desired to accept the independence and political integrity of Poland. As far back as Jaruary of this year they made a declaration that they desired to recognise, and will continue to recognise, unreservedly and unconditionally, the independence and sovereignty of the Polish Republic. In February of this year they reiterated that declaration. Therefore, so far as the independence of Poland is concerned, the Soviet Government has made it clear, not only to the Polish people, but to the world, that they desire to recognise the independence of that republic, and they have made a declaration that they do not desire to impose their own form of government upon that republic. On the contrary, they desire, so far as that country is concerned, that it should choose its own form of government, the form of government that approximates nearest to the aspirations of its own people. That stands out clear, and no hon. Member can say that the Soviet Government have not made their intentions perfectly clear. Another thing that stands out clear is the vacillating policy of the British Government in regard to Russia. The policy of our Government can be likened to some meandering stream. We do not know which way it is going to turn. It is moving this way and that way, just as the circumstances change from time to time. I have not been long in this House, but I have heard voluminous cheers from that side when declarations have been made that we were going to have nothing to do with Soviet Russia. We have seen that policy of vacillation going on until we might say that we are afraid of what the future is going to be. If we could follow the course of that erstwhile meandering

  731
  stream to its end we might be satisfied, but for the moment it is cut off, and we do not know where it is going to continue to flow, whether in the direction of peace or in the direction of war. If the only condition which is essential to peace is the continued independence of Poland, why could not the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, to-day say that now that Soviet Russia has guaranteed the independence of Poland there will be no necessity to call the House together again, because there is no intention whatever to associate ourselves with France or any other Power and go to war in defence of the independence of Poland, which has been declared in such clear and definite terms? It is not the Prime Minister and the Government who may have their suspicions, but it is the Members on this side of the House who may have their suspicions.
  I suppose that this House in its long history has known no parallel to the speech which was delivered last week by the Prime Minister on the verge of a possible war, when he indicted a Government with whom he was in negotiation, and condemned its form of government. What would have been said of the responsible statesman in this country who, at the time of the Fashoda affair, when we might have been plunged into war, if he had got up and said, "I am suspicious of the good intentions of France," and had then gone on to discuss its form of government and to pass very serious reflections upon it? That statesman would not only have been criticised, but he would have been castigated by the whole of the sane population of the country. Yet the Prime Minister came down to this House last week, when there might have been a great war, and first questioned the good intentions of the Russian Government, and, secondly, went on to say that with a form of government such as it had we could scarcely expect that it was going to lead to peace. In regard to what has taken place during the past week, those hon. Members who desire to criticise the intentions of Labour must remember that there is a new spirit which has been born amongst the labouring classes of this country. One hon. Member compared the Labour party of to-day, with its new outlook, its new spirit and its far greater
  732
  knowledge, with Labour of seventy years ago. There is no comparison between them. Then you had a comparatively ignorant and ill-informed democracy. To-day you have quite a different democracy, a well-informed democracy, a democracy that is taking a keen interest in foreign affairs, and which questions the right of any one or two men to make any treaty or compact without coming back again to this House and asking for the ratification of that treaty or that compact, and then saying afterwards that the honour of the nation is at stake if she will not fulfil the promises which have been made on her behalf by a leader or a politician who has never at any time been given the right by the declared voice of the people to enter into any such compact.
  The new democracy of to-day is going to demand that before this country is pledged to any treaty or any alliance that that treaty and that alliance shall receive the general endorsement of the people. So far as the threatened war is concerned, and the question of direct action, I would point out that this House has been returned not to make wars but to make laws, and when the life and liberties of the people are being questioned the labouring classes of this country have the right to express their opinion and to say whether or not they are in favour of war. Never in my life have I attended a conference in which there was such unanimity of opinion in relation to any decision as was displayed at the recnt Labour conference. It is idle to say that that conference represented 1,000 people or that it represented 6,000,000 people. When an emphatic "Aye" was declared on the resolution being put to the conference, it was an echo of a huge concensus of opinion that existed silently in this country.
  Labour has had enough of war during the last four years. There is scarcely a household in the country into which sorrow and remorse have not entered. I am informed that we are going to divide the House to-night, and I am very pleased that that is so, because the House ought not to adjourn in face of the present crisis. There are many people who do not want to go to war with Russia, and for various reasons. In the first place, there is the general feeling that they have had enough of war. Secondly, there are those

  733
  who do not want to go to war with Russia because clearly they are sympathetic towards Russia and towards the Soviets. They do not hesitate to say that they would desire the spread of Soviet Government throughout Europe. There are others, and I am one of them, who would rather see the principle of Soviet Government confined to Russia itself, and would desire that the Russians should be given an opportunity of working out their own salvation. I am not going to say for one moment that I do not believe in the spread of Soviet principles. As I know them now I do not want them to spread, but if you give Russia the right of testing the validity and the wisdom of Soviet principles, and experience proves that there are elements within those principles of good and sound government, elements that give the greatest degree of happiness and security to the people, then let those principles spread. Why should the Soviet system not spread if it proves to be a better form of Government than this? The hostility to Russia is because of this new form of social philosophy. You do not want to give it a trial. You do not want it to succeed. No man or body of men can express opinions upon the wisdom or the goodness of Soviet principles until some great nation like Russia has put them to the test. If those principles are a failure, let them be confined to Russia. It is better that they should be confined to one country if they have within themselves the elements of destruction and death. The policy we are pursuing now is calculated to spread Soviet principles. If Poland falls there is not a man in this House who can say that some form of Soviet Government will not be established in Poland. No party will be more responsible for establishing those Soviet principles in Poland than France and this country have been. Those who desire to confine the system of Soviet Government to its narrowest limits would do well to allow Russia to work out her own salvation along those lines.
  Mr. BILLING: Personally, I feel no passion at all over the present position. I feel only regret that those Members of the Labour party who have sought the suffrages of the electors of this country and have embraced constitutional means to come to this House, who, having arrived at this House, have taken the oath of allegiance, should have thought that it is in the best interests, not only
  734
  of themselves, but of the country to adopt distinctly unconstitutional means for the attainment of their ends. An hon. Member reminds me, too, that some of them have even gone so far as to become small members of the Privy Council. It would have been at least consistent with their beliefs if these right hon. Members had seen fit, before attending the conference last Friday, to tender to His Majesty their resignations from the Privy Council, and, incidentally, to take the opportunity of applying for a position of profit under the Crown, which I understand, bears the title of the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. It is difficult to approach this subject if one is content to treat with ridicule the attitude of the Labour party, as evidenced by their Resolution of last Friday. Some hon. Members think that ridicule will kill everything. We have had an admirable illustration of the policy of that argument. If ridicule would kill anything surely it would kill the present Government. Surely the cartoons which appear six evenings a week in a well-known London journal would have caused the complete demise of the present Prime Minister. Ridicule does not always kill. It has to be followed by something else. Others desire to treat the matter with indifference. We have treated Ireland with indifference and what is the position to-day? We must not treat the present position in this country either with ridicule or indifference. I would advise the Prime Minister to try something else which he has not tried yet. In his early days of opposition he triedridicule. Why does he not try firmness? He has never tried that, not even in his administration in the most critical periods of the War. I am not here to criticise the Government unduly but only to express what are my considered beliefs. I consider that the position now, if ever it demanded firmness, demands it to-day. In every speech that Prime Minister has made he has always carefully framed it courageous and wonderful and it is cheered to the echo in this House and outside. But if you read it afterwards in the Official Reoprt or in the newspaper you will find with all it courage that there was always a funk hole into which to retire, and that he has never committed himself. That may be political, but it is not statesmanlike. This afternoon I had the audacity to press the Prime Minister for a definite

  735
  answer to what was essentially a definite question. I asked him was he prepared to recognise the constitutional entity of the Council of Action, and to meet them if the Council of Action desired to hold conference with him. What was the answer?
  Mr. WIGNALL: He would.
  Mr. BILLING: He shook his head, and it was very difficult to say whether he meant "No" or "Yes" by that. That is the form of answer he always gives. He did not attempt at the moment, so pressing were my inquiries and so persistent my request for an answer, to frame a reply orally, and he endeavoured to do so by gesticulation. When he was pressed he said he was prepared to receive deputations from any body of citizens unless of course they threatened. What was operating in the Prime Minister's mind at that time was that the Council of Action might to-morrow ask for an audience, and he has not got the moral courage to refuse. Let me tell the Prime Minister here and now, and I trust that some of his many private secretaries occasionally glance through the columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT and will tell him that he has got to face the issue between constitutional government and Soviet government in England. I told him so two years ago, and I repeat it to-night. I told him last Tuesday that this House has got to make up its mind whether it is going to stop the advance of 3,000,000 Russians on Warsaw, Paris, the Channel ports and London. It is no good always pretending that things we do not like do not exist. A man may be a Communist, and several hon. Members have declared themselves to be, but I would sooner a man were a Communist than an opportunist, and that is what I accuse the Prime Minister of being to-night. You cannot be everybody's friend. I do not like the Bolshevik, but I can understand his point of view, and I do not like the advanced Socialist, but I have no time for a man who is essentially an opportunist and who does not care what happens to anyone so long as he and his immediate followers are safe, and who is prepared, like the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) was to-night, or rather has been in the last few days, to embrace any political belief, provided he thinks it is
  736
  popular. The right hon. Member for Derby has served at the feet of the Prime Minister too long not to have adopted his tactics. The right hon. Member for Derby for months past has been drawing a substantial weekly wage from the capitalist Press for denouncing direct action, but at the psychological moment when he finds that direct action is more profitable than the weekly wage of the capitalist Press he becomes a supporter of direct action. I do not want to quote chapter and verse of the speeches and articles of the right hon. Member, and they are quite well known to hon. Members who read the papers or listen to the Debates.
  Mr. SPENCER: On a point of Order. Is it not customary to give a Member notice of any personal attack to be made upon him?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): Criticism in the course of a Debate is permissible, but I deprecate the imputation of personal motives being made against an hon. Member.
  Mr. BILLING: It is a most uncommon thing for me to make a personal attack, and if I were to give notice to the 707 Members of the House that I intended to attack them, it might be possible to get a very large audience. I waive aside the interruption as quite irrelevant. We are dealing now with hard facts. I should have thought the right hon. Member for Derby would have gathered from interruptions, pertinent or otherwise, which I made, that if I had the opportunity of addressing the House I should make some reference to him. The right hon. Member for Derby accused the Prime Minister of inconsistency. Of course, the Prime Minister is inconsistent, but two blacks do not make a white. I admit that the Prime Minister is inconsistent, and the whole of the Front Bench has been inconsistent, again and again, but surely that is no justification for the Opposition to be so also. After reading the Resolution of the Council of Action of last Friday, I came to this House feeling that great men would rise up from the Labour Benches to bring to this House the message which this Council had given them to deliver, and make revolutionary speeches about the French Empire, the Russian Empire, and every other Empire in which violence was possible. But they came here and no hon. Member could say

  737
  there was anything revolutionary about them. The right hon. Member for Platting had nothing revolutionary about him, and as for the right hon. Member for Derby, there was nothing revolutionary about him either. He was not convinced of what he said. That was evident, because he was constantly turning round to see if the driving forces which he had behind him, urging him to take up direct action, were still there, and he did not even receive any direct cheers from the Labour Benches,
  Just as last Tuesday the Debate fizzled out, so this Debate has fizzled out. Last Tuesday I told the occupants of the Labour benches who were here in some force that the Debate would fizzle out. One hon. Member in reply said, "The Government and their supporters would get it in the neck." That was his exact expression, but I came back here for the Division when it had been put from the Chair", and what did I find? The Labour Members had not even the courage of their opinions to go to a Division, but, although they were so satisfied with the Government's pronouncement last Tuesday, that they were not prepared to go to a Division, on Friday, when there was no change of policy, so far as the Government was concerned—a rather extraordinary thing I must say for this Government—yet they decided that the only thing to save this country was a general strike. Do the labour leaders really realise what is meant by a general strike? For the period of the strike every Labour Member would be thrust into a position of undue importance. They would be looked upon by their followers as the only one who could possibly save them. Everyone knows the old saying that if you want to lead a crowd, you must follow the mob, but the Labour Members and other hon. Members may realise that it is far easier to set the passions of the people alight than it is to quell them. Ridicule will not kill the advanced Socialist movement among the Labour party to-day, and I appeal to the Prime Minister and the Government to declare to-night that any action on the part of organised labour to create industrial disturbance in order to carry any political programme will be illegal. There is no reason for the Prime Minister refusing to do that. Looking round the House, I might say with all seriousness that no one is trying to carry
  738
  on this Debate. It is utterly futile to try and put any reasonable arguments before them. I half expect that the hon. Members are not studying the French Revolution, but a time-table, and wondering whether this Debate will be finished in time to allow them to catch the last train into the country. We are adjourning tonight until 19th October. Between now and then many momentous things may happen. The alleged Gilbertian Council of Action may become a reality. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is a reality."] Some of us in the last few day have received from local councils of action in their representative constituencies a list of things we may do and those we may not do in this House, and this list, if followed would be a negation of all democratic Government.
  I appeal to the Prime Minister to-night to kill the Council of Action here and now; by announcing that before this House adjourns he will have no parley with their representatives whatsoever. If he will allow the Council of Action to have any political significance whatever, if he recognises them in any way whatsoever, they will convince the vast majority of this country, so far as labour is concerned, that if there is no war with Russia, it is because of the resolutions of the Council of Action. How far are we removed from the possibility of some Council of Action declaring a general strike unless we grant a Republican Government to Ireland? Those-Members will most probably select their next decision to anticipate some decision of His Majesty's Government. Possibly in their wisdom the Government may decide to grant Dominion Home Rule 10 Ireland. If two or three days before that announcement is made the Council of Action are allowed to meet and say that "unless you grant Dominion Home Rule to Ireland there will be a general strike in England," and subsequently such action is taken in Ireland, the Council of Action will claim to have solved the Irish problem which has bewildered the British Government for generations. If that is done an announcement of this kind will enable a Soviet Government to be born in this country. The Government must recognise to-day that if they are prepared to be dictated to by the leaders of trade unions and trade unionism, and by all kinds of working organisations in this country, they cannot expect very long to retain the support of the people of England. We

  739
  are riding for a fall in refusing to recognise facts. The Prime Minister in his relationship with Russia has rubbed the honour of this nation and of our Empire in the mud. He has flirted with the Soviet like he is now flirting with the Council of Action. The Soviet spits in the face of the British Empire to-day, and if the right hon. Gentleman continues his flirtation with the Council of Action, the Council of Action will spit in the face of the British Government within three months.
  Mr. SEXTON: You are spitting in its face all the time.
  Mr. BILLING: I do not propose to allow interruptions to eter me from telling the House what believe to be the actual facts. It is possibly the most serious position with which this country has been faced since the Armistice, We are adjourning for two or three months, and during that time many things will happen. In an interruption of the Primp Minister this afternoon, I suggested that the Council of Action was the thin end of the wedge, and a Labour Member suggested, "Would you put the thick end in first?"—an admirable remark, but what does it show? It shows that the Labour party realise that the Council of Action is the thin end of the wedge of unconstitution government in this country, to say the least of it. This Government has to face a fight with a certain section of the Labour party, and there is no doubt about it that within the next six months there will be a general strike. It has got to face a conflict between what is the most advanced and socialistic form of the Labour party and itself, and the longer it delays that issue the more likely is the Bolshevik element in this country to succeed. It is generally admitted that no Englishman would ever take part in a revolution. Mr. Kipling said it was impossible because an Englishman wanted to get on with his little job and wanted to get home to his tea, and that any revolution which lasted past four o'clock was quite impossible; but in the last five years a new condition of affairs has arisen in our country as in every other, and the only reason why I address the House to night is to make an urgent and serious appeal to the Prime Minister and his Government to recognise that in this
  740
  Council of Action or Council of Reaction there exist the seeds of a vast industrial disturbance, and industrial disturbance is obliged to culminate in a conflict between order and disorder.
  If that conflict comes in the winter months, when we shall have vast armies of unemployed and starving people in this country, despite the provision which the Government are at present making, if it comes in the fall or the early days of next year, it is difficult to predict what may happen. I know all prophecies in this House are not accepted, but I ask those people who scoff at the position of this country to-day to think how they equally scoffed at Lenin and Trotsky's action in Russia and said it was a nine days', or at most a nine weeks', wonder; how they laughed at the very idea of two anarchist Jews, released from New York prisons, ever arousing the passions of a great imperialistic nation like Russia. I ask them to consider how every man who pointed out what was likely to be the result of inaction in Ireland after the Easter rebellion was laughed down as a scaremonger, and I ask them, having thought out what had happened in Russia and in Ireland, to realise that it is not without the bounds of human possibilities that, given the necessary feeding and given the right grievance, unless the question of unconstitutional methods is dealt with whilst it is yet young and undeveloped, we may yet live to see written of this country some of the bloody history through which Russia has passed in the last few years.
  Mr. WIGNALL: I would not intervene at this late hour unless it was to say a word or two in reply to the very lengthy speech, containing very little, which we have been listening to for the last half-hour. In reply to the hon. Gentleman, who has lately become an apostle of law and order, I think I have a distinct recollection of reading of six men carrying him out of the House at one time-It evidently taught him his lesson, and he has become a lover of law and order ever since. We listened to all he has had to say, but we do not altogether believe in his sincerity. We know our business, we understand all about our work, we understood what we were doing all last week, we understood what we did on Friday last, and we are not ashamed of

  741
  it. We know all the horrors of strikes and lockout". We understand it, because we have been in it, and it is generally the people who know no more about it than what they read in newspapers who lecture to us about the seriousness of it, and I say to you and every warmonger that we would rather go through all the strikes that are necessary if it would prevent our country being plunged into war. Let me say that in that Conference last Friday, at the Central Hall, there were 1,044 delegates. We do not go to conferences for the fun of the thing. We do not spend the money of our organisations for the sake of a trip to London. We have got finance committees and executive committees who safeguard the interests of our organisations, and they do not authorise delegates to proceed to conferences unless they realise the seriousness of the whole position. There were 1,044 delegates there, sane men, men who understood the nature of the work they were engaged in, men whose hearts have been riven by the horrors of war, men who have looked upon the empty chairs and have listened to the pleadings of a mother for her boy who is no more, and I say to hon. Members that we are prepared to fight to stop war at any cost, unless it is a war of aggression and of invasion, when we have to defend our rights, and then we will not be found wanting. But to meddle in affairs that do not concern us, to plunge our nation into a war that can be avoided, is a crime against humanity and against God, and we are here to denounce it and to stop it. Some hon. Gentlemen, who have been talking so flippantly about war, must know that it costs money, apart from lives.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman mention anything I have said, or anything the Government have said, or anything the Opposition have said, to suggest that there was any danger of war?
  10.0 P.M
  Mr. WIGNALL: We know our own business, and we know our own work, and my point is that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have been talking flippantly here about war, and if we are plunged into war, when it is over we shall hear them totalling up the cost, and then they will grumble about having to pay for it. I say, count the cost before you start. We are determined, if this Government ventures to proceed to war, to war
  742
  against war by the industrial weapon. Make no mistake about it. We are in dead earnest about this. When 1,044 men from all parts of the country, with different views and different ideas, are united as one solid mass, without a dissentient voice, it shows what the people of the country feel. I addressed a mass meeting in my constituency last night, not all labour men, but all sorts and conditions of men and womn, and they had one voice on this matter. I believe the nation was with us and is with us to-day. If we have got to go to war, let us have clear definite knowledge of what that war is about. We are not going to war on the issue raised. There has been talk about unemployment and the horrors that are coming. I fully and firmly believe that if peace is established at once between this country and Russia and Poland, and free and unrestricted commercial trading with Russia is brought about, it will save our country from the blackest, bitterest winter we have ever passed through. I appeal to hon. Members to think about it as they go home to-night. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is last night speech!"] My speech last night converted everybody. The speech to-night of my old friend and colleague the Member for Hanley (Mr. Seddon) brought back memories of many speeches I have beard him make, and I wondered what changes have come about. I say the speech of the hon. Member and the hon. Member on this side (Mr. Billing) have done more to-night to create discontent and unrest, and to drive the nation into industrial warfare, than anything that was ever said and done at the Council last Friday. Those are the speeches that irritate and annoy. These are the speeches that make the people realise the real danger they have to fight.
  Mr. C. PALMER: After the speech of my hon. Friend, I think it is necessary that someone should say something more. In the words of a somewhat famous leader and Prime Minister, I ask my hon. Friend of the Labour party, might we not "cease this fooling?" We know perfectly well that the speech to which we have just listened, eloquent and angry as it was in parts, might have been delivered from, the Front Treasury Bench. There is not a Member of the Labour party in this House to-night who does not know that the whole of

  743
  this business, worked up within the last ten days, has been dishonest and unfair.
  Mr. WIGNALL: No!
  Mr. PALMER: I believe it has been sheer camouflage and make-believe. I have sat in this House in another position more years than the average Member of this House, and I say that the Government's attitude in regard to Poland and Russia has been straight, consistent and honest, and no more dishonest policy has ever been presented to this House, no greater attempt has ever been made to deceive the country with bare-faced effrontery than the policy put forward by the Labour leaders to-night. My hon. Friend worked himself up into a simulated fury over the dangers of the coming war. He knows, and the right hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in this Council of Action know perfectly well, that they have tried to catch the wind of the national sails, and that they have tried to lurk in the shadow of national resolve. Just as was said in the early days of 1914 by certain gentlemen, who are ready to-day to forget their phrases, that Belgium was not worth the bones of a single British soldier, so we say to-day that the quarrel between Russia and Poland is not worth the bones of a single British soldier. Hon. Gentlemen who have got up in this House to-night, and right hon. Gentlemen who have disgraced their position as Members of His Majesty's Privy Council, and have declared that they will set up in this country a Soviet rule which will challenge the King and the Constitution, know perfectly well in their heart of hearts that there is no more fear of right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench advocating war with Russia than there is of myself, impotent and alone, doing any such thing.
  I turn to the speeches of the two right hon. Gentlemen who came down to this House to-night in apologetic and humble mood, half ashamed of the part they took in the action of last Friday. Anyone who knows these right hon. Gentlemen knows that they stood in this House through good report and ill report for constitutional action, for sustaining the power of the House of Commons. Led away by the Red men, who are always lurking behind the Labour Movement of this country, they were pressed forward into
  744
  a movement, of which to-day I believe in their hearts, they are thoroughly ashamed. After all, if you sit in this House of Commons you do two things. You are sent by your constituents to carry out a certain policy, and you come into this House and take the oath of allegiance to His Majesty the King. If you happen to be by selection, or the grace of God, or the will of His Majesty's Ministers called to His Majesty's Privy Council you take upon yourself a still more solemn and obligatory oath. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentlemen who have fired off their somewhat damp squibbs to-night are not here to take the challenge which I quite respectfully offer to them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad hon. Members on the back Benches realise it is a challenge they ought to meet, and it is this: you cannot irresponsibly talk the sort of revolutionary bosh talked last Friday—and I quite agree we ought not to make too much of it, for it was all a matter of demonstration: to put it vulgarly it was a "put-up job," for they knew that for once they had the country, not behind them, but in front of them—for the great mass of the public had said that under no circumstances would they go to war either on the question of Poland or of Soviet Russia. Then the Labour Gentlemen for the first time in history showed some tactical skill, and so walking behind the great mass of the people [An HON. MEMBER: "Led by 'John Bull'!"] they lurked in the shadow of the national resolve and waved their big sticks and said what everyone else had said before, "We won't have war!" So they went through their grotesque exhibition. Some time they may be called upon to govern—though Heaven keep that time long remote, for they have shown no capacity to govern, and no capacity for ever conducting themselves with anything like skill in this House. Heaven forfend, I say, that these hon. and right hon. Gentlemen should at any time be called upon to conduct the government of this country!
  When we hear the three right hon. Gentlemen—two in this House and one reported outside—who have been granted the tremendous honour and inestimable privilege of being called to His Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, declare war or the King and the Constitution, just

  745
  as we have a somewhat humbler and less significant Member the other night declare he would lead the Red Army into the House of Commons, is it not time that they began to leave off this sort of thing. Must we take it seriously? If we must, then let us call upon these right hon. Gentlemen to be true to their oaths, and if they are false to their oaths, to retire from the Privy Council. But let us look at the whole thing as a huge Homeric joke. They have had their little fun. If my hon. Friend (Mr. Wignall) has ever been at a penny gaff he will have seen the cheap histrionics and that sort of thing, he knows what that is worth. You pay your money at the door and you take your choice. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney put this question direct and straight to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) when he asked: "Would you take up the attitude that you do now if Russia denied freedom to Poland." The right hon. Gentleman squirmed and struggled like a rabbit trying to get away from its captor. I say in all sincerity to my hon. Friends who represent the Labour party to-day, that they are doing injustice to themselves, and they are not acting fairly by the country, or by the great democratic movement that they are supposed to represent. They know that we challenged the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Platting (Mr. Clynes) and Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) when we asked, "Do you believe in Lenin and Trotsky?" and they wriggled in their seats, and could not answer. This business that was put up last Friday. (Interruption.) The man who comes into this House as a Liberal, and remains as a Communist does not carry any conviction with me. I say this, if the great Labour party, for whom I have the utmost respect, wish to live up to their best traditions, they have been long enough in this House to know what true democracy means. If they understood—and some of them do who have come back from Russia—the ensanguined autocrats and bloody revolutionaries who are in Moscow to-day, they would not come to this House with their cheap heroics, their stupid similes, to try to convince us that they are the people who have saved this great Empire. Il comedia e finita. The farce has been played long enough. Let us ring down
  746
  the curtain on all this nonsense, and go home.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, 19th October, provided always that it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with His Majesty's Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time."

MONUMENT TO MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN.
Resolution reported;
"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 agreed to.
Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or members of His Majesty's Household.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 2nd August, adjourned the House without Question put, till Tuesday, 19th October, provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. SPEAKER, after consultation with His Majesty's Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during the Adjournment, Mr. SPEAKER may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.
Adjourned at a quarter after Ten o'clock.

  MINIMUM WAGE COMMISSION BILL.
  MINIMUM WAGE COMMISSION BILL.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENDITURE).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENDITURE).
LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  HEALTH ORGANISATION.
  HEALTH ORGANISATION.
  PUBLICATION OF PROCEEDINGS.
  PUBLICATION OF PROCEEDINGS.
  EXPENDITURE (BRITISH CONTRIBUTION).
  EXPENDITURE (BRITISH CONTRIBUTION).
BRITISH ARMY.
  EDUCATIONAL CORPS (APPOINTMENTS).
  EDUCATIONAL CORPS (APPOINTMENTS).
  CORRESPONDENCE (EX-PRIVATE HEDDON).
  CORRESPONDENCE (EX-PRIVATE HEDDON).
  3RD LONDON GENERAL HOSPITAL.
  3RD LONDON GENERAL HOSPITAL.
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (DRIVER A. P. PATERSON).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (DRIVER A. P. PATERSON).
  BRIGHTON PAVILION.
  BRIGHTON PAVILION.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NORWICH APPLICATIONS (H. J. AND MRS. LONG).
  NORWICH APPLICATIONS (H. J. AND MRS. LONG).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (MR. TUCK AND MR. RENNIE).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (MR. TUCK AND MR. RENNIE).
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  LAND SETTLEMENT, HUNTINGDONSHIRE.
  LAND SETTLEMENT, HUNTINGDONSHIRE.
  HARVEST OPERATIONS.
  HARVEST OPERATIONS.
  KING'S ROLL (GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS).
  KING'S ROLL (GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS).
  LAND SETTLEMENT, ULSTER.
  LAND SETTLEMENT, ULSTER.
IRELAND.
  FATAL ACCIDENT, STRABANE (COMPENSATION CLAIM).
  FATAL ACCIDENT, STRABANE (COMPENSATION CLAIM).
  MOUNTJOY PRISON (ESCORT DUTY).
  MOUNTJOY PRISON (ESCORT DUTY).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (VOCAL MUSIC).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (VOCAL MUSIC).
ROYAL NAVY.
  APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE (A. S. G. Moss).
  APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE (A. S. G. Moss).
  JAPAN (MR. SHAW'S ARREST).
  JAPAN (MR. SHAW'S ARREST).
PEACE TREATIES.
  EAST PRUSSIA.
  EAST PRUSSIA.
  HUNGARIAN DEBTS (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  HUNGARIAN DEBTS (BRITISH CLAIMS).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  GERMAN POTASH (SALES).
  GERMAN POTASH (SALES).
  MANGANESE ORE (SUPPLIES).
  MANGANESE ORE (SUPPLIES).
  BANKS.
  BANKS.
  PLAYING CARDS (DUTY).
  PLAYING CARDS (DUTY).
  NATIONAL DEBT (REDEMPTION).
  NATIONAL DEBT (REDEMPTION).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  "LAND OF MYSTERY" FILM.
  "LAND OF MYSTERY" FILM.
  MESOPOTAMIA.
  MESOPOTAMIA.
POLICE SERVICE.
  GUISBOROUGH AND SALTBURN STATIONS.
  GUISBOROUGH AND SALTBURN STATIONS.
  METEOPOLITAN FORCE (PAY).
  METEOPOLITAN FORCE (PAY).
  CRIMINAL APPELLANTS (ME. C. DIAMOND).
  CRIMINAL APPELLANTS (ME. C. DIAMOND).
  LONDON THEATRES (GERMAN PLAYS).
  LONDON THEATRES (GERMAN PLAYS).
  PRISON REGULATIONS.
  PRISON REGULATIONS.
GOVERNMENT STAFFS AND ACCOMMODATION.
  POST OFFICE (WOMEN).
  POST OFFICE (WOMEN).
  STATIONERY OFFICE.
  STATIONERY OFFICE.
  TEMPORARY MESSENGERS.
  TEMPORARY MESSENGERS.
  ROYAL AGRICULTURAL SHOW (TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE).
  ROYAL AGRICULTURAL SHOW (TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE).
  CARDIFF DOCKS (EMPLOYMENT).
  CARDIFF DOCKS (EMPLOYMENT).
COAL PRODUCTION.
  EXPORT RESTRICTIONS.
  EXPORT RESTRICTIONS.
  MINERS' WAGES (INCREASES).
  MINERS' WAGES (INCREASES).
POST OFFICE.
  WIRELESS SERVICES (CONTINENTAL COUNTRIES).
  WIRELESS SERVICES (CONTINENTAL COUNTRIES).
  BOURNEMOUTH TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  BOURNEMOUTH TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MESSENGERS, DUNDEE (WAGES).
  MESSENGERS, DUNDEE (WAGES).
TRANSPORT.
  IRISH GOODS TRAFFIC (RESTRICTIONS).
  IRISH GOODS TRAFFIC (RESTRICTIONS).
  WORKMEN'S TRAINS.
  WORKMEN'S TRAINS.
  RAILWAY TICKETS (PRINTED FARES).
  RAILWAY TICKETS (PRINTED FARES).
  ROAD TRAFFIC (THIRD-PARTY RISKS).
  ROAD TRAFFIC (THIRD-PARTY RISKS).
  MID-WEEK EXCURSIONS.
  MID-WEEK EXCURSIONS.
  MOTOR CARS (IDENTIFICATION MARKS).
  MOTOR CARS (IDENTIFICATION MARKS).
  ROAD TRAFFIC (SLOW-MOVING VEHICLES).
  ROAD TRAFFIC (SLOW-MOVING VEHICLES).
  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES (MINISTER'S POWERS).
  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES (MINISTER'S POWERS).
  PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. (WAR BOND POLICIES).
  PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. (WAR BOND POLICIES).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  MALT (HOME-BREWED BEER).
  MALT (HOME-BREWED BEER).
  CENTRAL LIVE-STOCK FUND.
  CENTRAL LIVE-STOCK FUND.
  MEAT CONTROL, SCOTLAND (ACCOUNTS).
  MEAT CONTROL, SCOTLAND (ACCOUNTS).
  GOVERNMENT STOCKS.
  GOVERNMENT STOCKS.
  FRUIT.
  FRUIT.
  JAM.
  JAM.
  NEW ZEALAND MUTTON AND LAMB.
  NEW ZEALAND MUTTON AND LAMB.
HOUSING.
  LUXURY BUILDING.
  LUXURY BUILDING.
  DIRECT LABOUR SCHEMES.
  DIRECT LABOUR SCHEMES.
  CORRUGATED IRON ROOFS.
  CORRUGATED IRON ROOFS.
  BUILDING OPERATIVES.
  BUILDING OPERATIVES.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  PALACE THEATRE, DURHAM.
  PALACE THEATRE, DURHAM.
  FISHING INDUSTRY (ADMIRALTY TRAWLERS).
  FISHING INDUSTRY (ADMIRALTY TRAWLERS).
  BRITISH MUSEUM.
  BRITISH MUSEUM.
  INCOME TAX REPAYMENT (MR. L. URQUHART).
  INCOME TAX REPAYMENT (MR. L. URQUHART).
  CONCRETE SHIPS AND NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
  CONCRETE SHIPS AND NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT STORES (DISPOSAL).
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT STORES (DISPOSAL).
  AILSA CRAIG MOTOR WORKS.
  AILSA CRAIG MOTOR WORKS.
  LONDON UNIVERSITY (BLOOMS-BURY SITE).
  LONDON UNIVERSITY (BLOOMS-BURY SITE).
  BEER.
  BEER.
  RUSSIA AND POLAND (GENERAL WRANGEL).
  RUSSIA AND POLAND (GENERAL WRANGEL).
  HOPS (CONSUMPTION).
  HOPS (CONSUMPTION).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR 011 the Woolsack.

THE BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, it will be within the recollection of your Lordships that on Tuesday of last week the noble Marquess
the Lord Great Chamberlain drew attention to an incident which had happened in this House on the preceding day, when an apparently disorderly interruption had been made in the course of a debate here by an Irish Privy Councillor, the Right Hon. Mr. Carlisle, from the steps of the Throne. 1 was then authorised by your Lordships to address a letter to that right hon. gentleman inviting an explanation from him. The correspondence has been published—by his action, not by mine—in the columns of the newspapers, but nevertheless it would seem to be only right that it should appear in the records of your Lordships' House. This was the letter that I wrote to him on August 11—
Sir,—As you will observe from the Official Report of the proceedings of the House of Lords yesterday (a copy of which 1 enclose) the attention of the House was drawn by the Marquess of Lincolnshire, Lord Great Chamberlain, to an incident for which you wore responsible that had occurred on Monday afternoon. It appears from the report of the proceedings (for 1 was not myself present) that, taking advantage of the privilege accorded to you as a Privy Councillor of admission to the steps of the Throne, you indulged during an Irish debate in an interruption which was not only without precedent, but was regarded by the House in general as a grave abuse of the privilege which you were enjoying at the moment and as a serious affront to the dignity of their Lordships' House.
Before taking further notice of the matter, the House of Lords agreed unanimously yesterday afternoon that as Leader of the House I should in the first place address a letter to you calling your attention to the gravity of the offence and inviting you to make to the House such explanation of this unfortunate episode as you may think it proper to furnish.
In these circumstances I am now carrying out the instructions of the House, and I shall be obliged if you can favour me with an immediate reply in order that the matter may be disposed of before the end of this part of the session.
In the course of the twenty-four hours following upon this communication to Mr. Carlisle I received two irrelevant and
1238
unintelligible telegrams from him. They were followed on August 12 by the following letter, which I will ask your Lordships' permission to read—
My Lord,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's communication of yesterday referring to my interruption of the debate in the House of Lords on August 9.
At the outset I desire to make it plain that if, in view of my position as a Privy Councillor, my action be regarded as derogatory to His Majesty the King, then, as a loyal and dutiful subject of His Majesty, I am prepared to make a sincere and humble apology.
If, however, my action be regarded solely as an affront to the dignity of the House of Lords, then I submit that the case is different. In normal circumstances I would willingly pay due deference to all established rules and customs. But, my Lord, the circumstances in the present instance were far from normal. Their Lordships were about to pass a measure which had for its object the wanton destriction of the constitutional liberties of my countrymen. Under such conditions as these the petty restraints of procedure may justly give place to the righteous indignation, not merely of an honest patriot, but all true lovers of freedom.
It was not my interruption that was the most serious affront to the dignity of their Lordships' House. The most serious affront to the dignity of that historic House was and is that the descendants of those who won at Runnymede the Charter of all British liberties should have proved themselves unworthy of their sires.
P.S.—My speech was thirteen words, and I had no paper in my hand, as is reported:—"My Lords, if yon pass this Bill you may kill England, not Ireland."
It is obvious from this reply that the action of the right hon. gentleman on that occasion was deliberate, that he has offered no sort of apology for it, and indeed that the terms of the letter which I have just read to your Lordships' House aggravate rather than diminish the affront which he offered both to the decorum of our proceedings and to the dignity of your Lordships' House. In these circumstances it appears impossible to pass over the matter in silence, and I would ask your Lordships' consent to the Resolution which I am about to move.
Moved, That the Right Hon. Alexander Montgomery Carlisle, having abused his privilege of being admitted to the steps of the Throne by disorderly conduct on August 9, 1920, should be debarred from the exercise of that privilege in the future.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I venture to think, on behalf of the independent members of your Lordships' House, that the course proposed by my

1239
noble friend opposite is the one we ought to pursue. Happily it is not an experience which is common in the House of Lords—I doubt whether it has ever happened before—that our proceedings are interrupted by the intervention of a disorderly remark from a stranger. If the stranger were of less position probably it would be better to have passed it by without too much attention, merely giving the necessary directions to the doorkeepers as to what was to be done if the stranger presented himself in future. But in this case it is no less a person than a Privy Councillor who has taken upon himself to interrupt the proceedings of your Lordships' House. He has adopted a method worthy of a schoolboy or of a suffragette, and I am sure that when he comes to think about it afterwards he will himself feel ashamed that he has adopted such a course. But we, of course, should not pass it over in silence, and the Resolution which my noble friend has proposed seems to me thoroughly suitable to meet the occasion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE RUSSO-POLISH SITUATION.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I had hoped before we separated this afternoon to have been in a position to make some definite statement to your Lordships either about the progress of hostilities in the Eastern parts of Europe or about the negotiations which have been started between Poland and Russia at Minsk. But I am incapacitated from doing so for the reason that the information possessed by the Government is in no respect in excess of that which has already appeared and is appearing from hour to hour in the columns of the Press. It is clear that fierce fighting is going on in that part of the world between the two parties. We hear of towns being taken and retaken, and evidently the Poles are putting up a strenuous fight for their capital. On the other hand it would appear that the Red Armies are closing in upon Warsaw, and I cannot conceal from your Lordships my impression that that city is in very grave danger. I might mention that the Allied Legations and Missions have retired from the town and are now safely established at Posen.
As regards the negotiations, the delegates of the two parties have already after long delay—which it is rather difficult to explain and the responsibility for which is thrown by the one party upon the other—at length
1240
met at Minsk, and the negotiations are no doubt now proceeding. In those circumstances it appeared to His Majesty's Government that it would hardly be fair to keep Parliament sitting from day to day at this period of the year in the hope of receiving information which may or may not come and which may in any case be delayed for a few days longer. I therefore propose, in this House, to ask your Lordships' assent to a repetition of the Resolution which you have passed on two occasions during the past six years. The first was at the opening of the war in August, 1914, when, upon the adjournment, it was thought very desirable to provide an opportunity, if necessary, for the re-summoning of this House in order to hear any important Ministerial statements that might have to be made. There was an interesting discussion upon that occasion, to which reference has since been made. The second occasion was in April of the present year when, being about to separate for a holiday rather longer than that which was to be taken by the House of Commons and it appearing to be not unlikely that a Ministerial statement might have to be made in both Houses Of Parliament upon there-assembling of the House of Commons, your Lordships again passed a Resolution admitting of the summoning of this House in those circumstances. In the discussion that took place it was, I think, laid down by the noble Lord who is opposite me, and was accepted by myself speaking for the Government, that it would only be in the event of a national emergency of considerable importance that such a step would be taken by us.
Accordingly the terms of the Motion which I will make, identical with that winch we have discussed previously, are as follows—
That this House on its adjournment do adjourn to October 19, except that if it appears to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during such adjournment, the Lord Chancellor may give notice to Peers that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such Notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
I may here mention also that it was agreed on the last occasion that in the event of such a situation arising, of which, of course,

1241
the Leader of the House as a member of the Government would be the best judge, he should put himself into communication with the Lord Chancellor after ascertaining the views of noble Lords who sit opposite, and that that should be the way in which this procedure should be set in motion. I may add that, following the useful example which we have thus set on two occasions, the House of Commons is, I believe, this afternoon for the first time in its history going to pass a similar Resolution; so that, my Lords, we have the advantage of having inaugurated a procedure which, although it ought to be carefully safeguarded, is, I think, very useful for any emergency of the character that I have described.
I may add that of course we should not ask Parliament to meet again merely to hear news that you can gain from other and non-official sources. The only condition so far as I can see in which it would be thought desirable to summon Parliament during the recess would be if, contrary to the hopes that we entertain, events which are happening at Minsk involve any direct infringement of the independence of Poland and of the maintenance of her ethnographic frontiers which we, along with our Allies, are pledged to maintain. That obligation, my Lords, is laid upon all of us by the Treaty of Versailles, by the Covenant of the League of Nations, and by the pronouncements and declarations which we have all of us made from time to time.
Our policy—here I am referring more particularly to the policy of the British Government—has been the same throughout in respect of Poland. It has never wavered one iota. It is the policy that was pronounced along with that of our Allies at the Conferences of Boulogne, of Spa, and of Hythe. It was stated in another place only last week in a speech of considerable fulness by the Prime Minister, and that policy I submit to your Lordships has been endorsed by the unanimous public approval of the country. What are our objects, my Lords? They can be stated in a couple of sentences. The first I have already indicated—it is to secure the independence of Poland within her legitimate frontiers, not, I may say, an aggressive or imperialistic Poland which might be a menace to her neighbours, but the Poland with which we are familiar in history, a Poland that shall be able to maintain her national existence as a bulwark of civilisa-
1242
tion and a bar against anarchy in that part of Europe. Our second object, and even a wider one, is the peace of Europe. We want, so far as it rests with us, to bring peace to a distracted world. This country no more than any country that I know is in a mood for fresh wars, least of all wars that are dictated or suggested by impossible aims. We in this country neither have the available forces nor have we the available treasure to indulge in any more such adventures, and I think I may add, too, that the country has not the spirit or the stomach for any such further undertakings. Public opinion here and everywhere is bent upon securing, if that be possible, a just and an honourable peace; and since the beginning of the war, when the nation flamed forth in a spirit of unbroken unity in support of the then Government, I can recall no occasion when the public sentiment of this country was more united in this respect than it is at the present time.
My Lords, that is the advice which we have given to the Polish Government, and I may add incidentally that only this morning we had a telegram from our Italian Allies to say that that advice, which has been challenged in some quarters, met with their complete and enthusiastic support. I hope that circumstances will not arise that will demand the meeting of Parliament under the Resolution which will be moved later, but no action by His Majesty's Government in excess of or in opposition to the policy which I have laid down will be taken without giving an opportunity to Parliament under this Resolution of expressing an opinion upon it.

ALLOA WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
READY MONEY FOOTBALL BETTING BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

MINING INDUSTRY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with certain of the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to, with certain other Amendments made by the Lords agreed to with Amendments, and with consequential Amendments made to the Bill.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CHAWFORD): Before moving that your Lordships agree to the Commons Amendments to the Amendments inserted by this House I should like to say in a few words what is the purport of the action of the Commons in relation to your Lordships' Amendments.
The House will remember that on three main points the Bill as introduced by the Government was modified. The Ministry of Mines became a Department of Mines. In the second place the payment of the expenses of the various committees, as proposed by the Government, was materially changed; and, finally, Amendments were made in this House relating to the decentralisation of the betterment fund. On all these three points the House of Commons has accepted your Lordships' views. There are, however, certain Amendments that are purely consequential and are designed in order to make the Act of Parliament more clear. One Amendment reappears six or seven times; it is that the word "mineral" is omitted and the words "mining industry" inserted. It is looked upon as a point of some importance by the expert draftsman.
With regard to the payment of the expenses of the committees your Lordships, at the instance of Lord Selborne, excluded certain words limiting the obligation of the owners to pay towards the cost of these committees. But having done that Lord Selborne did not move to omit the latter part of Clause 15, which provides for the payment of the other sections, by the owners, of these committees and boards. The House of Commons, having accepted your Lordships' view that the pit committees should be paid for their attendance by the owners, have excluded the latter words of the clause which they look upon as tautological. If nothing is said about payment the assumption is that each party will pay its own expenses. It is in the nature of a consequential Amendment. With regard to the last point—the decentralisation of the betterment fund—the Amendments proposed by your Lordships have been accepted.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think your Lordships are under a great debt of obligation to the House of Commons for the courteous way in which they have received the Amendments that we inserted in the Bill. I gather from the statement of the noble Earl that there is no very material difference in the Amendments which the Commons have now introduced.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: May I interrupt the noble Marquess? I forgot to say that, as this is to be a Department and not a Ministry, the House of Commons has reduced the salary from £2,000 to £1,500.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: On that point your Lordships, remembering their place in the Constitution, did not venture to express an opinion. We simply omitted the figure and left it to the House of Commons to insert whatever amount they thought fit. Broadly speaking, there has been no material change in the Bill since it left your Lordships' House. Certain Amendments to the Lords Amendments have been inserted, but though they are somewhat more than of a drafting nature they are really designed to and do carry out the intentions with which your Lordships inserted the Amendments when the Bill was before you. The two Houses are practically in complete agreement on the Bill, and I think it is a very satisfactory issue.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NEW WINDSOR EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.
INVERNESS WATER AND GAS PRO VISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; 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.

COATBRIDGE BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).

Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement).

Duplicands of Feu-duties (Scotland).

Representation of the People (No. 2).

Pensions (Increase).

Telegraph (Money).

Resident Magistrates (Ireland).

Merchant Shipping (Scottish Fishing Boats).

Post Office and Telegraph.

Census.

Census (Ireland).

Firearms.

Fertilisers (Temporary Control of Export).

Public Libraries (Scotland).

Dangerous Drugs.

Ministry of Food (Continuance).

Indemnity.

Blind Persons.

Mining Industry.

Duchy of Lancaster.

Ready Money Football Betting.

Jurors (Enrolment of Women) (Scotland).

Seeds.

Mayor's and City of London Court.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (New Windsor Extension).

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Widnes Extension).

Alloa Water Order Confirmation.

Coatbridge Burgh Provisional Order Confirmation.

Royal Bank of Scotland.

1246

Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock (Finance).

Merthyr Tydfil Corporation.

Cardiff Corporation.

Llanelly Corporation Water.

Dublin Port and Docks.

Huddersfield Corporation (General Powers).

Yeovil Corporation.

London County Council (Money).

Salford Corporation.

Manchester Ship Canal.

Workington Harbour and Dock.

London Electric Railway Companies (Fares, etc.).

Bristol Corporation.

Southend-on-Sea Gas.

Londonderry Corporation.

Erith Improvement.

Osborne's Divorce.

Shekleton's Divorce.

THE AUTUMN ADJOURNMENT.

  PROVISION FOR EMERGENCY MEETING DURING RECESS.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to make the Motion which was read to your Lordships earlier this afternoon by the Leader of the House.
  Moved, That the House on its adjournment to-day do adjourn to October 19, except that if it appears to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during such adjournment, the Lord Chancellor may give notice to the Peers that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such Notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at six o'clock until Tuesday, 19th October.