Sitting of 1 July 1920

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied With),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Cardiff Corporation Bill [Lords].
Liverpool Copper Wharf Company, Limited (Delivery Warrants) Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a Second time.

NEWTOWNARDS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL. (By Order.)
As amended, considered.
Sir J. D. REES:I do not want to delay the passing of this Bill at all, nor am I quite sure that this would be the occasion to refer to this, but it has been stated in a responsible quarter in the local press that this water has some qualities which destroy pipes, and sometimes induce the disease of goitre. I do not know whether that was investigated at all during the inquiry. There is nothing in the report to show.
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley):The Ministry of Health makes a report on these matters to the Committee, and it is the duty of
612
the Committee to take that report into consideration. I understand the Committee which examined the Bill is satisfied on the point.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.— [The Chairman of Ways and Means. ]
King's consent signified; Bill read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    OFFICERS' DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCE.
    2. Mr. C. PALMERasked the Minister of Pensions if the allowance in respect of disabled officers' wives and children has yet been sanctioned and authorised, as recommended by the Select Committee in September, 1919?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson):The Government decided not to give a flat-rate allowance for wives of disabled officers, but that allowances should be granted, in cases of need, by the Special Grants Committee both for wives and children. The increased maximum rates for children, and the maximum allowance for wives recommended by the Select Committee have been approved, and are now being administered by the Special Grants Committee.

    COUNTY COMMITTEES, IRELAND.
    4. Mr. DONALDasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that county local committees in Ireland are depriving local sub-committees of their functions as sub-committees; and whether these county committees are entitled, under the procedure of committees regulations of the Ministry of Pensions, to interfere and withdraw from local sub-committees the function of making direct payments of allowances to men under treatment?
    Mr. MACPHERSON:Delegation by a local committee of any of its powers to a sub-committee it within the discretion

    613
    of the local committee, and it is competent to a local committee, under rules approved in accordance with Section 6 (1) of the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1918, to withdraw any powers delegated to a sub-committee. I understand that, one or two local committees in Ireland have decided, in exercise of their powers, to vary the functions of their sub-committees by centralising the payment of allowances.

    SEPARATION ALLOWANCE (WIDOWS).
    6. Sir H. HARRISasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that hardship will result from the discontinuance on 30th June of the Part II. Regulations of the Special Grants Commission, in the case of widows who are still drawing separation allowance pending the issue of pension; and whether he will arrange for continuance of the supplementary separation allowance in such cases for so long as State separation allowance is in issue, in view of the fact that the loss of the supplementary allowance cannot, as in the case of the wife of a serving man, be met by allotment on the part of the man?
    Mr. MACPHERSON:I am considering with the Departments concerned what arrangements can be made to meet this class of case.

    WOMEN (MEDICAL EXAMINATION).
    8. Dr. MURRAYasked the Minister of Pensions whether cases have occurred in which women, on applying for pensions on the ground that they have been deprived of the support of a male relative killed in the War, have been called upon to undergo medical examination in order that their fitness to go out to work might be tested; and, if so, whether he will give instructions for this procedure to be discontinued?
    Mr. MACPHERSON:My hon. Friend probably has in mind those pensions to dependants which are under the Royal Warrant conditional upon the existence of incapacity of self-support through infirmity or age. Where the evidence on this point is open to doubt it is the practice to ask for a medical certificate, which is ordinarily given by the applicant's usual medical attendant. I do not consider that this procedure entails any hardship or calls for revision.
    Dr. MURRAY:In the case of a mother whose son contributed to the family exchequer, and has been killed, is the policy of the Department to see that this woman is medically examined and certified as fit for work?
    Mr MACPHERSON:My hon. Friend is misinterpreting the answer which I gave. There is no desire on the part of the Ministry of Pensions to produce hardship, but in a case where a woman is able to do work, my hon. Friend will agree that it would be right that we should ask whether she is fit to do work or not. The appropriate way to do that is to ask for a certificate from her own family attendant.
    Dr. MURRAY:But is the giving of the pension dependent on the capacity of the woman to work? If she is certified as fit for work, she gets no pension?
    Mr. MACPHERSON:If dependent on the man who is killed she gets the grant irrespectively.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:But surely it is not the policy of the Department to force out to work widows of soldiers killed in the War? Surely the intention is that they should get a pension for their comfort, and not be forced out to work?
    Mr. MACPHERSON:There is no question of forcing out to work. Of course, in the case of a young woman, it is not hardship to ask her to do work, and give her a pension which is appropriate; but if she is quite unable to do work we are anxious to get a certificate, not from our medical officer, but her own medical officer.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:Is it the policy—
    Mr. SPEAKER:There are 167 Questions on the Paper.

    TOTAL DISABLEMENT.
    9. Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Minister of Pensions whether the term "totally disabled" is merely a pension classification or whether it means totally unable to follow any trade or profession; if it is a pension classification, how many service men so classified are now employed; and, if any, whether total disablement pension once granted has in any case been reduced?
    Mr. MACPHERSON:The award of a pension at the maximum degree of disablement does not necessarily mean that the pensioner is totally unable to follow any trade or profession. The assessment of a disablement pension is based upon the medical aspect of the man's disability, and I am unable to state the number of men in receipt of maximum pensions who are in fact in employment. Pensions awarded on the basis of a 100 per cent. disablement are in many instances reduced when a fresh medical examination reveals an improvement in the man's physical condition.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEES, IRELAND.
    3. Mr. DONALDasked the Minister of Pensions the number of persons employed as secretaries and clerks in local War Pensions Committees in Ireland; and how many of these are ex-service men or dependants of such?
    Mr. MACPHERSON:There are 148 secretaries of local War Pensions Committees and Sub-committees in Ireland, of whom 79 are either ex-service men or the dependants of those who have served in the Forces. I have been unable to obtain the corresponding figures for clerks in the short time available, but I am making inquiries and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
    Colonel ASHLEY:In view of the fact that in England practically every secretary of a War Pensions Committee is an ex-service man, why cannot the same consideration be extended to ex-service men in Ireland, where men went voluntarily to fight for this country?
    Mr. MACPHERSON:I think my hon. and gallant Friend will find that everything possible is being done in Ireland to appoint ex-service men to these positions, but my hon. and gallant Friend will, of course, remember that these men began their service when the War was still on, and were quite unable to serve.
    Colonel ASHLEY:Will my right hon. Friend take steps to dismiss these secretaries, and put in ex-service men?
    Mr. MACPHERSON:I could not say that, because that is a very difficult question. One has to consider all the circumstances in every individual case. My hon. and gallant Friend is the last person to turn out into the cold world any man who has served well in difficult circumstances.
    Mr. DONALD:Is my right hon. Friend aware that only a few days ago the Minister of Labour announced in this House there were 13,316 ex-officers and other ranks with qualifications which made them eligible to fill these posts, and, while I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, yet everything is not being done for ex-service men in Ireland—
    Mr. SPEAKER:The hon. Member is not entitled to make a statement.
    Mr. DONALD:On a point of Order. Am I not within my rights to say that ex-service men are being boycotted, and that I want the Government to do something in their behalf?
    Mr. SPEAKER:The hon. Member is not within his rights in making a statement at question time. He should put down a question.

    UNEMPLOYMENT.
    67. Mr. BRIANTasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that 325,000 members of the National Federation of Discharged Soldiers and Sailors are estimated by that organisation to be out of work and what steps the Government propose to take for dealing with the problem?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara):I have been asked to reply. I have seen the estimate of the Federation. So far as our registers are concerned, on June 18th there were 180,801 ex-service men claiming out-of-work donation. If I add to that figure the number who have exhausted their right to the same, and add another quota of ex-service men unemployed, but not on our registers, I think we could probably add another 20,000, making the estimated total of unemployed ex-service men round about 200,000. But if the Federation has any evidence that the number is larger, I shall he glad to have it. Over and above this 200,000 there are, I regret to say, probably round about 20,000 ex-

    617
    officers and other ranks of similar educational qualifications who are unemployed. As regards the second part of the question, we are at work daily upon this problem, and, amongst other things, have the great advantage of the advice of the Standing Joint Committee upon which employers, trade unionists, and ex-service men are represented. While it is entirely creditable to the nation that 5¼million ex-service men have been re-absorbed in civil life, there still remains to us the task of concentrating our energies upon the outstanding 200,000 men and 20,000 officers and other ranks unemployed.
    Captain TERRELL:Is it not possible to utilise the services of these men in the construction of new houses?
    Mr. DONALD:Will the same machinery apply to Ireland?
    Dr. MACNAMARA:Yes, precisely the same machinery as is used for the training of soldiers.
    Captain TERRELL:Is it the fact that the trade unions will not allow these men to be employed in the building industry?
    Dr. MACNAMARA:I would not make a sweeping statement of that kind. We have received great help from some trade unions, and we are in negotiation with others, which perhaps have not quite seen this problem in its proper perspective.

    THIRD LONDON GENERAL HOSPITAL.
    5. Sir H. HARRISasked the Minister of Pensions whether the Third London General Hospital, which is to be closed on the 31st July, has been offered to the Ministry of Pensions and declined; and whether he will state the number of War pensioners now receiving treatment in civil hospitals?
    Mr. MACPHERSON:The hospital referred to has been offered to the Ministry; but the accommodation was considered less suitable to the requirements of the Ministry than that of another hospital, the transfer of which to the Ministry is being considered. The number of War pensioners now receiving treatment in civil hospitals is approximately 15,000.

    PRE-WAR PENSIONS.
    7. Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that pre-War pensions which were due on the 1st October, 1919, were not paid till the 5th February, 1920, and the pensions due on the 1st April, 1920, were not paid until the 14th June, 1920; if any reasons can be given for this delay; and will he take steps to see that these pensioners receive the money in future on the day it falls due?
    Mr. MACPHERSON:I do not know to what class of pension my hon. Friend refers. Pensions paid by my Department are, with very few exceptions, paid weekly in advance.
    Mr. EDWARDS:Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to prevent this delay?
    Mr. MACPHERSON:Certainly, but I should like to point out that pre-War pensions are really under the Service Departments. Pre-War pensions are divided into two classes—the Service pension and the Disability pension. If my hon. Friend has got any case in which he is specially interested, and will send it to me, I will look into it at once, or consult the appropriate Department. I may say that under the new Bill I am taking over the administration of all pre-War war pensions.

  IRELAND.

    POLICE (RECOGNITION OF GALLANTRY).
    10. Colonel ASHLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it has now been decided to institute a special medal or decoration to be granted to the officers and men of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin metropolitan police who have shown special gallantry in the execution of their duty under circumstances dangerous to life and limb; and whether, if the answer is in the affirmative, the medal or decoration will carry a money pension with it?
    The CHIEF SERCETARY for IRELAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood):I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to his question on this subject on Thursday last, and to which I have nothing at present to add.
    Colonel ASHLEY:Was not the reply that the matter was under consideration? When shall I put down a further question?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD:The matter is an extremely technical matter. I must have the fullest time for consideration, for I am reluctant to advise the issue of a new medal, having regard to the fact that two medals are already available for the gallant constabulary in Ireland.

    ARMS (PERMITS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:
    11. To ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many permits to possess arms have been issued but not withdrawn in Ireland to date; how many of these permits are held by citizens of Londonderry; whether it is intended to withdraw these permits, in view of recent outbreaks; and what progress has been made with the disarmament of the citizens of Londonderry?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:I desire to postpone this question, and shall be glad of a date when I can put it again.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD:Thursday. May I take this opportunity of asking hon. Members to give three days' clear notice of questions regarding Ireland. The most of these must be referred to Ireland and different parts of that country, to get answers as full as I like to give hon. Members.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY:When may I again put this question down—will next Thursday be a suitable day?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD:I said yes.

    ILLEGAL COURTS.
    13. Captain FOXCROFTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the County Council of County Donegal have granted the use of the Court-house in Ballyshannon for holding Republican Courts; and, if so, what steps the Government intend to take in the matter?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD:My attention has been drawn to a Press notice to the effect mentioned in the question, but there is no evidence available to prove
    620
    that the Court-house has been used for illegal purposes. If, and when, such evidence is obtained, then action will be taken.
    Colonel ASHLEY:Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to ascertain whether this is true or not, and not wait for private Members to tell him?
    Mr. PALMER:May I ask if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is yet convinced of the fact that there are such. things—he denied it the other day—as illegal Courts in Ireland?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD:I am convinced that there are a great many irregular gatherings called Courts in Ireland—
    Mr. PALMER:At which barristers appear!
    Sir H. GREENWOOD:At which some barristers are alleged to have appeared.
    Mr. PALMER:Do appear!
    Sir H. GREENWOOD:It is impossible for the Secretary for Ireland to take legal steps until we have evidence, which is legal.
    HON. MEMBERS:Get evidence!

    POLICE RATE, DUBLIN.
    14. Colonel ASHLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what steps he proposes to take to recover from the Dublin County Council the first moiety of demand in connection with the Dublin Metropolitan Police rate, in view of the fact that at a meeting of this County Council held on 24th June under the republican flag it was decided not to pay the first moiety of £8,164 2s. 7d., and an additional item of £119 14s. for extra police?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD:As the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware, the Lord Lieutenant has power to recover moneys due to the Crown by a local authority out of grants which would otherwise be payable to such authority from the local taxation (Ireland) account. This power will, if necessary, be exercised.

    OUTRAGES.
    16. Captain FOXCROFTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received a request from the Dublin

    621
    correspondents of the London and provincial papers asking that the official list of outrages be issued each evening in time for transmission to their respective papers; and whether he will give instructions that the request be complied with?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD:The present arrangements have been made to meet the convenience of the Press, but I shall be glad to consider any further representations that are made to me.

    IRISH LANGUAGE.
    17. Captain FOXCROFTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware of any instance of a person having been arrested for speaking or learning the Irish language?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD:No, Sir.

    SLIGO PRISON (RAID).
    19. Mr. DONALDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that a raid was made on Sligo prison about 2 a.m. on Saturday, 26th instant, by a party of masked and armed men, who rescued and carried off a Sinn Fein prisoner; whether the prison was entirely unprotected; whether the military guard has been withdrawn from the prison and, if so, will he say by whose orders the guard was withdrawn; whether he is aware that a number of unmarried officers, male end female, sleep in the prison, also a number of married officers with their wives and families live there entirely unprotected; and whether, seeing that those officers are not provided with any means of defence in case of a further attack on them, he will state what steps the Government propose to take to have those officers, their wives, and families properly protected in the future?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD:The raid and the consequent rescue of a prisoner occurred as stated. The military guard was withdrawn on 1st May, 1920, for the purpose of protecting Sligo Courthouse, and there were not sufficient troops in Sligo at the time to protect both buildings. Four unmarried officers and two married officers with their families have quarters in the prison.
    Mr. DONALD:Is this place protected now?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD:Yes, adequately protected.

    BURGLARY, ISLANDMAGEE.
    22. Mr. HANNAasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the house of Mrs. McKean, Islandmagee, county Antrim, was, on the night of Friday, the 25th June, burglariously entered by armed and masked men; if any arrests have been made; and, if not, what steps are being taken to effect the arrest of the offenders?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD:The house of Mrs. M`Kean was entered on the morning of 26th ultimo by one man, who was not armed or masked. No arrest has yet been made. The case appears to be one of ordinary crime.
    Captain W. BENN:Will such a case be put in the official list of outrages?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD:No, it will not be put in that list.

    STATIONMASTER, MALLOW (KIDNAPPING).
    23. Colonel NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the stationmaster at Mallow, county Cork, who was kidnapped some days ago, has been set at liberty; and can he say what reasons were assigned for his abduction?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD:The stationmaster at Mallow who was kidnapped on the 27th June returned home at 4 a.m. yesterday. He can assign no reason for his abduction. He is not aware who the parties were, where they came from, or where they went to.
    Colonel NEWMAN:Does that only mean that he is afraid to give names?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD:That may be very likely.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
    59. Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of the further stages of the Government of Ireland Bill not being proceeded with until later in the year, the Government intend to immediately introduce and pass into law measures important to Ireland, such as the completion of land purchase and the reform of the Irish education system.
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House):As it is the intention of the

    623
    Government to carry the Government of Ireland Bill through its remaining stages, it is not necessary to consider the hypothesis in the last part of the question.
    Colonel NEWMAN:Is it intended to proceed with the Government of Ireland Bill before the Autumn recess?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I doubt whether there will be any more time for it before the Autumn recess, but it will be proceeded with when we resume.

    IMPERIAL TAXES.
    80. Colonel GRETTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum in the form of Imperial taxes was collected in Ireland during the first five months of the calendar year 1919 and also in the corresponding five months of the year 1920; and can he state the amounts collected by Customs and Excise separately from the total sums collected as above?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain):The following are the figures desired. First five months of 1919, £14,809,000, of which Customs and Excise produced £6,029,000; first five months of 1920, £20,179,000, of which Customs and Excise produced £10,076,000.

  RUSSIA.

    TRADE RELATIONS.
    24. Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he can state the names of those countries which have now established full trade relations with the Russian Soviet Republic?
    Mr. KELLAWAY (Additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs):No countries can be said to have established full trade relations with the Russian Soviet Government, but limited agreements have been concluded between Russian representatives and groups of firms in Sweden and Denmark. There are also certain trade negotiations taking place with Norwegian and Italian interests.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:Is it not the fact that trade has been opened up between Esthonia and Latvia?
    Mr. KELLAWAY:Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would put a question on the Paper.

    BRITISH PRISONERS, BAKU.
    29. Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister what is the latest news of the officers and men captured and reported to be held as slaves and undergoing torture at the hands of the Soviet forces at Baku?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:The latest information from General Headquarters, Mesopotamia, dated 29th June, states that on the 9th of June the Dutch Consul left Baku and stated that on that date naval prisoners were confined to Babeloff Prison. The food issued was insufficient and primitive, although treatment not bad. Supplementary information to this has been received, viâ Tifflis, to-day, to the effect that about the middle of June the British prisoners were removed to Nobel's Villa at Petrovia, outside Baku. It is reported that the British civilians are expected to be released shortly.
    Viscount CURZON:Has any news of what that treatment is been received?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I have given all the information we have.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:Are we then to understand that there is no confirmation whatever of the allegations of torture in the Press?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I do not know about torture; but certainly there were indications that they were not well treated.

    SOVIET TRADE DELEGATION.
    39. Captain W. BENNasked the Prime Minister whether he will give the House of Commons an opportunity of debating the Anglo-Russian situation before negotiations are broken off and M. Krassin leaves this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I am not prepared to give the undertaking asked for in the question.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY:Are we to have no say in the matter? Are we to be told nothing at all?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:There has been a considerable quantity of discussion already, and I have no doubt there will be a great deal more.
    Captain BENN:Does the answer mean that this episode will be closed, unless the House of Commons makes its voice heard?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:That does not depend upon us.
    42. Mr. PALMERasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that M. Krassin, the agent of the Soviet Government of Russia, is fulfilling his pledge not to engage in any political action in this country; and whether he is aware that M. Krassin has had interviews with Miss Sylvia Pankhurst, who has been actively employed in propaganda work for the Soviet Government, and that in other ways he has broken the pledge under which His Majesty's Government agreed to enter into commercial negotiations with him?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:There is no reason to believe that M. Krassin has broken his pledge not to engage in any political action in this country.
    Mr. PALMER:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the woman referred to in the question is in the pay of Lenin, and that she is endeavouring to disaffect British soldiers, and propagate Bolshevik doctrines?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:That may be true, but we have taken all the means in our power to ascertain whether M. Krassin has broken his pledge not to engage in political action, and the answer I have given is the result.
    Captain TERRELL:Is M. Krassin being closely watched?
    64. Colonel GRETTONasked the Prime Minister what are the commodities in which M. Krassin proposes to trade as exports from Russia and imports into Russia; and are satisfactory guarantees being given that Russia has wheat, or other food, in any quantity available for export?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:In answer to the first part of the question, M. Krassin proposed to export from Russia the following commodities:—
    Timber and timber products, flax, cereals, oil products, bristles, leather and fur goods, manganese ore, etc.
    626
    He proposes to import:—
    Mining gear, machine tools, electric plant, medical appliances and drugs, agricultural machinery, locomotives, railway material, textile goods and appliances, and general merchandise, etc.
    In answer to the second part of the question, the quantity of wheat or other food available for export will depend on the date at which trading starts and the speed with which transport is organised.
    Sir J. D. REES:Will manganese from the Caucasus come under these arrangements? Is the Caucasus still considered part of Russia?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I should like to have notice of that. I do not think it is only from the Caucasus that manganese from Russia comes.
    Colonel GRETTON:Are the Government taking steps to satisfy themselves of the possibility of maintaining trade relations with Russia?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:We have done our best to find out the facts, but my information is so conflicting that I do not care to make myself responsible for them.
    65. Colonel GRETTONasked the Prime Minister if the negotiations with M. Krassin are proceeding and are still strictly confined to trade matters; will he say if the preliminary conditions have been agreed; and, if so, what the conditions are?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:Negotiations are still proceeding, but as the Government have come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when a decision should be reached, they have intimated this to M. Krassin who is returning to Russia in order that he may put the conditions of the British Government before the Soviet authorities and be in a position to give a definite answer.
    Colonel GRETTON:Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these negotiations are confined to trade, or do they extend to political matters?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:It is rather difficult to define what is trade and what is politics, but we have made it quite clear that His Majesty's Government will make no trading arrangements until certain conditions have been fulfilled.
    Mr. RAFFAN:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister stated that he hoped to make a statement on the whole subject to the House in the course of a few days? Shall we have that statement?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement when some decision has been come to, and I do not think any object will be gained by a discussion until then.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE:Is it true that the question of Persia has been raised in these negotiations, and that M. Krassin is returning to Russia partly to deal with that question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I do not think it would be wise to go into one aspect of the question when we cannot deal with other aspects.
    Colonel GRETTON:Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that a full statement shall be made to the House before the negotiations are concluded?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I cannot give such an undertaking, in view of the fact that a decision might be arrived at at any moment, or the negotiations might come to an end.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:Would it not be as well to have a statement of the views of the British Government on these negotiations, such as would appeal not only to Lenin, but to the whole of the Russian people?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I do not think anything would be gained by propaganda.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY:Will you stop propaganda on the other side?

    BRITISH LOAN.
    40. Mr. MYERSasked the Prime Minister whether the loan obtained by Russia through the British Government was secured on the pledge of the Ural Mountains with all their valuable mines of platinum, etc.?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:The answer is in the negative.

    BRITISH INTERVENTION (COST).
    53. Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the Prime Minister whether his attention
    628
    has been drawn to the delay in publishing the statement of the total cost of British intervention in Russia up to 31st March, 1920; whether the statement of the cost of intervention up to 31st July, 1919, was issued in August, 1919, and the statement of the cost of intervention up to 31st October, 1919, was issued in November, 1919; and what is the reason for the delay of over 10 weeks in issuing the statement of cost up to 31st March, 1920?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill):I have been asked to answer this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for Clitheroe on 15th June. The papers issued in August and November, 1919, were in the nature of interim statements of expenditure, but I am taking pains to see that the further statement now to be issued shall be as complete and correct as possible.

    TRADE UNIONISTS (BATOUM).
    57. Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Russian trades union leaders are alleged to have been arrested at Batoum by the British Forces and deported to Constantinople; whether he is aware that great indignation has been aroused in Russia by this alleged arrest; whether the allegation is correct; and, if so, on what grounds were the arrests made and was approval given by His Majesty's Government before the step was taken?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:The report in question has been brought to the attention of His Majesty's Government, who are endeavouring to ascertain whether there is any truth in it, and, if so, what are the facts.

  MESOPOTAMIA.

    POLITICAL AND TRADE PROTECTION.
    27. Major GLYNasked the Prime Minister whether it is certain that, under whatever political arrangements are made in Mesopotamia, the Turks will not get back into possession; that pro-British Mesopotamians have adequate protection; and that fully sufficient safeguards are provided for the protection of trade routes?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:It is impossible to say more on this subject than was said by the Prime Minister recently in Debate.

    OIL.
    34. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister what concessions were granted prior to the War by the Turkish Government to develop the oil and mineral resources of Mesopotamia; were the rights of the local inhabitants safeguarded in these concessions in any way, and, if so, how; and what is the policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter?
    36. Mr. KILEYasked the Prime Minister when he will lay upon the Table any agreements entered into by the Government with regard to the oil deposits in Mosul.
    47. Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister whether all the pre-War concessions granted by the Turkish Government in regard to oil in the vilayet of Mosul are now vested in the Turkish Petroleum Company; whether the Turkish Petroleum Company is an entirely British concern; whether the British Government have any holdings in this company; whether the Royal Dutch Company has any interest in the Turkish Petroleum Company, and, if so, to what extent; and whether the Turkish Petroleum Company have made any representations to the Government as to the steps which, in their opinion, should be taken to safeguard the use and means of supply of oil in the vilayet of Mosul.
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I would refer the hon. Members to the Prime Minister's reply to questions on this subject on 28th June. As already stated, the method of development of the Mesopotamian oilfields is still under consideration. The Turkish Petroleum Company is registered in the United Kingdom, and the participation fixed before the War was Anglo-Persian Oil Company 50 per cent., Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Company 25 per cent., and Deutsche Bank 25 per cent. The latter holding has been temporarily acquired by His Majesty's Government. The Royal Dutch Company is interested as a shareholder in the Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Company. I am not aware of any representations having been made by the Turkish. Petroleum Company as suggested by the hon. Member for Mid-Stafford.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:Is there any information with regard to the rights of the local inhabitants being safeguarded? That is a question which was not answered by the Prime Minister.
    Mr. BONAR LAW:No, but the Prime Minister did say that the whole question of the development of the oil would depend upon the new arrangements when the new State was set up. He also said that the local rights before the War would be considered and dealt with on their merits.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE:Was the concession granted by the Turkish Government in perpetuity or only for a limited time?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I do not know.
    Captain W. BENN:When he said it was subject to the pre-1914 arrangement, should he not have said that that absorbed all the interests?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:No. What the pre-1914 arrangements were will be settled on their merits.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY:Can we not be given the terms of these concessions? May we have them laid on the Table of the House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I daresay they could.

    BAGHDAD RAILWAY.
    81. Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any information he can give the House regarding the present position and future progress of the Baghdad Railway project as affected by railway constructions and developments during the War?
    Mr. KELLAWAY:I have no information at present to give the House in regard to the Baghdad Railway project, the future of which is necessarily bound up with the general liquidation of the Ottoman Empire.

    MINISTERS (DUTIES AND EMOLUMENTS).
    30. Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister what are the respective duties and emoluments of the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the

    631
    Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister without portfolio?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:(1) Lord President of the Council.—I would refer the hon. Member to the evidence upon the duties of the Privy Council Office laid by the Clerk of the Council before the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments which reported in the year 1914, since which important functions of a scientific character have been assigned to the Lord President in connection with the Committee of the Privy Council on Scientific and Industrial Research, the Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau, and the Medical Research Council. In addition to the above duties the present Lord President of the Council represents Great Britain on the Council of the League of Nations. The salary of the Lord President is £2,000 per annum.
    (2)Lord Privy Seal.—There are no special duties attached to the office of Lord Privy Seal. The present holder is in receipt of a salary of £5,000 per annum.
    (3)Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.—The duties of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are to control the management of the Duchy estates and revenues and to exercise the patronage vested in him on behalf of His Majesty. His emoluments are £2,000 per annum, paid out of the revenues of the Duchy.
    (4)Minister without Portfolio.—The duties of the Minister without portfolio are to assist in carrying on the Government, and he receives a salary of £5,000 per annum.
    Mr. PALMER:Arising out of that answer, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that of these four well-paid sinecures, three might be dispensed with?
    Mr. D. HERBERT:Does the right hon. Gentleman look upon the office of Lord Privy Seal as a sinecure?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:The office of Lord Privy Seal is a sinecure! But I can say, as regards the other three, if they do not earn their salaries, it is not because they have not plenty to do.
    Captain BENN:Have the Government not assigned the representation of this country on the Council of the League of Nations as a permanent part of the duty -of the Lord President of the Council.
    Mr. BONAR LAW:No, Sir; but he is at present exercising it.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    WAR CRIMINALS (TRIAL).
    31.. Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister what has become of the 27 German U-boat commanders whose names were published by the Admiralty in September, 1918, as prisoners of war, and many of whom stood accused of grave violations of the rules of warfare; whether the six other commanders then stated to be interned in neutral countries are still so interned; and when, and in what manner, it is proposed to bring these war criminals to justice?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:As regards the first part of the question, only one of the German U-boat commanders stands accused of grave violation of the rules of warfare, and he is still in detention in this country. The remainder have been released. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. As regards the last part, the trials will take place before the German Court at Leipzig. The date has not yet been fixed.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY:As regards the one who is still in custody here, are we to send him over to Germany for trial?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:We are detaining him until we are satisfied that he will be tried.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY:Why not try him here?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:What is the use of asking that question? It has been arranged that the trial shall take place at Leipzig.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY:But surely that applies only to those who were offenders, and are at present in Germany?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:Oh, no! It was definitely arranged by the Allies, and they agreed the first trials should take place at Leipzig. If they were not satisfactory, we reserved the right to try them here.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN:Why not try sending this man back, and see if it is satisfactory?
    Mr. PALMER:What will be regarded as a satisfactory trial; does it mean a sentence?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:It will mean a sentence if the man deserves it.
    Mr. PALMER:Who will be the judge of whether or not he deserves a sentence?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:We shall be the judges of whether or not the trial is being carried out in a way that is satisfactory.
    Colonel C. LOWTHER:Will the ex-Kaiser be tried at Leipzig; also the higher grade and lower grade criminals?
    Mr. SPEAKER:That is not included in this question.
    45. Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether the Allies and His Majesty's Government intend to press the German Government at the forthcoming Conference at Spa to proceed with the trial of those Germans who are mentioned in the black list forthwith?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to have this question discussed at Spa.
    62. Colonel LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister whether the immunity promised to the ex-Kaiser in the event of war with Holland will equally protect the lesser criminals who have perpetrated acts of barbarism against humanity, and who are still awaiting trial in different centres of enemy countries.
    Mr. BONAR LAW:There is no connection between the question of the ex-Emperor, for whose custody the Netherlands Government have accepted responsibility, and that of the punishment of other persons accused of acts contrary to the laws of war. On that subject I have nothing to add to previous statements which I have made.
    Colonel LOWTHER:In the event of any of these lesser criminals seeking sanctuary in Holland, and the Dutch Government refusing to repatriate them, what is to take place?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:That is an academic question. It is a thing unlikely to arise. The cases are not analagous, anyhow.
    Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN:How long is the ex-Kaiser to remain in Holland—indefinitely?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:That depends on the Dutch Government, and possibly on the length of the life of the Kaiser.

    GERMAN MINES, NORTH SEA.
    44. Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether the Allies and His Majesty's Government are satisfied with the efforts made by Germany to sweep up mines in the area allotted to her in the North Sea under the Treaty of Versailles for sweeping; whether a very large number of German mines are known to be adrift or remaining to be swept up; and, if so, whether the Allies at Spa will take steps to compel Germany to carry out her portion of the Peace Treaty during the few remaining months when mine sweeping is possible in the North Sea before the moored mines break adrift in the winter storms?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:The result of Ger man mine sweeping has not been satisfactory, as owing to conditions of internal disorder in the German Navy the mine sweeping was delayed during the spring and early summer of this year. Better progress, however, is now expected. The demands to be made on Germany at Spa will be considered by the Allies at the Conference at Brussels.

    GERMAN WAR PLANES (SURRENDER).
    61. Colonel LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister whether the stipulated number of war planes have been surrendered by Germany to the Allies; how many of these have been destroyed before delivery; and whether it would serve the Allied cause best if many of these war planes were to be sent to some Allied zone from which they could be used for purposes of offence against belligerents with whom we have declared war since the Armistice?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:In accordance with the provisions of the Peace Treaty all aeronautical material used or designed for warlike purposes is to be surrendered to the Allies. Up to 19th June, 1920, 19 aeroplanes had been handed over to the Allies and 2,846 aeroplanes had been destroyed under Allied supervision. Owing to the disadvantage of increasing the variety of types employed and the difficulty of providing for the supply of spares, I am afraid the suggestion contained in the third part of the question is not practicable.
    Major-General SEELY:How many aeroplanes are left? The right hon. Gentleman has told us how many have

    635
    been surrendered and how many destroyed. How many are there which ought to have been surrendered?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I could not answer that without notice. My right hon. and gallant Friend knows that the question of disarmament is one of the main topics for discussion at Spa.
    Colonel LOWTHER:Would not planes used in the Great War be of great service in the guerrilla warfare in which we are now engaged?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I think we have a large number of aeroplanes of our own which were used in the War.
    Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY:Surely we are not going to destroy this war material in view of our many commitments in various parts of the world?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS:Is it not a fact that all the hangars in this country are already filled with our own planes?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:Send them to Russia.

  TURKEY.

    FRENCH AND ITALIAN FORCES.
    35. Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister what was the proportionate strength of the French and Italian forces originally agreed upon to assist the British forces in protecting the Sultan in Constantinople and in keeping the Straits open; and what is the proportionate strength at present?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:No definite agreement has yet been made as to the proportion of troops to be found by each power, and it would not be in the public interest to give the information asked for in the last part of the question.

    GREEK OPERATIONS.
    38. Captain W. BENNasked the Prime Minister what obligations of any kind in men, money, or material this country has undertaken in connection with the new offensive against the Turks?
    52. Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Prime Minister what is the extent of our
    636
    obligations in connection with the campaign against the Turkish Nationalists; why we are engaged in that campaign; how many troops we have, or that it is expected we shall have, engaged therein; what is the estimated cost of our participation; and what useful purpose will be secured, so far as this country is concerned, by such participation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I can add nothing to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member.
    66. Dr. MURRAYasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, as stated by M. Venizelos, the Greek Government in its operations against the Turkish Nationalists is acting with the approval of the Supreme Council, and strictly in accordance with the directions laid down by Marshal Foch and Field-Marshal Sir Henry Wilson?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:The present Greek operations were sanctioned at the recent meeting at Boulogne, at which the French and British military advisers were present.
    Sir J. D. REES:Is it desirable that the operations of the Greeks against the Turks should appear to be directed by His Majesty's Government, in view of the great interests we have in the Mohammedan world, and that there are more Mohammedan than Christian subjects of the King?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:His Majesty's Government are engaged only in resisting attacks.

    NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
    46. Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the public concern with regard to the state of our national finances, he will consider the advisability of appointing a committee composed exclusively of men eminent in business and financial circles, to make an independent and searching inquiry into the financial situation, and report as to what economies can be effected in national expenditure?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:The Government are not prepared to adopt the suggestion in the question.
    Captain TUDOR-REES:Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the evi-

    637
    dente of some independent committee, such as is suggested in the question, would conduce to allaying public anxiety?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:No, I do not think so.
    51. Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Prime Minister who are the members of the special independent committees appointed to carry out test investigations in public Departments; and whether they have yet recommended, and, if so, what, economies as a result of their inquiries?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I am not at present able to announce the constitution of the Committee, as answers have not yet been received from many of the Gentlemen who have been invited to serve.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    NAURU ISLAND.
    48. Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether, as the mandatory Power for the Nauru Island, it was the intention of His Majesty's Government to so administer this island as to secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other members of the League, including the purchase of its phosphates, in accordance with Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to which His Majesty's Government had subscribed?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery):It is the intention to administer the island of Nauru in accordance with the sixth paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

    AALAND ISLANDS.
    63. Mr. CAPEasked the Prime Minister whether the Swedish or Finnish Governments have appealed to the League of Nations over the question of the Aaland Islands; and, if not, whether the League of Nations is justified in intervening without any request from the two Powers concerned?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:In reply to the hon. Member's question, I would refer him to the answer I gave on 28th June to my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin.

    RUSSIA.
    68. Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Lord Privy Seal when it is proposed to invite Russia to become a member of the League of Nations?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I would refer the hon. Member to Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Covenant. It is not possible for any nation, other than those set out in the Annex, to be admitted a member of the League of Nations until after the first meeting of the Assembly, which President Wilson has been asked to call in November next.

    PERMANENT COMMISSION.
    69. Mr. KENYONasked the Lord Privy Seal when it is proposed to set up the permanent Commission of the League of Nations to which the mandatory Powers are to present their Reports?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I am informed that the Permanent Commission cannot finally be set up until after the meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations, which President Wilson has been asked to call in November next. I understand that the Council of the League are now considering whether it is possible for them to do this work provisionally.

    BOLSHEVIST PROPAGANDA.
    50. Mr. RAPERasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to take disciplinary action in the case of naval and military officers who are known to be plotting for the introduction of a Bolshevist regime in this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I do not understand my hon. Friend's question. If he has any information I shall be glad to receive it.
    Mr. RAPER:Is my right hon. Friend aware that documents have recently been sent to London by the British Minister in Finland, implicating General Sir Hubert Gough, head of the late Inter-Allied Military Mission in Finland, also Commander Grenfell and Professor Cotter, late Naval and Press Attaches to the British Legation at Helsingfors?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I have not heard of it.

    CYPRUS.
    55. Mr. GEORGE THORNEasked the Prime Minister whether the Cyprus deputation who have lately returned to this country are pressing upon the Government a solution of the Cyprus question in accordance with the wishes of the great majority of the population; whether the Government have arrived at any decision on the question; and, if not, whether, in the interests of all concerned, a decision will be reached and announced without delay?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY:No change in the status of Cyprus is in contemplation.

    HUNGARY.
    58. Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he will make inquiries as to the arrest of Lieutenant Hejjas, seeing that according to the latest information from Hungary Hejjas, Friedrich, and the awakening Hungarians are now openly organising against civil government and are more dangerous than ever before?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I shall be glad to make inquiries as to the arrest of Lieutenant Hejjas.

    ANGLO-JAPANESE ALLIANCE.
    60. Mr. CLYNESasked the Prime Minister whether the question of terminating, renewing, or revising the Anglo-Japanese alliance is under consideration; whether any negotiations on the subject have taken place; and whether an opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the whole question before any decision is taken by the Government?
    54. Mr. SITCHasked the Prime Minister if the terms and conditions of the alliance between Great Britain and Japan are at present or are likely to be under consideration by either or both parties concerned with the view to revision or otherwise; whether, in the event of His Majesty's Government proposing to renew the alliance with Japan, Members of both Houses of Parliament will, before the actual papers are signed, be furnished with copies of the terms and conditions upon which it is intended that the alliance shall be renewed.
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I cannot add anything to the reply given on the 3rd June to the hon. Member for Lincoln. It is not possible to make any further statement at present.
    Mr. CLYNES:Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has anything further to tell the House as to opportunities for discussing this matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:That is a long way in the future. We have come to no, decision yet.

    EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
    70. Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the contingent liabilities of the Government in respect of Excess Profits Duty collected and liable to be refunded under The Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, amount to more than £500,000,000; and whether it is proposed to promote legislation to limit the liabilities of the Government in this respect?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 29th June to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Mr. Gould). I am sending the hon. Member a copy of that reply, which indicates that no legislation on this subject is either contemplated or necessary.

    MINISTRY OF MINES (COST).
    72. Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any estimate has been made of the annual cost of the proposed Ministry of Mines; and, if so, what is the amount of it?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man):I have been asked to reply. It is not possible, until the Ministry of Mines Bill becomes law, to prepare any detailed estimates of the cost of the Ministry of Mines. A provisional estimate places the cost of the new Department, including the staff taken over from other Departments, at about £250,000 per annum. Except for a very small proportion of the amount, this represents the cost of existing organisations which will be transferred to the Ministry. Incidentally, I may mention that the sum stated represents less than half the

    641
    amount included in the Civil Service Estimates for 1920–21 for the Coal Mines Department alone.
    Captain TUDOR-REES:Is any portion of that huge sum to come out of the industry itself, or is the taxpayer to pay the lot?
    Mr. PALMER:Does this include housing accommodation for this new bureaucracy?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN:It includes what will appear on the Estimates. It does not include the charge on the industry.

    FOATING DEBT.
    73. Captain W. BENNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of the Floating Debt outstanding on Saturday last; and what was the total subscription to the Treasury Bonds to that date?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:The Floating Debt on Saturday, 26th June, was £1,287,950,000, and the Exchequer receipts from Treasury Bonds were £7,660,000.
    Captain BENN:Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the subscriptions have been during the week for these Treasury Bonds?
    Mr. SPEAKER:The hon. and gallant Gentleman should give notice of that question.
    76. Mr. RAFFANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated amount of surplus revenue which Will be available for the paying off of floating debt during the current year?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:The Budget was framed to provide £70,000,000 for this purpose.

    NATIONAL CREDIT.
    77. Major ENTWISTLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government intends to take any action for checking the decline of the national credit as indicated by the difference of £340,000,000 between the value of the longer-dated Government securities at the price of issue and their present value
    642
    and by the failure of the Treasury Bonds issue?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I do not think the hon. and gallant Member is justified in regarding the phenomenon to which he refers as an indication of a decline of the national credit. The present depreciation in the market value of British Government War issues is paralleled by an exactly similar depreciation in the Liberty Loan issues of the United States Government, and is a world-wide phenomenon due to temporary causes arising out of the destruction of capital during the War. I have done my best to meet the necessities of the situation by presenting a Budget which provides for a reduction of debt out of surplus revenue in the current financial year to a total of £234,000,000, and in 1921–2 to a total of some £300,000,000. As I have more than once stated, I do not think that there is any short cut to recovery, which must depend on patient and long-continued effort. As regards the Treasury Bond issue, though the total subscribed is disappointing, the number of small applications is satisfactory, and, I think, may be taken to indicate that this further opportunity of investing in a high-class Government security is welcome to a considerable section of the growing class of small investors.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY:Does not that answer show the necessity of preventing any more destruction of capital by further warfare?

    NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
    78. Major HAYWARDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the weekly sales of national savings certificates are only slightly in excess of the weekly repayments; and, if so, how it is proposed to find the money for repayments after 1st October, after which date half the receipts from the sales of these certificates will be allocated for housing purposes?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The liability for repayment to holders of certificates will remain after 1st October, as now, a charge on the Exchequer, and will be met from general balances, in so far as the sum available

    643
    from receipts from the sale of new certificates is insufficient. But I hope that the new stimulus which will be given to the savings movement will obviate any such insufficiency.

    TREASURY BONDS (ADVERTISING).
    79. Major HAYWARDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total cost to date of the advertising of the Treasury bonds issue?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:The approximate cost of advertising the Treasury Bond issue from the commencement on 3rd May to date is £18,500, namely, less than a quarter of 1 per cent. of the amount subscribed.

    STOCKHOLM (COMMERCIAL SECRETARY)
    85. Mr. RAPERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether it is proposed to appoint a commercial attaché to the British legation at Stockholm?
    Mr. KELLAWAY:A commercial secretary to the British legation at Stockholm has been appointed, and leaves for Sweden to-morrow.

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTOR HEADLIGHTS.
    87. Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that the police have no power to issue a regulation prohibiting the use of dazzling headlights in the well-lighted streets of London, he will obtain for the police the necessary powers to do so.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal):I have been asked to answer this question. The necessary powers could not be obtained without legislation. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport hopes to introduce a Bill in the near future dealing with the lighting of road vehicles. As he stated on 14th June, in reply to the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), he
    644
    does not think it desirable that the question should be treated piecemeal.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:Before that Bill is introduced, will it be referred to the Roads Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Transport for their opinion?
    Mr. NEAL:The hon. Baronet's suggestion will receive consideration.
    Mr. GRITTEN:Can the hon. Gentleman say why the Lights Regulation Committee has suspended its sittings for so long, and when it is going to resume its duties?
    Mr. SPEAKER:The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

    PRISONS.
    89. Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of prisons in the Metropolitan Police Area; where they are situated; the number of prisoners each prison has accommodation for; and if these prisons are reserved only for prisoners in the Metropolitan Area, or if they are used for all parts of the United Kingdom?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt):There are five prisons in the Metropolitan Police District. Four are for men, namely:—Brixton, having accommodation for 740 prisoners; Pentonville, for 1,181 prisoners; Wandsworth, for 1,380 prisoners; and Wormwood Scrubs, for 1,422 prisoners.
    Women are sent to Holloway Prison, which has accommodation for 972 prisoners.
    These prisons are used ordinarily for prisoners from London and the Home Counties, but they are available, when necessary, for prisoners from all parts of the country.
    90. Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the present scale of salaries for prison warders and head warders; what are the conditions and qualifications for the service, and if ex-service men have any preference for employment; and will he state if the service is full up, or if there are any vacancies?
    Mr. SHORTT:I will send the hon. Member details of the scales of pay. Candidates must be between 24 and 42 years of age, of good health and character and not less than 5 feet 7 inches in height. Preference is given to those candidates who have held commissioned or non-commissioned rank in the Navy or Army, or have some knowledge of a useful trade. At the present time selections for appointment are confined to men who have been in the Navy or Army. There is a long list of highly qualified candidates for the comparatively few vacancies that occur.

    CEYLON (CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM).
    91. Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what deputations have been received regarding the proposed scheme of Constitutional Reform in Ceylon; whether any assurances have been given to such deputations; and whether any opportunity will be given to the house to discuss the question of Constitutional Reform in Ceylon before the Colonial Office come to a final decision on the question?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY:The Secretary of State has recently received deputations from the Mandyan Association, the Ceylon National Congress and Ceylon Reform League, and the European Association of Ceylon, on the question of Constitutional Reform. While he has assured these deputations that their views will receive the fullest consideration, he has not yet been able to give them any indication of his decision in the matter. He is at present engaged in considering all proposals placed before him, and I hope shortly to be in a position to inform the House of the general lines of the policy which he proposes to adopt.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT:Will it be before the Autumn Session, or afterwards?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY:I hope it may be possible before the close of this Session.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:Will there be an opportunity of discussing the question in this House—not merely a statement and no discussion?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY:I have not complete control of that, but I think my
    646
    hon. and gallant Friend will probably find an opportunity.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:Will not a Bill be necessary?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY:No, Sir; it is not the custom for changes in the Constitution of Crown Colonies to come up as Bills.

    EAST AFRICA (LABOUR ORDINANCE).
    92. Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a copy of the Ainsworth-Northey Labour Ordinance for British East Africa has yet been received; whether the terms of this Ordinance have been examined by the Colonial Office with a view to revision; whether the Ordinance is being acted upon or has been suspended pending amendment; and when a copy of the Ordinance will be presented to Parliament?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY:I understand my hon. Friend to refer to the Labour Circular—not an ordinance—issued last October. As stated in the House on 16th June, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, copies of the circular have been received, and an amending circular is about to be issued. The two circulars will be laid on the Table at the same time, and I expect that there will be little delay before this is done.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    CHEESE AND BUTTER.
    95. Sir W. SEAGERasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that an attempt is being made by the co-operative societies through their representatives in New Zealnd to secure the whole of the output of cheese and butter in that country; whether, in view of the fact that at certain periods of the year New Zealand is the chief source of supply of cheese for Home consumption, and as the output there is calculated to be at about 60,000 tons of cheese and 18,000 tons of butter, and forms an important part of the supplies of this country, it is in the public interest that any one trading concern should have the monopoly; and

    647
    whether he proposes that in the national interest the Government should take such action as is practicable to secure to the consumer that these articles of essential food are not allowed to be in the hands of any one trading organisation for distribution?
    The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy):I recognise the importance of this matter, and would refer the hon. Member to the answers already given on this subject on the 16th and 21st June to the hon. Members for Sevenoaks and Ealing respectively. I would reiterate that if any attempt is made to exploit the consumer, either in the case of cheese or any other commodity, I shall not hesitate to employ any powers entrusted to me by Parliament.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY:Will that only apply to the co-operative societies?
    98. Sir J. REMNANTasked the Minister of Food what was the total cost of the Government's control of butter, including subsidy, for the last year of its existence?
    Mr. McCURDY:There has been no subsidy for butter, and no loss has been sustained in respect of butter sales. The charge for administration included in the selling price was approximately ½ of 1 per cent. This expenditure was in respect of headquarters staff engaged in the purchase, financing, importation, storage, inspection, accounting, and distribution of supplies, which amounted to 90,000 tons annually; and of local staff engaged in the issue of ration documents and adjustment of retailers' supplies. All costs, including administrative expenses, have been met out of the trading account, no charge has fallen on the Exchequer, and butter has been and is being sold in this country at prices substantially below those prevailing in any other importing country in Europe.
    Sir J. REMNANT:Will the hon. Gentleman say what is the total cost?
    Mr. McCURDY:There is no cost to the Government in respect of butter sales. The administrative expenses, which are included in the price, are ½ of 1 per cent. I shall be very glad to send the hon. Gentleman particulars of the total
    648
    turnover, which will show what the ½per cent. amounts to.
    Sir J. D. REES:Does the Government control of butter extend to the Press supply of that commodity?

    FISH.
    97. Major ENTWISTLEasked the Minister of Food if he intends to organise some system of speedy distribution of fish to hawkers; and if he will confer with the Minister of Pensions with a view to the placing of many unemployed ex-service men in this trade?
    Mr. McCURDY:I appreciate fully the value of the services rendered by hawkers in promoting the rapid and widespread distribution of fresh fish to consumers, and I should welcome any extension of this method of distribution, but I am unable to incur the cost of setting up a special organisation for the extension of this mode of distribution. I should, however, be glad to give the fullest consideration to any practical scheme which the hon. and gallant Member may be able to suggest. The second part of the question would appear to be a matter to be dealt with by the Ministry of Labour.

    WOOL.
    99. Mr. LAWSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, when there were indications recently of a fall in wool prices, the Director of Wool Supplies agreed, at the request of the trade, to hold up supplies from the market; and, if not, will he explain what transpired at the meeting between representatives of the wool industry and the Director of Wool Supplies?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. J. Hope):Immediately after the opening of the May-June series of auctions, the Colonial Wool Buyers' Association held a meeting representative of the home and foreign trade, at which a resolution was passed and forwarded to the Director-General of Raw Materials asking him to reduce the quantities of wool to be offered for sale on the grounds of the existing conditions of restricted credits and high rates of interest. The Department after careful inquiry satisfied itself that there was no prospect of the quantities origin-

    649
    ally announced finding buyers, and therefore curtailed the selling programme for June-July. At the sale at Liverpool on 24th June only 11,000 bales out of 30,000 bales displayed for sale were disposed of. Such interruptions of demand are not unusual, and sellers are accustomed to stage for sale only such quantities of wool as they may reasonably expect to sell.
    Mr. LAWSON:Do I understand that the Director of Wool Supplies co-operates with the other people to hinder the expression of the lower prices on the actual market?
    Mr. HOPE:The business of the Director of Wool Supplies is to get the best price he can and relieve taxation. If he had put a lot of wool on the market without the reserve, doubtless some buyers would have been found, but experience shows that the benefit would not have gone to the consumers and the Revenue would have suffered.
    Mr. D. HERBERT:Is it not a fact that if this wool had been thrown on the market it might have resulted in very serious financial panic and trouble?
    Mr. HOPE:I think that is highly probable.

    GAS BUOYS (ACETYLENE CYLINDERS).
    104. Captain TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether Trinity House purchased dissolved acetylene cylinders used in gas-buoy lighting from a Swedish-German company, known as the Aga, during the War when cylinders of as good, or better, type could be supplied by a British manufacturer; whether the Trinity House still buys these cylinders from the same firm; and whether he will consider the whole question of thus making these purchases abroad.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN:I am informed by the Trinity House that, after trial of different systems of dissolved acetylene lighting in the early days of the War, they decided that the A.G.A. system, owned by the Gas Accumulator Company of London, was the only one suited in all respects for buoy-lighting, and, in consequence, the gas cylinders which are specially adapted
    650
    for use with this apparatus were also supplied by that company. It is of the highest importance that the cylinders used should be safe in handling, as they are at times unavoidably subjected to rough usage. The cylinders supplied by the company withstood all the tests to which they were subjected, but the cylinders of other companies did not, and the latter were considered unsafe for maritime purposes, the former being preferred not only on the essential ground of safety, but also because they possessed the further important advantage of a larger gas capacity. The Trinity House further state that, while the parent house of this company is in Stockholm, they are informed that it is a purely Swedish concern without any German connection. They have at present on order from the company, cylinders now made in England, and they understand that cylinders of the type used by them are also manufactured in this country and exported to Sweden. In the circumstances stated, I do not propose to take any action.

    TOGOLAND.
    93. Lieut.-Colonel HURSTasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt by the natives of Togoland in consequence of the recent boundary delimitation between French and British territory; whether he is aware that a large portion of what was previously known as the British zone, including Lome, Palime, and Misahohe, has been thus withdrawn from British administration against the wishes of the inhabitants; whether any petitions have been received from them; and whether he can hold out any hope of the boundary question being reconsidered?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY:I am aware that a considerable number of the inhabitants of the districts mentioned have petitioned against their inclusion in French territory under the terms of the Declaration of the 10th July last, but I regret that I can hold out no hope of any material modification of the boundary fixed by that Declaration which was part of the general arrangements for the administration of the former German colonies.

    ARMY RECORD OFFICE, SHREWSBURY.
    Mr. PALMER (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for War and Air whether he is aware that six ex-soldiers have been given notice to leave the Army Record Office, Shrewsbury, while young women, and young men who have never served in the Army, are retained there; and whether, in view of the strong feeling excited by the case, he will cause immediate inquiries to be made with a view to retaining these ex-soldiers in the service of the Army Record Office, and, if it be necessary to dispense with any of those employed first to get rid of the female labour and of men who did not serve in the War?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:My attention has not previously been drawn to this case, but I am having immediate inquiries made, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so.

SUSPENSION OF ELEVEN O'CLOCK RULE.
Sir DONALD MACLEAN:I wish to ask the Leader of the House a question relating to a notice of Motion which stands in his name, referring to the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Rent Bill to-night, and also to the Committee on the Ministry of Mines !Salaries and Expenses]. Does he not think, in view of the importance of the Rent Bill, and that a large and very important part of it was taken after 12 o'clock at night, it would be more to the convenience of the House to take the Lords Amendments before 11 o'clock? Then, in view of the fact that the Ministry of Mines Bill was only passed last night, and very strong criticism was addressed to the extra expenditure in connection with this new branch of the Board of Trade, does he not think it is asking too much of the House to consider so important a matter as the vindication of that expenditure after 11 o'clock to-night?
Mr. BONAR LAW:As regards the Rent Bill, there is a time limit, and the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it should be taken before 11 is, of course, impossible, as to-day is Supply day. I think it is necessary to take it to-night.
652
As regards the other subject, the right hon. Gentleman suggests that it is trying the House too far. It is done entirely to suit what I believe to be the convenience of the House. I think there is a general desire that we should rise at some reasonable time before the Recess. The Bill must be got through, and unless this stage is taken there will be delay. It is entirely a question for the House. If hon. Members desire, as I think they all do, to rise early, we shall have to do more than we have been doing recently.
Sir D. MACLEAN:Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration, in giving that answer, that these Bills could have been introduced at a much earlier stage of the Session?
Mr. BONAR LAW:Yes, I took that fully into account. I have never known a Government which did not mismanage its business. I dealt with the situation as it is now.
Captain W. BENN:Is it not a fact that the Government has pursued the practice of taking the Report stage of every Money Resolution after 11 o'clock? Doubtless as regards this Resolution also they will attempt to take the Report stage after 11 o'clock, thus forcing the House to decide on an expenditure of £250,000 a year without any proper Debate at all.
Mr. BONAR LAW:That is entirely a question for the House. If the House wishes to take it at an early hour it can do so. I do not agree with the view that we cannot discuss anything after 11 o'clock. I have had a great deal of experience of very good business after 11 o'clock.
Mr. CLYNES:If we are to rise early for the good of our health and not for the good of business, is it not likely that we shall lose our health by sitting late?
Mr. BONAR LAW:That is a matter of opinion. It is a question for the House. Speaking for the Government, I think it would be desirable not only for Ministers and Members, but for the Departments, that there should be a reasonable recess. It is a question for the convenience of the House that we should sit late. If the House does not desire to expedite the business by sitting late, then, of course, we must deal with that.
Major-General SEELY:The right hon. Gentleman gave a reply in regard to the Home Rule Bill which was unintentionally obscure. He was asked whether the Government were going to carry the Bill through this Session or carry it over to the Autumn Session. We could not make out the answer.
Mr. BONAR LAW:I do not think it was obscure. The Session does not end when we adjourn.
Major-General SEELY:You were asked if you were going to carry it before the House rises in August?
Mr. BONAR LAW:I gave a quite distinct answer. We have no hope whatever of doing that.

MINISTRY OF MINES BILL.
Sir D. MACLEAN:I should like to raise a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the Ministry of Mines Bill, and Clause 17, which sets up a fund to be applied to the social well-being and conditions of living of the workers in the mines. That fund is to be financed by a levy upon the owners of the coal mines, to the extent of one penny per ton of output. The levy is recoverable either as a debt due to the Crown or as a civil debt recoverable by the Minister of Minas. The next point in connection with the proposal of the Government is that the duty of allocating the money is to be vested in a Committee, and that Committee is to be under the entire control of the Minister of Mines. Payments out of the fund for the various matters relating thereto are to be made and allocated in such a manner as the Minister of Mines, subject to the approval of the Board of Trade, may direct. This is a very important point, because each year the Minister of Mines is to present an account of what has been paid into the fund and how the money paid out of the fund has been dealt with. He will have to present what is practically an Estimate, and account to this House. Standing Order 71, which, as hon. Members know, is one of the safeguards of the House and the public against the Executive, says:
"If any motion be made in the House for any aid, grant, or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the consolidated fund or out of money to be provided by Parliament, or for any charge upon the people, the consideration and debate
654
thereof … shall be adjourned … and shall be referred to a Committee."
That is a Committee which is known to us; I suggest the Committee of Ways and Means. My submission is that notwithstanding the fact that the Government do not propose that this money is to be paid into the Exchequer and thence out again to the Committee for the user in the way indicated in the Clause, it is none the less well within Standing Order 71. It may be put against me that there has been something in the nature of a precedent in connection with the coal trade by the 15 per cent. levy; but that 15 per cent. was paid into a pool for the purpose of readjusting varying positions between members of that pool, and in no sense is it really on all fours with the present proposal of the Government. The nearest analogy to this proposal is the petrol tax in the Finance Bill of this year. There the tax is levied upon a specific, clearly-defined body of subjects, those who have motor-cars, and is to be applied in a specific way, namely, in the upkeep of roads. That sum goes into the Exchequer and is paid out again, and the only difference between this proposal of the Government and that proposal of the Government in the Finance Bill, which, of course, has its authority in Ways and Means is this, that they do not propose here to pay it in and out of the Exchequer.
I submit that if the Government or any private Member by means of this Bill is allowed to evade Committee of Ways and Means in this way, they are circumventing one of the greatest safeguards of this House for checking charges upon the subject. I submit respectfully that the case I am putting does not conflict with the decisions you have already given from the Chair, because here is a sum which is levied upon one body of persons, members of the public, to be applied to another body of persons for well-defined subjects. The subjects to which the money is to be applied are conditions of social well-being. One of the conditions is technical education, mining education. If this procedure is to be allowed, I do not see what is going to prevent the Executive making a charge upon special bodies of His Majesty's subjects for the purpose of education and paying that into the Ministry of Education and administering it through the Ministry of Education, thereby avoiding the process of Ways and

655
Means. I have tried to make myself clear on a somewhat complicated subject, and I ask for your ruling.
4.0 P.M.
Mr. SPEAKER:The right hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly clear. It seems to me that this Bill follows the precedent that has been repeatedly set. We have had many cases of funds which were established in respect of certain industries. I can recall the liquor trade compensation levy. That was a levy upon the owners of licensed houses and of hotels, and it was applicable only to certain people within the ambit of that trade. As the right hon. Gentleman has also indicated, we have recently had cases of that kind, one in regard to the coal industry, which was the Coal Control Compensation Act of 1917, where a certain levy was made on certain individuals engaged in the industry, and the proceeds were paid out to others engaged in that industry. This follows exactly on the same lines. In this case the owners of the coalmines will be taxed for the benefit of a fund to be employed for the social welfare and improving the conditions of the workers in the industry. That is not a public charge upon the people; it does not go into the National Exchequer, it is not used for a public purpose. It comes within the definition of funds set apart for purposes of public utility, and not for the public service, and therefore does not come within the scope of Standing Order 71.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. CLYNES:Can the Lord Privy Seal tell us what business will be taken next week; and when the Finance Bill is likely to be taken again, and what amount of time will be given to it?
Mr. BONAR LAW:The business for next week will be—Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, the Finance Bill.
Thursday, Supply—I hope the Secretary of State for India Vote.
As regards the time to be devoted to the Finance Bill, the Budget is always free from the Standing Orders, and the time to be taken must depend upon circumstances.
Captain W. BENN:Can we have an assurance that this programme will be
656
adhered to? Last week the Milk and Dairies Bill was announced, but that order of business was not followed.
Mr. BONAR LAW:It was not followed because it was not convenient, and the hon. Members concerned gave adequate reasons for the change. I trust, however, that this programme will be adhered to next week.
Mr. PALMER:Was it not understood that a special day would be given to the Debate on the case of General Dyer, and that that would not interfere with the Debate on the salary of the Secretary of State for India?
Mr. BONAR LAW:No; I did not promise that. It was impossible for me to give any special date, but it will be possible to raise the question of General Dyer on the Vote for the Secretary of State for India.
Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:Was it not understood that it was desirable that the House should have an opportunity of discussing the Amritsar question, that one day should be given to that on Vote for Secretary of State's salary, and that another day should be given in order that we should discuss larger questions of administration in India?
Mr. BONAR LAW:I never indicated that. What was said was that, provided it were the general desire of the House, there might be two days—one for the Vote for the Secretary of State, and one for the case of General Dyer.
Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:Is it not rather hard that the Hunter Commission's Report, which is a matter of great public interest, should be forced upon a Supply day, and that private Members should be deprived of the constitutional right of criticising other actions of the Secretary of State for India, simply because it is necessary to discuss the Hunter Report?
Mr. BONAR LAW:There are 20 Supply days in the year, given for the express purpose of having subjects raised with the general desire of the House. It does not depend upon us which subjects are taken, and it is not for me to say that I can give a separate Supply day for the purpose.
Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desir-

657
ability of giving an extra day in the autumn, so that we may endeavour to avoid crowding too much into one day.
Mr. BONAR LAW:I will be quite ready to do that if there be time. If the House really desire it, I am quite sure the Opposition Whips will try to agree.
Mr. ORMSBY-GORE:Are we to understand that neither in this year nor in the future we shall have the Motion proposed, "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair," in order that we may consider the
East India Budget, which we used to have in the old days.
Mr. BONAR LAW:The hon. Member must know that that was deliberately done away with by the House last year.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill and of the Committee on Ministry of Mines [Salaries and Expenses] be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).— [Mr. Bonar Law. ]
The House divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 75.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY [15TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY [15TH ALLOTTED DAY].
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1920–21.— [PROGRESS.]
      UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

        MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £848,642, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Transport, including sundry Charges in connection with Transportation Schemes, &c., under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, and certain Repayable Advances under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919." [Note.—£500,000 has been voted on account.]
        Mr. WILSON-FOX:On the last occasion when this Vote was before the Committee, I moved an Amendment to the effect that the Vote should be reduced by the sum of £750,000. Is not that Amendment now before the Committee?
        The CHAIRMAN:No. In Committee of Supply a Motion to reduce always lapses at the end of the day, and therefore a new Motion would have to be made on the present occasion.
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSWould it not be better to allow my hon. Friend, proforma, to move the reduction now?
        The CHAIRMAN:I do not think it is necessary. I shall take an appropriate Motion later on.
        The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal):I hope I shall be studying the general convenience of the Committee by interposing at this stage of the Debate. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that my right hon. Friend the Minister, in opening the discussion a week ago, intimated that he had asked me to deal with questions which arose in the Estimates and also to make some broad statements with reference to the traffic
        710
        conditions in the country. I propose also, if I may, to deal briefly, and not in the spirit of controversy any more than is absolutely necessary, with the criticisms which were raised against the Ministry a week ago. A question was put by one of the first speakers in the Debate, my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), as to the necessity of the Ministry. I propose shortly to remind the Committee of the grounds upon which this Ministry was created so recently as August of last year. There was before the War, not only in this country but in others, an almost universal feeling that the subject of transport, and particularly of railway transport, was ripe for action. A number of Committees sat, and the last of them was appointed in August, 1918, and reported in November, 1918, and it was presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Wilson-Fox), and also there was, I think, upon that Committee my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), who presided over the Committee on National Expenditure which recently examined the affairs of this Ministry. They arrived at a conclusion which I think was unanimous not only so far as they were concerned, but so far as public opinion outside was concerned, namely, that there would have to be more careful and close consideration of the transport problem and that there never could be a return to the old state of things.
        That was realised by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House at the General Election, and amongst the promises which were made, and which, I think, received no criticism from anybody—I think possibly it was the one case where there was no criticism—was the statement that there would have to be some better transport facilities offered to the country. Under these circumstances, very early in the existence of the new Parliament, the Transport Bill was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who made a short speech on the First Reading; the Second Reading was moved by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and I do not propose—I have not the time—to do more than to indicate in the briefest outline the reasons which were given for the introduction of that Bill. They may be summarised, I think, in two ways: first, that it was desirable to collect under the ægis of one Department

        711
        many administrative duties which were scattered over many other Departments and which, as we had occasion to discover a short time ago, numbered over 150; secondly, it was pointed out how inseparably interwoven with the commerce of this country and the health and wealth of the people was this question of transport. It was on those lines that this Bill was introduced. My right hon. Friend used one phrase which I venture to quote. He said:
        "They ask, 'What is your Colonial policy; what is your foreign policy?' I have never seen it really asked, 'What is your transportation policy?' What is our transportation policy, and who is responsible for that policy?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1919; col. 1763; Vol. 113.]
        Under those circumstances, the Bill met with a great deal of criticism upon its Second Reading. May I indicate in a word or two the nature of the criticism? It was not going to the root of the Bill, but it was criticism perfectly properly addressed to those interests which were affected or threatened by the Bill itself, but if anyone wants to know the exact reason of the Transport Act it is in the first Section of the Act itself:
        "For the purpose of improving the means of, and facilities for, locomotion and transport, it shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister of Transport."
        At that time the railways of the country were under a form of control which I do not think was convenient, and I do not think anyone ever thought it was convenient. They had been taken possession of by varying Sections of an Act of 1871, which was intended only for purely temporary purposes. They had had their control existence enlarged by weekly warrants during the five years which had elapsed from the taking possession of these railways. Let me say once and for all that it is in no spirit of censorious criticism that I refer, in the least, to the incidents of the past, because I hope I shall have the consensus of the Committee here. During the War it was wrong to expect that there could have been precisely the same commercial outlook upon all these matters as in ordinary normal times, but there had sprung up a series of financial obligations. They were not subject to any formal agreement; they were scattered about in various Departments; they had not been collated. Looked at
        712
        in the light of to-day, I hope I may not be thought to be hostile to those responsible when I say that they were not the agreements that would have been made in ordinary normal times, but the effect was that the State had become involved in very large expenditure in respect of the railways of this country.
        Mr. J. H. THOMAS:Did you say those agreements were started with more than one Department?
        Mr. NEAL:Yes, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press me to go into details.
        Mr. THOMAS:It is important that we should know what other Departments.
        Mr. NEAL:I am anxious to comply with any request made from any quarter of the House, but I am equally anxious not to trespass too much upon the time which ought legitimately to be given to our critics as well as to ourselves.
        Mr. THOMAS:It is very important if the Committee is to understand the facts that those of us who were involved in these agreements. I am personally of opinion that no other Department than the Railway Department of the Board of Trade made any agreement. If there are other Departments we should know about it.
        Mr. NEAL:I can answer my right hon. Friend at once by saying that if he will be good enough to refer to the Addenda of the White Paper, published with our Estimates, he will be able to get there the whole of the information I have at my disposal, and it will verify my statement. This Bill was introduced and went to a Second Reading without a Division being challenged by anyone. It was subjected to the closest scrutiny and criticism in Committee for some nineteen days. It received detailed consideration in this House on Report stage. There was discussion on the Third Reading, and there was the extraordinary spectacle witnessed, on the Third Reading, of a Division called and Tellers appointed, and then having no one to tell against the Bill. I mention this to show that this Act was the deliberate creation of the House after the fullest consideration of the vast problem of trying to co-ordinate the transport agencies of this country and to bring them under

        713
        proper control. One of the first things my right hon. Friend the Minister did, as he informed me on taking office, was to try to get together these various documents which were in existence, and ultimately we got, partly with the aid of the railway companies, a large number of documents which we have presented to the House and which, pieced together, are the indication of the State obligations and liabilities. Having got this, what did he find? He found what he had certainly not known before, that there were outstanding very large questions of great importance from every point of view, important from the point of view of doing justice to the transport agencies who had served the country well during the War, and not less important from the point of view of doing justice to the taxpayers of this country and to the travelling public, and he found it necessary to enlarge his vision of the duties of his Ministry under that part of the work which he had taken over from the Board of Trade. If the Estimates which we present to-day are examined in detail it will be found, I think—and here, I think, I have the support of the Select Committee on National Expenditure—that about one-half of the present staff is involved in the obligation of safeguarding the public purse, not because there is some attempt to take something that is not due from the public purse, but on ordinary commercial and business lines, realising the old maxim, that no man can serve two masters, and realising what I think is obvious to every Member of the Committee, that it is the imperative duty of the servants of the State to safeguard the financial interests of the country. Under these circumstances there was an investigation into the obligations of the State under these agreements. There was another duty placed upon the Minister in the terms of the Act itself. Tinder Section 3, Sub-section (1), it is provided:
        "With a view to affording time for the consideration and formulation of the policy to be pursued as to the future position of undertakings, to which this Section applies, the following provisions shall have effect."
        Summarising those provisions, the position which has been held for five years was regularised and stabilised for a further period of two years. That period was arrived at with reference to a letter which had been given by a past President of the Board of Trade. If I mention his
        714
        name it is with no disrespect and no sense of criticism for his having done so. I mean Mr. Walter Runciman. Mr. Runciman had extended the financial obligations of the State with the railway companies for a period of two years after control. I make that statement without reference, polemical or personal.
        Mr. ASQUITH:It was a Cabinet decision.
        Mr. NEAL:I accept that, and I am not criticising. I am simply pointing out that there was an outstanding period of two years' financial obligation during which the interests of the State must be safeguarded and during which the condition was to be continued under this Statute, and during which the State had unique opportunity of investigating the problem of future management and policy with reference to railways. Those are the great purposes which called this Act into being. Those purposes remain intact. Those purposes were approved in this House by direct speech by the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) then leading a branch of the Liberal Party in the absence at the moment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith). Those were approved in principle by my right hon. Friend. They were not challenged by any vote on the Second Reading or Third Reading, and in answer to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, I say that it was the deliberate Act of Parliament discharging its duty to the State which called the Ministry of Transport into existence.
        That being so, I may call attention to some other criticism. It has been said that the Ministry set up its staff on too large a scale. I would ask the Committee to consider these figures. In the month of December the Minister was asked to submit estimates. The Ministry had only been in existence for a short time when the future could not be foreseen. There was a desire on the part of the Chancellor, as there always is, to avoid Supplementary Estimates. I am not quite sure that there is not a danger in that that you may get your Estimates too swollen, which is also a danger to the State. But the Estimate as presented for salaries was £416,892. The actual cost—the Minister had so curtailed his appointments—of salaries on the basis of the Estimate as it stood on the 30th April last was £266,074 showing that he

        715
        had, unless the staff were enlarged beyond that figure, effected economies to the extent of £155,518 and those who criticise the Ministry on the grounds of extravagance in salaries should know that they are criticising us for our economy and not for our expenditure. My hon. and gallant Friend (Captain W. Benn) who sees some humour in this, should apply his mind to the fact that there was a margin of £155,518 which was not spent.
        A little later the Minister of Transport, speaking on the Consolidation Bill, particularly requested that there might be a detailed investigation of his accounts at the instance of the Committee on National Expenditure, and the request was accepted, and the Minister has already paid tribute, and so far as it is right for me to do it I would like to pay my humble tribute, to that Committee, not only for the work which they did, but for the spirit in which they did it. They laboured under the difficulty, as has been pointed out, of distinguishing where policy ends and expediency begins. What have they said about this £150,000 and our swollen staff? They indicated that we need not appoint staff to the extent of £68,000 out of the surplus, which they put at a round sum of £70,000, but they say that in their deliberate judgment it would be right to make appointments exceeding those which were in existence on the 30th April last to the extent of £81,618. What becomes of the suggestion that this was an extravagant staff?
        Another criticism is that there was an undue proportion of highly-paid servants in the Ministry. There are several reasons why I need not occupy the time of the Committee with it. First this was discussed at great length when I introduced the Supplementary Estimates in March, and was subject to the very searching and very friendly cross-examination by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, and no one can complain that I was guilty of undue brevity in the part that I took on that occasion. Second, the whole ground was covered in a White Paper which we issued. Third, my right hon. Friend himself dealt with the speech on the Consolidation Bill. Fourth, the Committee on National Expenditure have examined every part, have gone through the whole of it bit by
        716
        bit, and do not in any single case condemn the Ministry in reference to anything that was spent, or suggest any reduction in the scale, but suggest an increase to the extent which I have indicated.
        In these circumstances may I as briefly as possible point out what this investigation of accounts under these agreements means? Members of the Committee have at their disposal in the White Paper the whole of the documents which the Minister has at his disposal. I will endeavour in a few sentences to summarise. The first is the outstanding agreement which arose immediately on the taking of possession of the railways by the State under the provisions of the Statute which was only very temporary and limited. Where the railway or any property was commandeered by the State, the State became liable to pay full compensation. I do not criticise His Majesty's Ministers for realising that it would be a cumbrous and difficult procedure. Every available man who could have kept accounts was wanted for His Majesty's Forces for the supreme purpose of winning the War, but this agreement, which was made in the shape of letters, was that the railway companies should have guaranteed to them by the State an income on what is called over-the-line expenditure, taking the phrase from the Accountancy Act of 1911, and that it should not be less than the over-the-line expenditure in the year 1913. It was not quite in that form that it was first made. It took that form ultimately.
        What you have got in these accounts, which have involved payments to or by the State already of £158,000,000, was examined by the accountants of the various railway companies plus a committee of railway accountants plus two very distinguished accountants who were called in. There are very many questions which have been left over, and the Committee on National Expenditure has said that there are a great number of complicated questions outstanding. I may be allowed to put alongside the statement of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) that these were easy and simple questions that had already been solved, the statement that dealing with these questions of Revenue under the first agreement the Committee have found that there are great complicated questions. It is obvious

        717
        to any business man that when you talk about Revenue the very first thing you have got to distinguish is, what is Revenue and what is capital. This is of vital importance to the State. At the moment the State is liable to make good the whole of the money that is spent on Revenue within the limits of its guarantees. It is only liable to pay 5 per cent. on the approved expenditure on capital.
        I pass to the second point. The railway companies realised that they could not carry on their full work of keeping up maintenance and repair of rolling stock and permanent ways, and therefore put to the Government what seems to have been a reasonable proposition that if there was delay owing to the situation which existed they must run the risk of doing these repairs and renewals on a rising market and with higher prices, and the estimate was made by the two distinguished accountants of whom I have spoken that there were outstanding at the end of the financial year £40,000,000 payments of that description. It is not a question primarily of skilled accountancy. It also necessitates mechanical and civil engineering and an expert examination of these matters which are the subject of renewal. It also involves a mixed question of law and fact, not at all easy to deal with. That is, where does maintenance stop and where does renewal begin, and where does betterment begin? These matters that we are discussing lightly to-day involve millions of pounds of the State's money, and it is essential that they should receive careful and critical examination. Similarly there was a question to what was stock, what was the value of the stock, what was the condition of the stock in 1914. Are they to be replaced in kind, out of public funds, and replaced when markets are at the highest, or when favourable opportunity offers? Are the railway companies to be able to say exactly when they are to be replaced, or is the interest of the State to be watched?
        Then there was what was called the abnormal wear and tear, and the agreement to-day involves the consideration between the State and the Transport Ministry as to what is normal and what is abnormal wear and tear, and whether the wear and tear is the result of Government traffic and Government control, or of the ordinary use of the railway Another factor is interest on capital. The
        718
        State is involved to pay interest to the railway companies on capital which is non-productive. In the first place, this falls into two categories. We have already expended £4,000,000 interest on capital which had not fructified up to the commencement of control. There are no fewer than 700 cases being closely investigated by the Ministry, not only as accountancy matters, but also from the technical side, the mechanical and the civil side—700 applications by the railway companies since August last, that they may be allowed to spend capital. It has to be decided whether that is a wise expenditure or not. When it is sanctioned, and if it is sanctioned, that involves 5 per cent. interest on capital, which in the first instance cannot be productive of benefit to the State, though ultimately it may be productive of benefit to the railway companies. Those 700 claims, which have to be closely examined, involve an expenditure of £13,000,000.
        Sir F. BANBURY:This is a very important point. Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the Ministry has to investigate whether or not the condition of the undertaking has been injured either by Government traffic or by ordinary traffic? Is it not a fact that the Government are bound, unless they come to an agreement with the companies, to restore their property to them as it was when it was taken over in August, 1914?
        5.0 P.M.
        Mr. NEAL:I am very much obliged to the right hon. Baronet for asking that question. That certainly is a view which is arguable on the part of the railway companies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, No!] I cannot—it would not be right to do so —pledge the State and the Exchequer in the course of a Debate upon the construction and effect of some technical agreement. This year, in this very Vote, there is included a sum of —22,000,000 for the purpose of making some provision towards those payments, which it is anticipated may become chargeable to the public Exchequer in the current financial year. If there had been less scrutiny, less care taken over the affairs of the State that has been taken by my right hon. Friend and by the expert staff he has gathered around him, we should not have been able to face the public with a clear conscience and to hope for an acquittal on our statement that we have done our public duty. There is another

        719
        matter of not less importance, and that is that, although by the operation of the increase of charges, the sums which the State is becoming liable for are great—I have already mentioned £158,000,000—although those were becoming greater, it was not possible during the War to deal with them. I think it is a matter that calls for examination. It is quite true that passenger fares, which could be moved up 50 per cent. quite easily by a stroke of the pen, had been adjusted, but there had been no time to bring the railway companies, subsidised by the State, into a position of paying their own way; and one of the very first things my right hon. Friend did was to call upon the Railway Advisory Rates Committee to advise him as quickly as they might, how by some temporary increase of percentage, or otherwise, of existing charges, he could get to some position that would enable him to relieve the taxpayer of subsidies on transport undertakings.
        The Ministry came into existence only on 15th August last. By 15th January the machine had worked and the new charges were put into operation; and although it is by no means certain, because there have been other increased costs since, that those charges will prove quite adequate to their purpose, yet there is set up the means whereby there may be a scientific investigation, at present proceeding, into the old system of rates and charges, and a method of keeping the railways in a reasonably prosperous and fair position. Passenger fares have been increased 50 per cent. Freight rates have gone up 50 per cent. on the average. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport reminds me that the average increase of freight rates might be a little higher that that. He thinks 60 per cent. a little nearer the mark. In Germany similar charges have been increased by 490 per cent.; in Austria they have been increased by 390 per cent.; in Sweden by 200 per cent.; in Switzerland by 180 per cent.; and in France by 140 per cent. Therefore, although the charges have increased in England, the increase is a very long way below that of other countries, and compared with our neighbours we may say that we are satisfactorily placed.
        In regard to the work of his Department, my right hon. Friend has adopted
        720
        two cardinal principles. There was first the principle that some of these matters might be purely temporary. For instance, the examination of all these accounts and figures, which are dealt with in some detail, must come to an end. Having that in view, my right hon. Friend has done this: Whereever there is a likelihood that the work of the Department is temporary he has staffed it with non-pensionable, non-established, non-bonus-receiving staff, with gentlemen who, it is believed, could with the least difficulty be re-absorbed into civil occupations with considerable profit to themselves when the time comes. Where the officials are concerned with the examination of the accounts of railway companies and others, he has taken the view that they ought to be put on the establishment, that they are permanent Civil servants, so that they may not be open to the suspicion of favouring some company or other, in the hope that there will be an open door for them if they leave the Civil Service. Has this Department justified its existence? would quote the report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. Dealing with the Finance Department, that Committee says, "It is entirely justifiable and the cost is not great." The Committee call attention to the fact that this year the Finance Department has to deal with matters involving £77,750,000 direct, with revenue and expenditure accoutns of £486,000,000, and other large sums; and they also add this, "There are many cases of doubt to be investigated." They record that in one transaction, in regard to railway wagons, the Finance Department has saved £30,000.
        I pass now to the Traffic Department. It is not controlling railways. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) informed us that someone had told him they were always getting orders from the Ministry of Transport and they could not get on with their shunting. No such orders have been issued. Only 12 orders have been issued and they do not affect the working of the railways at all. The Traffic Department has been doing a great work in the co-ordination of traffic and in dealing with individual problems as they have arisen. I do not know that it would be said properly to be a function of the Ministry, but we have inquired into over 2,500 specific complaints made

        721
        by traders with reference to delays. I think there are many hon. Members in this House who, if they cared to speak, would say at least that when they have brought complaints to the Ministry they have been dealt with as quickly as the circumstances permitted. We have not got control in the sense of management. If we had we should want a staff multiplying many times the staff we have. If we had we should become the bureaucrats of Whitehall and should be detested in the country, and rightly so, because there is no one who loves bureaucracy less than my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. In dealing with traffic let me give one or two facts. I would say, first, that the way in which the railways have shown their resilience in coping with post-War problems is a credit to the commercial enterprise of this country. I say that in the most public manner I can. Dealing with the matter as ton-mileage, I would mention that the ton-mileage is vastly greater than that dealt with during the War. If you take passenger traffic, they are dealing with 30 per cent. more passengers than they dealt with in the, year 1913. If you take freightage, the figures are probably 20 per cent. up on a ton-mileage basis. The North-Eastern Railway Company, the only company which kept the figures in that way, shows a ton-mileage increase of 30 per cent.
        There are two districts that have been the cause of considerable anxiety. There is the South Wales district, where a local committee has been set up and where great improvements have been affected, but where there can be no permanent improvement until you get rid of the bottle-neck conditions over the Severn. Then there is the North-East coast, the subject of many questions and answers in this House, where there is a state of things which one would, if possible, very gladly get rid of immediately. It is very bad. The fact is that, so far as the North-East coast is concerned, there is a greater volume of traffic being dealt with under difficulties than there ever was before. I cannot give precise figures, but the steelmakers' return for the country shows an increased output of 34 per cent. in comparing March, 1920 with March, 1913. Everything that can be done will be done to improve the conditions in that respect. Recently we have been holding consultations with repre-
        722
        sentatives of the fish traffic. The facts are that 50 per cent. more fish is being landed, that the foreign market for fish has disappeared, that the fish has been carried by rail instead of being carried by coastwise vessels, and that there are many other explanations. An hon. Member has said that the docks were not in a healthy condition. So far as the railways are concerned, all the principal docks show a condition with which I think we have reason to be gratified. Bristol is dealing with 3·77 more traffic, Hull with 27 per cent. more, Liverpool with 17 per cent. more, and London with 10 per cent. more. The Road Department received considerable praise from the Committee, and I will not pursue that subject. The Development Department is a department which is essential if the Ministry is to attempt to redeem the promises made on behalf of the Government before the election. In these stimates there is a sum of £1,000,000, as there is a provision in Section 9 of the Act whereby it is necessary to come to this House, and also to another place, if the total work exceeds £500,000. In Section 17 there is power to make grants by way of subsidies, loans or otherwise to districts which are suitable for the development of further facilities. No less than 200 applications have been investigated by the Department. Fifty of them have received considerable investigation, and a number of them are ripe for decision. The work of this Department is by no means criticised by the Committee. I fear I have trespassed much too long on the time of the Committee, but it is desirable that this question should not be looked at from the narrow point of view of any personal dispute, whatever the merits may be of that dispute. The business community of this country surely will ask the Committee of the House of Commons, when it is considering the Estimates of a Department so supremely needed for the purpose of securing the best transport facilities of all kinds, to consider them as business men and with the broadest and largest outlook.
        Mr. ASQUITH:I congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on the zeal and energy with which he has represented to the Committee the Estimate which was submitted to us a week ago by the head of the Department.

        723
        He devoted a considerable part of the earlier portion of his speech to a vindication of the policy of the Transport Act, a matter which is hardly appropriate to the consideration of Estimates in Committee of Supply. As to the remainder, I listened to it very carefully and very respectfully, and it appeared to me to be nothing more, if I may say so without offence, than an amplification, and in some respects a dilution, of the arguments and allegations which were presented by the Minister of Transport last week. I took occasion then to make some observations on the character of this Estimate and to point out that, in my judgment, and I gave reasons for that judgment, there was no justification for the creation of this gigantic Department, and that by a proper and necessary addition to the most efficient Railway Department of the Board of Trade—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—most efficient, as I think all who utilised it, both employers and workmen, will agree in days gone by, everything that the Ministry of Transport has done might have been done at a measurably less cost to the public exchequer and the taxpayers. I am not going to repeat what I said then, and I should not have intervened in this Debate at all but for some attempt which was made by the Minister of Transport last week, and which has not been repeated by the Parliamentary Secretary to-day, to justify its existence on the ground that it was an instrument of saving and a safeguard for economy. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport gave, I think, only one concrete tangible and test able illustration, and that was that he had got rid of an improvident agreement made in the year 1915 by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman) with the Metropolitan District Railway, which from first to last had cost the ratepayers, he said, something like 1½ million sterling. The Parliamentary Secretary in his peroration just now told us that we ought not, in a matter of this kind, to deal in personal recriminations and reflections. It is rather a pity that the only justification by way of illustration which the Minister gave for his claim that he was not only an apostle but a practitioner of economy, involved the gravest disparagement of the efficiency of a Department of the Board of Trade and cast a strong reflection on the business capacity of Mr. Runciman.
        724
        I want to ask the attention of the Committee to this illustration and its real value. First of all, how did the Minister of Transport discover the existence of this agreement? We have been told just now that one of the first duties which he took upon himself when he assumed office was the collation of agreements, which were represented by the Parliamentary Secretary, and it was news to me, as scattered over a large variety of Departments. I know of no Department except the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, I speak subject to correction, which was the custodian of or a party to such agreements. But here is a Ministry with its large staff of ten or eleven directors-general devoting itself to the task of collating agreements, and it is a little singular with all their industry and business flair that they had not discovered this particular agreement until the month of December, 1919. Their collation does not seem to have been very thorough or exhaustive. The Ministry came into existence in August. This discovery was made, as we know, in the month of December, and it was not made as the result of the collation. The Minister of Transport made the discovery, to quote his own words, in this way:
        "I heard this story by chance."
        After all these months spent in this task of compilation, collation and classification, the peccant agreement on which he based his claim for this Department as a practical model in saving was discovered by chance. He came upon it almost casually, according to his own language, through the evidence given by the Chairman of the District Railway at the Committee on London Traffic, which was presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Kennedy Jones). That was in December, 1919, and according to his own account he discovered it by a piece of sheer good luck. To that extent the Minister may be congratulated upon a fortune which rarely falls to Government Departments. Let us see what happened, when by good luck he discovered the existence of this agreement—again I quote the words of the Minister of Transport—
        "It was mentioned in evidence by the Chairman of the company."
        The Chairman of the company was Lord Ashfield, who previously had been Pre-

        725
        sident of the Board of Trade. He continued:
        "That was how I heard of it. I did not know before that the agreement existed. I saw the Chairman immediately afterwards, and I said to him, 'Look here, that sort of agreement is no good, and it is not the sort of thing to which I can assent.' He replied (that is Lord Ashfield), 'I quite agree.' I continued, 'Look here—'"
        —the colloquial style of the new official, not steeped in the outworn traditions of the Civil Service, but coming from the business world, with breezy outlook and that vocabulary which that world conveys to those who are unaccustomed to move in it—
        "Look here, you will have to get that agreement cancelled. He agreed to have it cancelled, and had it cancelled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June, 1920; col. 2432; Vol. 130.]
        And is it cancelled to-day? It is not. The business methods are not quite so simple as they are here described.
        That is how my right hon. Friend came to learn of the existence of this agreement, this improvident agreement of Mr. Runciman. I come now to the second point, though this is very illuminating as throwing some kind of sidelight on the methods of the Minister. There is the stroke of good luck leading to the discovery, and those breezy phrases between the ex-President of the Board of Trade and the Minister, and at the end the cancellation, or a sort of intimation that it might have to be cancelled. What was the agreement? It has never been disclosed to this House. I never heard of it, because it is not the kind of agreement which would be submitted to the head of the Government or the Cabinet. Like my right hon. Friend, it came to me as a revelation. It is an agreement, I gather, between the Board of Trade and the Metropolitan District Railway, and it is described by my right hon. Friend as an agreement, the basis of which was a pool. I think I know something, if not of the agreement itself, of the circumstances which may have led to it, and it is well that they should be in the recollection of the Committee, as the history of this matter is very important. When the War began the Government, under the powers of the Act which my right hon. Friend recited, took over all the great railways of the country, the heavy lines, and, roughly speaking, upon the terms that we should guaran-
        726
        tee to them their previous net receipts, and, on the other hand, that we should have the free use of them for the transport of men and munitions and stores and all warlike material. That is the substance of the agreement. Whether the District Railway was originally one of those taken over, or whether it was taken over later, as I rather imagine, is immaterial for the purposes of my argument, because the same terms and guarantee, and the free right of the Government to use it for the carriage of military stores and men, would apply. I believe it was a little later. I see Mr. Runciman says so in the letter he publishes to-day. A few months later—I think in the spring or early summer of 1915; certainly after the first Coalition Government was formed—trouble arose in the Metropolitan area—my right hon. Friend (Mr. Thomas) knows the history of it much more intimately than I do—in regard to increased wages, war bonus, and so on. The difficulty with which the Government were confronted was this. We had taken over the Metropolitan District Railway; it was under our control. We had not taken over the allied railways, including the London General Omnibus Company, which formed part at that time of what is vulgarly called a combine, and in which the men employed were really regarded, not as being so much the employés of the particular company, as of the companies as a whole.
        Mr. THOMAS:The numbers were 50–50
        Mr. ASQUITH:We could have dealt quite easily with the question of a controlled company, but this was a case in which men were jointly employed by that company and other companies in the combine, and the men could not be segregated according as they did or did not belong to the District Railway. There was a choice of course. One was to take over the Tubes. That was objected to by Lord Kitchener—and my right hon. Friend will, I am sure, bear that out—on the ground that there was no military necessity for it. He did not want the Tubes for military purposes. Another possible course would have been to raise fares and rates, but that, naturally, we wished to avoid if we could avoid it. The conclusion come to was that the best course was to allow this combine to enter into a pool, and

        727
        Parliament passed an Act, not, indeed, sanctioning the agreement which was ultimately entered into, but passed an Act, I think in June or July, 1915, sanctioning a pooling arrangement between these companies, and the agreement now in question was entered into under the authority given by the Act between the District Railway Company and the Board of Trade. Without the authority of an Act, no such agreement could have been entered into. That is the history of the origin of the agreement. What its precise terms are we do not know. Many questions have been put in the course of this Session to my right hon. Friend as to the character and terms of this agreement. He referred to it in a speech, I see, on the Second Reading of the London Fares Bill, which is still upstairs, and, in referring to it, he did not allege that the country had suffered loss. He was asked later by the hon. Member for Dulwich, on the 3rd May and 14th June. He has been asked questions since, but nobody yet has elicited what are the precise terms of the agreement, and, until we know those terms, we cannot form a judgment as to whether the Minister is right in saying that two important provisions, which ought to occur in every pooling agreement, have been omitted from it, namely, that you should provide for the adequate performance of the service, and against what is called over-carrying by any one of the parties. Until we see the agreement we cannot tell how far that charge is justified; still less can we tell how much of the added burden, which the right hon. Gentleman alleges has been imposed upon the taxpayer, during the period that agreement has lasted, is due to omissions of that kind. It is all important, before this House or the country can form a judgment on that point, we should have the agreement produced, and we should be able to see it for ourselves.
        In the meantime, I will venture to read to the House an opinion I only received this morning from a very high authority in these matters in the shape of a letter which Mr. Runciman has passed on to me from Sir Robert Perks. Sir Robert Perks is not only a great pundit of the railway world, but has special knowledge of the conditions of our metropolitan railway system. He was solicitor for many years
        728
        of the Metropolitan Railway, and Chairman for some years of the District Railway, and he knows as much as anybody could know about the conditions of London railway traffic. I think it is only right that I should give Sir Robert Perks' opinion. It is very explicit and very short—
        "My own personal conviction—and, as you know, I was the lawyer of the Metropolitan Railway for fifteen years, and Chairman of the District Railway for five years—my own personal conviction is that the agreement which you (that is, Mr. Runciman) made on behalf of the Government with the Railway Company was a very excellent agreement for the Government, and, so far as my experience goes, there were no Clauses omitted from that agreement which the Board of Trade ought to have inserted, or, indeed, which the District Railway Company could have been expected to accept."
        That is a very serious pronouncement on the part of an admitted authority, and I venture to set it against the condemnation which the right hon. Gentleman—upon materials which we are not able to scrutinise, because they have not been presented to us—has pronounced ex cathedra from that Bench. There is a final question in relation to this subject which has still to be answered. What has the right hon. Gentleman done? I read the conversation which was alleged to have taken place as far back as last December between him and Lord Ashfield, in which he said, "Look here, you will have to get that cancelled," and he agreed to have it cancelled, and it was cancelled. We know now that is not the fact. It is an inaccurate statement. What has he done, and what is he going to do in relation to this agreement from which he alleges the public has suffered so much? There is a Bill before the House to enable these London companies to increase their fares and charges. The right hon. Gentleman's Department made a report upon that, and the Select Commitee had special instructions from the House on that matter. The Committee found, at a late stage in its proceedings, after it had adjourned its proceedings in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman, that the railway company which said that beggars could not be choosers under the pressure of the Department, agreed that it should be left, in substance, to the Ministry of Transport, within certain limits, to deter-

        729
        mine fares for the future. If Lord Ashfield has now consented, as one rather gathers from the intimation given by the Council of the Company, to cancel the agreement, what is his quid pro quo? What does he get in return? He is getting, it is quite obvious, something in the nature of an assurance or undertaking on the part of the Ministry of Transport that fares and charges will be raised, and raised, as I gather, from what I have been told of the provisions in that Bill in the form it has now assumed, potentially, if not actually, for a period of something like five years.
        Sir E. CARSON:Is that admitted?
        Mr. ASQUITH:I am told that is so. I shall be corrected, of course, if I am wrong. So that that is really the bargain which has been come to, or is about to be come to, by the Ministry on behalf of the public, and I confess, unless some further explanation can be given of the facts which I have very briefly narrated to the House, and which I believe are the correct ones, the case against Mr. Runciman and against Lord Ashfield—because he is quite as much involved in the charge—falls to the ground. The Minister of Transport says that this agreement omitted provisions which any clerk—I am not quoting his exact words, but the substance of them—in any general manager's office in the country would have known to be necessary for the protection of the Department. It was submitted by Lord Ashfield, then Sir A. Stanley, one of the greatest railway experts in the country, and submitted to the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, which consisted also, from another point of view, of some of our most competent experts. It was assented to by Mr. Runciman, whom nobody would accuse of being anything but an acute man of business, and it is now stated, on the authority of Sir Robert Perks, to be an agreement in the interest rather of the Government, from which certainly nothing was omitted which could have been inserted to safeguard the public interest. Therefore, I think, as far as the evidence now before the House and the country is concerned, the case completely breaks down. But I am not concerned—because, as I say, I do not know what the agreement is—in defending this agreement, although I know my Friend Mr. Runciman was a most cautious and
        730
        prudent man, but what I am concerned with is the point which is really relevant to this fact. What is the part the Minister of Transport has played?
        Mr. C. PALMER:He said he had saved the country a million pounds this year.
        Mr. ASQUITH:I know; I have stated the facts. I have shown that this elaborate process of collation and so forth, which my hon. Friend, who has just sat down praised as a new discovery, broke down at this point. This agreement was discovered by haphazard, a happy - go - lucky affair, and since then, so far from having been cancelled, it has lingered on in a precarious, intermittent kind of nebulous existence, and is now, apparently, coming to an end at the cost of the passengers and traders on the Metropolitan Railway. Let me go on. This is not an isolated case. I pass on only two pages in the speech of my right hon. Friend. I will read his own language:
        "The War stopped. I found—for I had no knowledge of it before—that the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Runciman) had agreed with the railways that the guarantee of net receipts should continue for two years after the War."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June, 1920; col. 2434; Vol. 130.]
        No knowledge of it before! That was an agreement come to not by Mr. Runciman. It was come to by the Cabinet. I was Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bonar Law), and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson), were Members of that Cabinet. It was told to every railway company in the Kingdom. There is a suggestion here in this speech that it was only discovered by the casual reading of a letter written to the North-Eastern Railway Company. [An HON. MEMBER:" The North-Western Railway Company."] But it was told by my right hon. Friend to every railway company in the country and to the leaders of the trade unions. It was public property. Although I have not consulted the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am perfectly sure it must have been referred to more than once in this House. Yet the Minister of Transport has suggested that his new Department was created to import business like habits into the dealings of the State with the railway companies of the country. He tells us, when he came

        731
        into office—he had no knowledge of it before—he found Mr. Runciman had made an agreement of this kind.
        Well, Sir, is the Committee satisfied with that? Is it worth while employing a Minister and ten Directors-General to discover, after months—four or five months at any rate—what all the world knew two or even three years before? I come back to what I said the other day. This Ministry is really not for the purpose of action, but for a totally different purpose. The philosophers of ancient Greece, Mr. Whitley, as you know well—and Aristotle in this matter agrees with Plato although he did not always do so—were of opinion that the highest life, and the best exercise of the energies of man, was the life of contemplation. They thought it greatly superior to the life of action and practice, immersed, as they said, in matter. How they, in those ideal communities which they were fond of creating, would have rejoiced at the erection of the Ministry of Transport! [An HON. MEMBER: "Who voted against it?"] A State-supported dreamer in the person of my right hon. Friend with his 10 or 11 Directors-General, all engaged in furiously thinking! But this is a serious matter. Here are involved tens and hundreds of thousands of pounds of the taxpayers' money. I state my opinion, as I stated it last week, that I can find no justification whatever, in the financial and economic condition in which the country is placed, for this extravagant expenditure.
        The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes):I felt certain that when the right hon. Gentleman spoke in reply to this matter, he would bring his large skill and experience into play, and I should probably be given a trouncing. No doubt the agreement, which is mentioned in the paragraph of my speech to which reference has been made, was made before I came upon the scene, but when I was speaking I was trying, imperfectly perhaps, to carry the House with me through the sequence of events that followed this agreement which was come to with all this great formality. It went before the Cabinet. It was dealt with in a very formal and deliberate way; but this agreement did not exist at the Board of Trade. I had to make inquiries in a preliminary way before I could get any idea of its existence, so that when the matter came before the Ministry of
        732
        Transport for informational purposes, we had to go to the railway companies to get a copy of this very momentous document. I might have got it by going to the trade unions, or possibly, to Lord Ashfield, but I preferred the railway companies.
        I should like to ask the Committee to go back with me to what started this controversial, shall I say, rather more controversial part of the Debate on the Estimates. It was commenced by my right hon. Friend's two speeches at Plymouth and in the Isle of Wight. He denounced in no measured terms the Ministry of Transport, and he ascribed to us the contemplative functions which he has again ascribed to us to-day, and upon which, I feel sure, he is undoubtedly an expert authority. He said that the Ministry of Transport was not doing the work as economically, cheaply, and efficiently as the Board of Trade. That was a direct comparison between the time when a Minister in his own Government was doing the work and myself, who never had the honour of serving under him. It was in reply to that accusation that I had to make a reply, and the only possible reply I could make was to do what I did, and compare the work of the two Departments. The last wish I have is to attack any Minister of the right hon. Gentleman, or the right hon. Gentleman whose name has come into the discussion. If I had had the wish to attack him I should have done so long ago. It did not require the present or recent occasions to make me do that. It was only because I had to answer the right hon. Gentleman's speech that this came up at all. I should like to refer very briefly to Mr. Runciman's letter in to-day's papers. I regret very much that he is not able to be here, as I could have wished, and we could have had this matter out on the Floor of the House.
        Mr. Runciman's letter to the papers is written in error, an error into which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Asquith) did not fall. The agreement to which I refer was not the agreement under which the Metropolitan Disctrict Railway was taken over. It was taken over at the same time as the others. It was an agreement come to in circumstances which I will explain to the Committee. I believe inquiries have been made by Mr. Runciman and his friends for information not only at the Ministry of Transport, but at the Board of Trade,

        733
        and, for all I know, other Departments. So far as I am concerned no obstacle has been thrown in the way, and no refusal given to any request made for information, and I shall be very glad to give any further information in my power. The history of the agreement is as follows: The Metropolitan District Railway was taken over with the other railways in 1914. In 1915 the Tubes, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, applied to be taken over and guaranteed. That was refused, largely, I believe, for military reasons. The next step was this: The Tubes and the London General Omnibus Combine said, "We cannot go on owing to the difficulties caused by the War, unless we are able to help each other."
        Therefore, they came to Parliament with a request that an agreement that they should combine and pool their resources should be sanctioned. Parliament sanctioned that. At that stage it was necessary to consider—I do not say it was not mentioned before—the consequences. At that stage it was necessary to consider what the Government's share—as the pro tem. owner, of a portion of the pool—should be out of the pool. It was eventually agreed upon on the basis of the 1913 receipts. They were standardised on that. No arrangement at all was provided for the working expenses or for a revision of the additional working expenses being paid for additional traffic or a revision on a basis if the earnings were great. There was no agreement at all, no Clause which provided for the maintenance of an adequate service. The result of that—of the arrangements and pool—was that passengers are actually 58 per cent. more on the District Railway than before. Certain minor alterations, which still extend to the whole of the working expenses, were not fixed. They are borne by the Government. The Government has not got additional revenue nor additional working expenses. The right hon. Gentleman has said, "Why is not this agreement produced?" These agreements, these which are called agreements, were arranged and scattered through the country. The agreements which were collated were general agreements. There are large numbers, I do not know how many. The fact remains that the expenses rise and rates rise; and they have risen in the other comparative ser-
        734
        vices, and the traffic rises enormously to the extent of 58 per cent., but the receipts do not rise. What I put forward last week was not an attack upon Mr. Runciman or any Minister, but was brought forward to illustrate to the Committee that the machine which was then working was a minus machine, because the Board of Trade, a Department which before the War had a staff of 35, at the time these momentous matters were referred to them, were working with a staff of 25, and had to attend to other matters as well. They had this vast responsibility of railway matters. My object was to show that the machine, which the right hon. Gentleman said was so efficient, did not exist, and could not have been in existence. May I remind the Committee that when Lord Ashfield went to the Board of Trade as President in 1916, by the unwritten law of this House, when he took a ministerial post he severed his connection with the private companies with which he was then connected. The first year's accounts under this agreement showed a balance against the Government of £28,000, not a very big sum. That was the 1915 account. The 1916 account came to the Board of Trade in February, 1918. That was the way in which the machine worked. It came from the railway companies' auditors, who had been carrying out the cross check, and these auditors reported to the Board of Trade that the agreement was working unfavourably to the Government. What did Lord Ashfield thereupon do? The Board of Trade did what I think was the only proper thing: they sent a report at once to the consulting auditor for the Government, appointed to deal with this group of railways, and asked him to go into the matter and see if anything could be done. That was the only action open to them. The accounting auditor replied that, in his opinion, certain adjustments, detailed and technical, with which I will not trouble the Committee, should be made. This was submitted to the company in the ordinary way, not to Lord Ashfield, who was President of the Board of Trade at the time, and was accepted by them. They accepted, in fact, the recommendation of the Government consulting auditor. See how the machine works—this machine which we are told is so efficient that there is no need to improve it. From that day to this no agreement has been reached on the point. There are still outstanding the 1917

        735
        accounts, which have not yet reached the Board of Trade. That is the way in which the machine has worked.
        Sir D. MACLEAN:And whose fault is that?
        Sir E. GEDDES:The right hon. Gentleman complains, I assume, that we have not improved the machine. We are trying to improve it now. But from 1916 so quickly and so efficiently has this machine worked that the 1916 accounts were not received until 1918, and since then no further accounts have been received. So here we are in 1920, and have not got the accounts yet for the year 1917! The figures which I gave last week are the best figures available, and they have been arrived at after the minor adjustments, within the terms of the agreement which were recommended by the consulting auditor have been made as far as possible. Lord Ashfield gave evidence before the Committee on London Traffic, and took that opportunity, and I can quite understand his doing so, of publicly drawing attention to this agreement. That is exactly what I should have expected from a man of his high character.
        Mr. KENNEDY JONES:Has not my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the fact that this agreement was before the Select Committee of the House of Commons on London Traffic nine months earlier?
        Sir E. GEDDES:I was not aware of the fact that the agreement was before the Committee presided over by my hon. Friend. At any rate, up till the time I have mentioned the machinery had produced nothing but the 1916 accounts. With the fullest assistance of Lord Ashfield we sent down some of the investigating accountants and auditors of the Ministry of Transport, who spent some weeks in the offices of the companies, and it was from their books that we were able to arrive at an accurate appreciation of the position. It was at that stage that the interview which my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley has described so humorously took place with Lord Ashfield. I was perhaps in error in my endeavour to lay the purport of that conversation before the House, for I fell into the trap of repeating the conversation in a colloquial form. However, before the
        736
        Debate was closed I made perfectly clear the arrangement under which it was decided that this agreement should be determined. Let us look for a moment at what was the position of the companies at the time of that conversation. They had come to Parliament in 1915 and made an agreement with the Government which it was admitted worked out in a way not expected at the time. In the meantime, during the War, on the strength of that arrangement—an agreement which it is not open to either side to tear up—they had paid certain wages and incurred certain costs. It is not as if they were a prosperous concern, putting a lot of gain into their pockets as a result of a hard-driven bargain. They came to Lord Ashfield and said, "We must in some way or other be able to meet the increased expenses which we have incurred, and we must be put in a position to pay the increased wages which have been forced upon us by the railway settlement to which we were not parties. We must he put in a position to pay the high costs incurred." Lord Ashfield said to me, "You have now got power to take over this undertaking under the Ministry of Transport Act. Will you take it over or will you enable us to do what other railways have done, and put up our rates so that we can pay these increased wages to our employés?" My reply was that, in my opinion, the Ministry of Transport Act did not give us power to authorise them to do that, and their best way would be to come to this House to seek such powers. Lord Ashfield concurred that that was the best way, and accordingly the companies came to Parliament with a Bill giving them additional charging powers.
        The House gave that Bill a Second Reading and it was sent upstairs. I reported on the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to that fact. I reported that this arrangement, which had been come to perfectly honourably, was working against the Government, and it was therefore desirable that it should be determined, if the Bill which the Government was promoting went through. What did the Committee do? I would like to point out that the question of a quid pro quo can be easily settled, not on my evidence, but on the evidence of the Committee itself. The Committee had instructions from the House to consider a reasonable return on

        737
        capital, and to give advances which would produce that. It was not a case of giving so much meal in return for so much malt. If it had been, the Committee surely would have entered into some investigation of the terms of the agreement. The Committee, after hearing Lord Ashfield's evidence, took no account of the agreement at all. They did not seek to treat these companies not as the 'bus companies which had authority to pool were treated, or to put them on the same footing as the tramways, docks and other companies which had come to the House. If it had been a case of a quid pro quo they would certainly have called for evidence as to the agreement. They would certainly have made that a condition of their report to this House. It is not accurate to say that the agreement was cancelled as a condition that they should have power to make certain specific increased charges. They reported to the House on an independent investigation that had not taken into account the value of the agreement. The right hon. Gentleman opposite pointed out that I had made a report to the Private Bill Committee which left the fixing of these fares to some extent in the hands of the Ministry of Transport. I would ask the Committee to observe exactly what that means, because there has been some misunderstanding about it, and I earnestly hope if any Members of the Committee are here to-day they will speak on this point. The House sent that Bill upstairs with an instruction that the fares should be revised on scales which would give a reasonable return of capital. Clearly there was some confusion in the actual wording of the instruction, because both the words "maximum" and "actual" were used. The Committee, in conformity with the instructions of the House, fixed the maximum, but in the present changing state of affairs I recommended them to consider whether it would not be wiser to fix maxima which on the present-day charges would give a reasonable return to the companies on their capital. I could hardly do more than that, and I could hardly do less. This agreement, about which we have heard so much, was one which operated undoubtedly to the advan6.0 P.M. tage of the Company and not to the benefit of the Government. It was come to as a perfectly
        738
        honest and straightforward bargain, and not a single aspersion rests on anybody's name in connection with it. It was brought to our notice by those who had benefitted, and they agreed when they were asked to accept modifications for the benefit of the Government. They had undertaken obligations which the years of the War had forced upon them, and they were not in a position to continue unless they were treated as other undertakings, and were enabled to increase their charges. The Committee upstairs has reported what the increase shall be, and if the House passes the Bill, those who have had the benefit of this assistance and this subsidy which was given by the terms of this agreement will agree to cancel that agreement if they are put in the position of earning a reasonable return on their capital.
        Consequently, that subsidy which was paid under the operation of this agreement will be determined. No doubt, if I put down £1,000,000 for this subsidy, I should be told that I was spending the money, and when I reduce a subsidy shown on the Estimates, then I claim that I have saved the money. In this case, if the House gives this Company fair and reasonable treatment, and I believe it will, as the Committee has recommended it, that subsidy will cease, and therefore I am entitled to claim that the action of the Ministry in this matter has effected a saving which will realise very shortly a sum estimated at £1,000,000 in the coming financial year and that saving will be realised.
        Sir JAMES REMNANT:I beg to move "That the Vote be reduced by £100,000."
        This is the second day of the Debate on this subject, and we have not very much longer to debate this question, as I understand that another Bill is to be taken at 8.15. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then, so much the better. One naturally is inclined and wishes to curtail one's remarks so as to allow other Members to speak on this subject. I shall speak as little as possible in support of my Amendment. What is the conclusion, so far, at which the House has arrived? Surely I should be right in saying that, so far, we have heard nothing from the Minister and his colleagues which would lead us to any other conclusion than that this new Ministry was not wanted, and

        739
        that the work done by it could have been done just as well with far less expense by a Department of the Board of Trade. The Minister has made a great deal of the tremendous amount of work that he and his Department have had to do. Naturally, they would have had to do a great amount of work to meet the after-war effects on the traffic of this country, but surely the Board of Trade Department dealing with railways could have done it just as well, and if it was necessary to have a Ministry appointed to deal exclusively with transport matters, surely they could have followed the example set by the President of the Board of Trade when he asked the House to appoint a new Minister to the Ministry of Mines.
        The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) showed conclusively that a Transport Ministry was not required. The right hon. Gentleman called attention to the fact that there were 10 or 11 new Directors-General, and he might have gone a little further and said that the total number of assistant Directors-General was something like 32 or 34, and they required to carry out their work no less than 97 other officers. The right hon. Gentleman made a great point that when the Bill was introduced into this House it was received practically with open arms by everybody, that there was no division against it, and that everbody was unanimously in favour of it. The Minister responsible for the introduction of that Bill, as was pointed out the other night—a statement which influenced I have no hesitation in saying, a great number of hon. Members of this House—said:
        "I shall be surprised if there are many officials. It cannot be a big Department of new people apart from those already being paid by the taxpayers."
        I would ask hon. Members, and even those with a short experience of the House and the Ministry, whether they consider if that Bill was to be submitted to the House today there would or would not be very serious opposition to it. A great point has been made of economy. The hon. Member who represents the Ministry said that it was the urgent and necessary duty of the Minister to safeguard the taxpayers of the country, and I quite accept that statement. The point I was going to put to the Minister was this: When he was defending the salaries paid to the officials
        740
        of his Department he said that, compared with the salaries given to the high officials of the railways of this country, they compared very favourably, and in other words that he was giving less to his own officials than they would otherwise have got in the railway world.
        The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us how he arrived at that decision or for what year he estimated those salaries. Did the right hon. Gentleman take it for the year 1918 when he himself was allotted—given I know not what for—the sum of £50,000 on leaving the North-Eastern Railway Company for the patriotic object of trying to help the country, a sad case of profiteering. Many hundreds and thousands of people in this country gave up their civil work at great personal sacrifice in order to do their little bit for their country. I want to know whether that £50,000 allotted to the right hon. Gentleman by the North-Eastern Railway Company is included amongst the salaries of railway officials when he says that the railway officials were getting far bigger pay than the new Ministry is paying. Was that £50,000 debited to traffic expenses which would be paid for by the Government, and if so how will that £50,000 be refunded to the taxpayers of this country? Will it be paid either by himself or the shareholders of the North-Eastern Railway? If they are so keen on economy that would be one of the points which I should think he would direct his attention to in order to safeguard what looks to me to-day as likely to be a severe tax upon the already over-burdened taxpayers of this country. The Report of the Select Committee has been referred to more than once by the right hon. Gentleman as practically justifying the existence of his Ministry; in fact, he said that they even recommended an increased expenditure. I have not been able to find that statement in their Report. I know they say that the Estimates should be reduced by £70,000, that the whole scheme was a grandiose scheme, and that it was difficult for them to pass an opinion upon it. I should have concluded from reading the Report that their opinion was that the whole of the Ministry of Transport was an unnecessary Department.
        It is rather difficult to confine one's remarks in a small space, but I must refer to one subject to show the way in which this Ministry is seeking to econo-

        741
        mise public money. They have swollen their Estimates to start with at the special request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and now they claim credit because they are able to reduce their Estimate by a considerable sum, which to me is a new method of finance. I should like to point out to the Committee the way in which it is sought to economise the finances of this Ministry. Last year the Royal Commission on Canals and Inland Waterways, of which I was a Member, was appointed by the present Prime Minister. We sat for something like two years, and we investigated thoroughly this subject from the engineering and every other point of view. We inspected really all the canals and waterways of this country, and we visited Scotland, Ireland, Holland, Germany, and France at enormous expense to the country. Now, forsooth, the right hon. Gentleman, by way of showing how energetic he is in safeguarding the transport facilities of this country, appoints another Committee to do practically, I imagine, the same work over again, because the only difference can be the altered financial and economic questions which are to-day affecting this country, and which I should have thought might have been easily settled by the despised Board of Trade Department. I have moved this reduction because I believe that the country is clamouring for economy, and will not stand much longer this extraordinary outburst of spending Departments. I ask the Committee to support this Amendment, and thereby show that they consider that here there is a good chance of economising, at all events, for the next few years. The Parliamentary Secretary is a good backer of his chief, but it was a somewhat extraordinary athletic feat that he performed recently. He led the opposition to the Government in Committee upstairs, when the right hon. Gentleman was trying to claim all the electricity supplies throughout the country. He beat the Government. In a short time he comes down, after rubbing noses with the right hon. Gentleman, and goes directly contrary to what he did upstairs, and, within a day or two, we find him sitting on the Treasury Bench. This Ministry have not got much of a case of their own, and they are anxious to make a show of grabbing every industry they can lay their hands on. They admit
        742
        that they are going to do nothing for the docks. They cannot touch electricity for the time being; they cannot even handle the railways—and, after all, if the right hon. Gentleman is not an expert on railways, heaven knows what he is. I do think that they should confine their energies and be less of an expense to the country.
        Mr. THOMAS:The first observation that I would make on this afternoon's Debate is that, at least, the House and the country generally will alter their opinion about the wickedness of the railwaymen during the past four years: If, as we have discovered during this Debate, and that of last week, all the Government Departments and the responsible Minister were not able to check and deal with the wicked railway companies, I think they will at least extend their sympathy to the leaders who like myself, had to deal with that very same state of things. Incidentally, I would remind the Committee that one of the difficulties throughout the whole of the War was that, whenever there was a wage agitation, whenever there was a struggle and a threat of a strike, before any negotiations of any sort or kind could take place, all manner of other negotiations had to take place, and by the time we met the other side there was a great deal of irritation and ill-feeling amongst the men themselves. That will have been gathered very clearly from some of the statements made during this Debate and that which took place last week. I have negotiated with every President of the Board of Trade since the outbreak of war, and I am bound to say that, after the statements made last week, hon. Members of the House, and certainly the people in the country who read the reports of the Debate, could come to no other conclusion than that, firstly, Mr. Runciman had made a bad bargain, and, secondly, that Lord Ashfield, as a party to the bargain, at least had not played cricket by remaining quiet whilst he was President of the Board of Trade. It is no use mincing matters; that was the only conclusion that the man in the street—the British public—has drawn from the Debate last week. It is the duty of all of us to deal clearly with that aspect of the question for the moment.
        I want to join issue with the statements that have been made, both to-day

        743
        and previously, with regard to the original agreement. I have no hesitation in saying, not only that this was a good agreement for the Government, but that the War would have been lost if some such agreement had not been made. When war broke out, and it was necessary to transfer the Expeditionary Force, there were only two ways of doing it. One would have involved the checking by the railway companies of every passenger, every wagon, every gun and every horse, and the payment of some sum for each individual and for all the traffic carried. That would have required double the staff that they had. It would have prevented the release of railwaymen to the tune of 127,000 to go to the War, and the delay and confusion can be imagined that would have arisen if that method had had to be followed. The House and the country do not fully understand that, for they are invariably told that there was some wicked agreement and that a bad bargain was made. We may as well face that. That was the position with which the Government were faced, and they had to find some means of getting over that difficulty, of dealing with the troops expeditiously with the minimum of labour, and, at the same time, at least remunerating the railway companies on some fair basis. The result was that they decided, as has already been explained, that, instead of all that checking, waste labour, delay, and, what was more important than all, the bringing of troops to London and then unloading them for another company to take them on because it was a different line, they adopted the simple system which is now well known, and guaranteed the net receipts. We have been told this afternoon that the State has contributed £158,000,000—
        Mr. NEAL:I said that those were the actual payments. I ought to have added—I only used it for the purpose of mentioning the figures—that against that was to be set off the value of the Government traffic.
        Mr. THOMAS:That is exactly what I am going to deal with, and it is all-important. What is the good of talking about the State contributing £158,000,000, if probably £100,000,000 can be set off against it? For the first two years of the War, not only did the Government not contribute anything, but, in the
        744
        main, their traffic was carried free. If you are going to draw a correct balance sheet, the only way to do it is to show, not only what the State is now paying, but what the railway companies owe to the State, and what would be a fair margin for the work performed by the railway companies during that period.
        Sir E. GEDDES:And outstanding liabilities.
        Mr. THOMAS:And outstanding liabilities. I have no hesitation in saying that, whatever else may be said about the arrangements made by the Government during the War, the arrangement which they made with the railway companies was certainly not a bad bargain for the State. I want to emphasise the fact that it was the only possible arrangement in the circumstances. That having been made clear, I come at once to the agreement that was mentioned, and it is significant to observe here what has not been said, either to-day or last week, namely, that, when this pooling arrangement was made, the omnibuses in London were the part of the combine that was making the most profit. The omnibuses at that time were making very heavy profits, and the railways were run at a loss. We had 50 per cent. of our men under the control of Parliament and 50 per cent. uncontrolled. What would have happened if, when the men received an advance in wages, 50 per cent. got it and the other 50 per cent. were told that they were not under the Government scheme? The Committee knows perfectly well that the men would not have accepted any such suggestion for a moment. In the interview with Lord Kitchener I myself put that point. His answer was a simple one. He said, "So far as taking over the railways is concerned, we are not affected by finance in the least. All we have to show is some military reason." On those grounds he turned it down. There was then a danger of a strike, and Lord Ashfield, who was then Sir Albert Stanley, said, "I do not want to be responsible for causing a dispute. I believe my men ought to be treated as the other railwaymen are treated," and he said that the only way was to get some authority so that the whole of the receipts could be pooled, and the money from the omnibus company put into the pool to help to pay the railways.

        745
        The idea that this agreement was a secret one amazed me. It was not only no secret to every railway manager, but it was no secret to the Board of Trade, to my personal knowledge, and it was known perfectly well to the railwaymen's union and was mentioned at public meetings. When I read the Debate, what astounded me above all was the suggestion that this was some secret bargain for which only Mr. Runciman was responsible, and about which no one knew anything. All I can say is that it is due from me to Mr. Runciman to say quite frankly and honestly that, whilst he was at the Board of Trade, he was perfectly straight and perfectly honest, and that in all his dealings with the men we never found him guilty of double dealing of any sort or kind. It is due to Mr. Runciman to say that, and, incidentally, it is also due to Lord Ashfield to say the same of him. Although, when he was President of the Board of Trade, we had to negotiate with the combine of which he was the late chairman, never once did we find that he allowed his previous connection with the company to influence him in any way or in any of his dealings with us. My right hon. Friend must not forget that a reflection has been cast by what took place last week, and I am glad to know that it has been somewhat cleared away to-day.
        I want to join issue with the right hon. Gentleman about the Bill upstairs, because, I suggest to him, that his construction of his letter is not strictly in accordance with the facts. The Bill was dropped in this House for a period of seven weeks during which negotiations were taking place with the Ministry and with certain London Members. Mr. Whitley was frequently in consultation as to when the Bill was to get a Second Reading, and ultimately it was put down for 8.15, the whole House knowing perfectly well that there was going to be a long Debate on it and the House, to put it no higher, divided in opinion. The right hon. Gentleman spoke, and said distinctly that the new arrangement that was made formed part of the consideration and gave the Bill a blessing on the Second Reading, a blessing, let it be observed, with the instruction that had been moved and accepted by the London Members. We were entitled to assume that that was the policy of the Ministry of Transport on that Bill. We were
        746
        entitled to assume that they had considered the whole matter, because if that was not their policy it ought to have been stated on the Second Reading here. But to the amazement of everyone, when the Committee met the first thing it was faced with was not the Instruction of the House of Commons, but the letter of the right hon. Gentleman, which was an entirely different position from that stated by him on the Second Reading. The Committee had to choose between throwing over the Instruction of the House of Commons or throwing over the Ministry. I said in the Committee-room what I want to say here, that I do not understand the attitude. I do not think it was fair either to the Committee upstairs or to this House, because under circumstances such as I have mentioned, I think the Act has not only prejudiced the Bill unfairly, but has prejudiced public opinion, and may do an incalculable amount of harm to trade and commerce by the feeling it has engendered amongst the men. Therefore, on the personal side of this dispute I only want to say that the agreements were not secret; they were made with the best intentions, and under the circumstances, I believe, can be justified, and I think it is a monstrous injustice to have reflected either on Mr. Runciman or on Lord Ashfield as to their part or connection with it. The hon. Gentleman, in defending the Ministry today, made a somewhat remarkable statement. He said the Ministry of Trans port was justified to-day on the ground of giving effect to Minister's election pledges.
        Mr. NEAL:The Prime Minister's.
        Mr. THOMAS:The hon. Gentleman said various Ministers. If he had limited himself to the Prime Minister, I should not have said what I am going to say, but he made it clear that various Ministers in different part of the country had dealt with this question during the election, and at least it was redeeming their pledges.
        Mr. NEAL:I mentioned two Ministers only. The Prime Minister and the Lord Privy Seal.
        Mr. THOMAS:The hon. Gentleman also mentioned others. At all events, I want to draw his attention to the fact that another Ministerial statement was made during the General Election, and the

        747
        Secretary of State for War, speaking at Dundee just before the election, had made it perfectly clear that the Government was committed to the nationalisation of the railways. That statement was publicly commented upon, and no denial of any sort or kind was made on behalf of the Government by any other Minister. If we are to assume that no Minister of the Crown would make a statement of that kind without consultation and agreement with his colleagues, the people of this country were entitled to assume that that was the considered policy of the Government. Another statement made by the Prime Minister at Wolverhampton did not definitely say railway nationalisation, but, read in connection with the War Secretary's speech, indicated that it was at least in his mind. Therefore, when the Ministry of Transport Bill was brought into the House and justified in the country, we were entitled to assume that one of its functions was to give effect to the declaration of the Secretary of State for War that it was essential in order that railway nationalisation should take place. The White Paper rather shows that the Secretary of State for War was not speaking for the Government, or that the Government does not intend to give effect to that policy. But I do not agree with those who suggest that there ought not to be a co-ordinating authority on transport. I have no hesitation in saying that there ought to be co-ordination. I do not think for a moment that you could ignore the effect of agriculture on transport. I do not think you can ignore the development of road traffic. In fact, I believe the question of transport is not only dependent upon but is essential to the future development of the country, and I certainly believe that for that reason there ought to be some coordinating authority. I am not going to say a word as to whether the staff at present required is justified, but I say quite clearly and definitely that you cannot even to-day draw any accurate conclusion with regard to the railway position until you get considerably more data than you have at present. No comparison could be made of the railway system in this country with foreign countries because there are not sufficient data kept, and there is no return made which would enable you to do it. It would be impossible for you to find out the ton miles to-day. For that
        748
        reason I hope we shall not allow the personal side of this dispute or personal recriminations to blind us to the essential necessity of the transport of the country in relation to the development of the country. It is because I hope that side of it will be kept in mind that I felt it was my duty at least to give my version of the personal side of it, being perfectly clear that we consider the Ministry of Transport as essential to the well-being of the community.
        Sir F. BANBURY:I should not have intervened had it not been for the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. Myers) during the Debate last Thursday. He is reported as saying:
        "There is no need for 51 railway companies. There is no need for several hundred railway directors at £5,000 a year."[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June, 1920; col. 2492; Vol. 130.]
        I do not think there is, but the facts of the matter are that the average fees paid to railway directors are about £300 or £400 a year, and not £5,000. As this statement appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and as it was commented on in the Press—I saw some remark on it in at least one newspaper—I wrote to the hon. Member and told him I intended to raise this subject at the first opportunity, and I have had a letter in which he says he was rather misled by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Flannery), though I cannot find anything in his speech which would have misled him, and that the remarks were incorrect, and that he has taken steps to correct them.
        Sir F. FLANNERY:I did not refer at all to directors' remuneration. I referred to the remuneration of officials of the railway company as being greater than the remuneration of corresponding officials in the Transport Ministry.
        Sir F. BANBURY:I read my hon. Friend's speech, and I agree that there was nothing in it which would in any way justify the statement which was made in error by the hon. Member (Mr. Myers). But I think it advisable, especially as we are talking about economy, that we should really know what the remuneration of railway directors is. I cannot speak for all companies, but the Great Northern Railway has thirteen directors, and the remuneration divided between them is £6,000 a year. It is

        749
        true they have some other extra fees for managing joint lines, and this is the actual position given me by an accountant this morning. In 1913 the salaries and wages paid on the Great Northern Railway and its proportion of the joint lines were £2,900,000 a year. The other expenses were £1,808,000. The profit available for shareholders was £2,241,500, and the remuneration of the directors £7,500, and the gross receipts were £6,949,500. In 1919 the salaries and wages had grown to £6,400,000, the other expenses had grown to £3,146,000, and the gross receipts had grown to £8,992,600. But instead of there being a profit of £2,241,500 there was a loss of £554,000. For 1920 the Estimate is based upon the assumption that there would be no further increase in salaries and wages, but the figure in this respect has gone up from £2,900,000 in 1913 to £8,000,000; other expenses £4,000,000. The receipts, which in 1913 were £6,149,500, are now £12,500,000, and the shareholders' profit is £500,000, as against a profit of £2,241,500 in 1913. The directors' remuneration remains the same. For the management of a company whose gross receipts are £12,500,000, I venture to say £7,500 divided among thirteen men compares favourably with the salaries paid by the Ministry of Transport.
        7.0 P.M
        Mr. G. ROBERTS:I am glad that personal matters have been very largely disposed of. But for that fact I should have felt it incumbent upon me to make a few observations respecting them, because during the greater part of the occupancy of the position of the President of the Board of Trade by Lord Ashfield, then Sir Albert Stanley, I happened to be Parliamentary Secretary. Therefore, matters connected with this agreement came under my notice. I well remember the fact that Lord Ashfield was very careful to deal as little as possible with railway matters, because it might be felt in the country and this House that he was a prejudiced person. Consequently, as far as practicable, he handed over the dealing in these matters to myself. It is true that when the National Union of Railwaymen desired negotiations they insisted upon being met by the head of the Ministry. I can say with positive truth that Lord Ashfield, while he was at the Board of Trade, was, like Mr. Runciman before him, animated with one
        750
        desire, and that was to do his best to promote the efficiency of the Department and to serve the country. I deeply regret that personal matters should be introduced into these Debates, because it is impossible while these Debates are running to deal with them adequately, and we know full well that if a misstatement gets a start it requires a marconigram to overtake it.
        The whole existence of the Ministry of Transport is being challenged. That question has been determined by Parliament. Rightly or wrongly this House decided to set up a Ministry of Transport. I confess that I am not enamoured of new Ministries, and I had some doubt, being a Member of the Government at the time, as to whether it was proper to set up an entirely new Ministry, and whether it would not have been preferable to have created a Department of the Board of Trade as is now proposed to be done in the case of mines. Nevertheless, I strongly contest the view that the Board of Trade, as previously constituted, was quite capable of dealing with this vast subject. My experience of the Board of Trade was that it was becoming over-weighted; it had too many Departments. All these matters have to come before the Minister, because however many Departments you have, and however many officials you may appoint, the Minister must be responsible to this House and he must be able to reply to criticisms which are made upon the work of any one of the Departments. I came to the conclusion whilst I was at the Board of Trade that it had already sufficient work to do, and, therefore, when it was decided to entrust some Department with the task of co-ordinating the various transport services of this country, I was clear in my mind that the Board of Trade could not undertake that great new task. The House of Commons itself is responsible for the creation of the Ministry.
        It may be, of course, a matter of argument as to whether the Ministry is overstaffed. At any rate, my experience of the men who have been selected to work in the Ministry convinces me that the State has secured the services of very accomplished gentlemen. If you want the services of business men—and there is a demand in this House and throughout the country that the Government should employ increasingly men with the knowledge

        751
        and the service of these expert business men—you will have to pay them salaries which will attract them from private enterprise. You have no right to expect men in the service of the State to accept salaries lower than they would receive in private enterprise. That would prove fatal to the development of public ownership and control. If the State will not pay for the best brains in the country the State will never be able to get the highest skill and the greatest experience in these matters. There are sections of this House who ought to realise that, when we are putting forward proposals for the extension of public activities, new departments will have to be set up, and great expense must be embarked upon, and there is always an uncertainty as to whether it is possible to justify these creations and these expenditures.
        My mind is carried back to a Departmental Committee on which I sat in the years 1909–11. The question referred to that Committee was that of railway agreements and amalgamations, what alterations of the law should be adopted, and what provisions should be incorporated in order to safeguard the various interests concerned. The whole drift of the Report of that Committee was that amalgamations and co-operation amongst railway companies and the general transport system should be encouraged. We believed and we found out that a good deal of waste was occurring and that efficiency might be promoted if we encouraged the policy of railway amalgamation and cooperation. On the other hand, many dangers will accompany such a system, and reference to the Report of that Committee would prove that we clearly indicated the necessity for some such Department as the Ministry now under consideration in these Estimates. I remember at the time being a comparatively new Member, having only been in the House three years, and, being stimulated by my youthful enthusiasm, I ventured to add a note to that excellent Report, the concluding paragraph of which expressed the opinion that the question of transport, and particularly of railway nationalisation, had now reached a stage when it should be lifted out of the arena of academic discussion into that of practical politics, and that we should consider whether the State should assume owner-
        752
        ship of the railways and the various transport services. I have travelled a good way since those times, but I am in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) that we had been led to believe by a high Member of the Ministry that nationalisation of the railways was to be part of the Government policy. I had never understood that to be so, but if that right hon. Gentleman is, as he is represented to be, strongly in favour of that policy, and if he had the sanction of his colleagues to give expression to that view as representing the Government policy, there is no reason to complain of the fact that there are sections of the community dissatisfied with the present proposals. I see in this White Paper a step in the right direction. I believe that the Ministry of Transport's work will tend to the co-ordination of the transport services of the country and will effect great economies and promote more efficient transport. The mistake we are making at this juncture is to judge simply the expenditure which has been incurred, without recognising that the work of the Transport Ministry cannot and has not reached the stage whereby they can provide us with the proposals and the measures which will effect that proper organisation of transport and those economies which will eventually result. We expect too much at this juncture. Of course, those who are opposed to the Ministry are quite right in insisting upon their criticisms, but I submit that it is rather belated, because the time for adopting that attitude was when the measure for the establishment of the Ministry was before the House. I was in doubt as to whether a full Ministry was justifiable, but I was satisfied that a Ministry at least of the status of that proposed to be established in the case of mines was quite necessary to deal with this great question of transport.
        I should like to know from the Minister of Transport or from the Parliamentary Secretary whether we are going to make any allusion to the question of coastwise traffic. In these matters we are very prone to place the transport problem out of its proper perspective and to regard it as merely one of railway traffic. There is a tendency to aggrandise the railways. That has been the policy of the railway companies in the past. It is quite natural for them. They have been concerned to destroy com-

        753
        petitive systems. The canals have not been fully utilised, and, undoubtedly, they have not given great encouragement to the coastal traffic. During the War, and particularly while I was at the Ministry of Food, we felt the positive necessity of the coastal service. That was not destroyed by the railways, but destroyed owing to the War. We had to give special facilities in order to recreate that service, and the Government had to give a subsidy. I ascertain from the White Paper that it is now proposed to stop that subsidy. I believe it stopped at the end of last month. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what will be the effect of that stoppage? I am not going to argue in favour of the continuance of the subsidy, because I have always recognised that subsidies are vicious and indefensible, and that it is desirable we should get back to normal business conditions as early as possible. I want to know whether my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the conditions have assumed a normal. character and that coastwise traffic can now be conducted on economic terms, because I am certain if it happens that the coastal steamers have now to be held up because of the fact that they cannot pay their way, it would be disastrous to the transport system of the country and inimical to the business and even to the individual interests of the great mass of the people. I think I have succeeded in making it clear that whilst we are entitled to criticise the Ministry, whilst I confess to some doubt as to whether all the appointments are justifiable or of the best possible character, I am personally not in a position properly to judge of that. I read the Report of the Select Committee very carefully, and I thought, apart from the concluding paragraph, that the Ministry of Transport had won a great tribute. That was the impression made on my mind, because I had felt the Ministry might well have laid itself open to some very keen criticism. When you have to employ business men, you have to pay them salaries something commensurate with what they would get in private enterprise outside, but I fear that those who have indulged in criticising the Ministry are expecting too much at this juncture. The Ministry has been entrusted with a prodigious task, the full results of which could not possibly be
        754
        expected within a few months, and when they are presented to us we shall be better able to judge whether or not the Ministry has justified itself.
        Mr. MARSHALL STEVENS:I feel sure the Committee will agree with me that there is no party more concerned in this Vote than the great body of traders, yet the system which obtains in this House makes it exceedingly difficult even for a body of that character to make its views known here. In this particular Vote, the whole of last week's Debate, with the exception of the speeches of the Chairman of the late Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Wilson-Fox), the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), who represented the Sub-Committee which has done so much work with regard to this Vote, and the statement of the Minister, the whole thing has been a party squabble, and little chance has been given for the main considerations arising out of the Vote. I do not pretend to represent the traders of the country, but what I am in a position to say here is that the views which I express generally are those of the traffic experts of the great body of the traders of the country. I say at once that there is an absolute necessity for a Ministry of Transport, for the protection of the public, for the economical working of transport, and to safeguard the national interests. I say also that the whole of that can be done at a much less cost than the Estimates which we are now considering. I join issue at once with the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) that the Board of Trade could have carried on this important matter. They were entirely incompetent for doing the main work which we expect from this Ministry. It is quite true that their departmental work of looking after the safety of the public and so on was well done, but as to the protection of the traders, and as to their knowledge of railway matters, it was the complaint of the traders for years, given in evidence before Royal Commissions and cther bodies, that the Railway Department of the Board of Trade absolutely knew nothing of importance about the matter. I only need state one fact, and that is that this country, due to the inefficiency of the Board of Trade, was the only large country in the world where the

        755
        statistics were not available which we are now beginning to obtain from the new Ministry. Our complaint was that that Department was absolutely dominated by the railway companies. Transport, which used to be considered a subsidiary matter, is now assuming its correct degree of importance. It is a ridiculous assumption that huge estimates are requisite to maintain the Ministry of Transport in the high position it must occupy, and we desire the assurance of the Government that Estimates of this character will not be put forward after the Minister has completed the initiation of his scheme. We have heard from the Minister and from the Parliamentary Secretary of the great work which the Ministry is carrying out, but the whole of the work they have referred to is only the temporary work due to the control of the railways and the reconstruction policy which is so necessary as a result of the War.
        What I desire to know is whether these Estimates are to be considered as temporary or as permanent. The country to-day is committed to the great bulk of the Vote, whether this House confirms it or not. Consequently, let us have the full advantage of this temporary expenditure, as I anticipate it will be, and fully utilise the highly qualified staff which the Minister has brought together. Traders want everything that the Minister is doing and, so far as I know, is contemplating; they want the whole of it; they want it now, for permanent use subsequently. A great many of the statistics which are being prepared may become redundant almost immediately after they have been obtained, but still they will serve their purpose in the initiation of the new system. We must have statistics which will enable us to judge by comparison what our traders pay as compared with their competitors in other countries. An illustration used by the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon shows how little even the Department itself knows of the subject. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the fact that in France general merchandise rates had been increased 140 per cent., whilst in this country they had increased them from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. Those are statistics which are absolutely fallacious. They are got
        756
        out, not by the Ministry of Transport, but, if you please, by a new Department of Transport of the Board of Trade which has come into operation. They are fallacious in this way—and it has been shown by evidence before the Advisory Committee which is now sitting—that 140 per cent. over many of the old French rates does not bring the rates up to the old English rates. See the fallacy of talking about an increase of 140 per cent. there, as compared with our increase of 50 per cent., over rates which were already in the mean about 50 per cent. higher than the French rates. These are things which have already been brought to light by the Director-General of the Statistical Department of the Ministry, Sir George Beharrell. He is too good as a permanent official, and I have no doubt it is in the mind of the Minister that expenditure like £5,000 on this account is only to last for a couple of years. If so, I am in perfect agreement that men of that character, with certain assistance, should at first be available for the Ministry. I have noticed, however, that that one Department is costing £30,000 a year, and it is not obtaining statistics. They are being obtained from the Railway Clearing House, and the obtaining of these statistics is not included in the Estimate at all.
        What were the intentions of the Government in regard to transport? In 1917 the Minister of Reconstruction authorised a public announcement that a Transport Committee should be formed, of representatives of all the traders' interests in the country, together with transport interests, and the one one thing he did not provide for on that Committee was the permanent officials, and I believe it was on that account, and on that account only, that that Committee did not come into operation. That was December, 1917, but sufficient was done amongst the traders for them to co-operate and to form themselves into such a committee as had been indicated by the Minister of Reconstruction, who is the present Minister of Health. That Committee has worked ever since and is working now, without any Government help, and it has formulated a Bill for the amendment of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, which I have had the honour of introducing, and which is backed by my

        757
        hon. Friend the Member for Coventry (Mr. Manville), the Chairman of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywell (Mr. N. Chamberlain), and by other hon. Members representing somewhat similar interests. That Bill contains the policy of the traders, leading up to the establishment of a new tribunal, which is being foreshadowed now at the rates inquiry of the Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Transport, following on the Canadian Inter-States Commerce Act. It is quite certain if the traders are to have their way—and I think the railways are of a similar opinion—at any rate that that would be the trend of the next legislation, that we shall have to provide four or five tribunals, apart from the Ministry of Transport, concerned in questions of rates and facilities and other matters. Connected with that Bill—to give an indication of the interests concerned—is the Federation of British Industries, with over 200 associations and 18,000 firms, in co-operation with the Associated Chambers of Commerce, with over 100 Chambers and 45,000 members. They are working without any charge at all.
        Then we come to the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Transport, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Wilson-Fox) was Chairman. When Parliament dissolved, it had commenced to obtain knowledge, and I am sure that if it had continued in office, there would be no Estimate of £400,000 before us to-day to consider. The Ministry of Transport Bill was introduced on the 26th of February, 1919, and the Home Secretary in his speech said:
        "The Government propose to set up a Ministry to maintain for the two years dur-which the receipts are guaranteed the whole of the control which they had during the course of the War and at the same time to give them powers during those two years to consider the whole question and to consider it with the assistance of the Committee of this House, which is still in existence. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, not in the new Parliament!"] Well, you can set it up again, and at the same time to make such changes as and when they may think desirable, as are desirable."
        Why is that Committee not sitting? Several efforts have been made outside this House to obtain the performance of that promise of the Government, that more than anything else has served to satisfy the great body of traders of this
        758
        country in regard to the continuance of this Ministry.
        Then it was announced that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Geddes) had been appointed by the Prime Minister as a Minister without Portfolio, with a view to his taking up the appointment which he now holds. I stated then, I have stated in this House since, and I state again now, that the best available man was selected for the job. The fear that the traders had that he might have only railway vision, and that he might be steeped in the English railway system, is fast disappearing. Then the Bill went upstairs, and the traders' representatives on the Committee were strong enough to deal with the Government's representatives if it had not been for our Friends on the Labour Benches The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) on one occasion was an exception, and it is due to that that we have to-day this Advisory Committee on rates, but the Labour Members went upstairs imbued with the idea that they had been promised nationalisation, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and because of that they went almost absolutely on every Amendment for the Government. The result was that we were not able upstairs to obtain the reforms which we were so anxious to obtain. Some we obtained. The greatest of all was the Rates Advisory Committee which, after taking the greatest objection to it, the Minister himself was good enough to propose. Then we had a panel of experts, to all of which the Minister objected at first, and we have to a very large extent provided means for giving assistance to the Minister in the very great and arduous work which is before him.
        The statistics are not supplied by the Minister. They are only ordered by him. As the result of that we shall have the advantage directly of considering the grouping into districts of railways and with the other transport matters that come along. I give one illustration to show how difficult the Advisory Committee on Rates find it now to act without statistics. Everyone at an inquiry—I speak for the traders and railway companies, and I am sure court itself—is most anxious that the railways should be handed back to the companies in such a condition, financially, of course, that they may be worked successfully as com-

        759
        mercial concerns. Look at the difficulty when you have to provide for the cost of working and profit on a railway like the Great Central that never paid anything to its ordinary shareholders, if the same rates are applied to a competitive line alongside it which is paying a reasonable dividend. Those are difficulties which can be righted only when we get completed the statistics which are now being obtained. The right hon. Gentleman last week in opening the Debate said that we had already got for the first time in this country the ton-mile cost of working traffic, and he added quite properly that the comparison was not a very sure one, because in this country we carry a very abnormal quantity of coal traffic.
        It will be found, I feel sure, a little later on, when your general merchandise traffic is compared with that of other countries—I am talking of pre-war rates now: it is the basis all round—that we were at least 50 per cent. higher than any other country in the world. It has been found out by statistics how unprofitable the short-distance traffic is. I am speaking of short-distance traffic within 20 miles, which is carted at two ends. It is all being done so as to keep a particular traffic upon the railway instead of its passing on to the roads where it belongs. It is the traffic that has been usually carried before by railway with the knowledge now that the company itself does not bear any of the loss, but that the whole loss is borne by the Government. Take the short-distance traffic of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, carried within 20 miles, carted at both ends. On the average the whole of the convenance, the station terminals, station accommodation, and the two cartages is all being done at less than what it cost the railway companies to do the two cartages. That to a very great extent is where the waste is great and the loss is great, and we traders do not intend blindfolded to agree to increases of rates unless these things are discussed, because the old conveyance rate in this country—high as it is compared with other countries—is, I believe, almost large enough, if not large enough, to cover even existing conditions.
        We are incurring great waste in the cost of administration, but the administration is requisite. Let us take full advantage of the Department. I would
        760
        ask my hon. Friend (Mr. Neal) to convey to the Leader of the House that I would like to press for a declaration from the Government that this vote is an abnormal one due to important initiatory work and the reconstruction of transport, and that, before the House is asked to vote Estimates for the Ministry of Transport in its permanent form, the whole question of its continuation would be reconsidered in the light of the definite permanent work required, which the House has not yet had an opportunity of considering. In fact, it comes up for the first time in the White Paper issued yesterday. Another question to which I wish a definite reply is, whether the Government will not carry out the unasked-for pledge to reappoint the Select Committee which they themselves intended to assist to make such changes in transport as are desirable. My criticism may have been severe, but, at any rate, it is sincere. The Minister can obtain assistance from traders who are no longer so suspicious that he is thinking of railway interests. It is not railway questions alone with which we are to deal here. It is the transport system to which the railways contribute their full share with other systems.
        Sir W. RAEBURN:The critics of this Vote have all disappeared and, consequently, one gets no chance of answering them. It seems to me that criticism has been two-fold, first, that the Ministry should never have been set up and, second, that it has taken on an extravagant form and produced no result. One would imagine listening to the speeches, particularly the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith), that this Bill had been put through by a strong, determined Government against the most severe criticism and opposition. What are the facts? I was one of a very small band who took exception to the Bill at the beginning and fought for 19 days against some of its provisions. From the other side there was a universal chorus of approval. I would like to read one or two of the speeches made. The right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) said this was not the opportunity for discussing the setting up of the Ministry, but he straight away added that the Ministry ought never to have been set up. I noticed that when the Minister of Transport was reading an extract from the

        761
        speech of the right hon. Member for Paisley, in which the latter talked about the reckless setting up of this unnecessary Ministry and bureaucracy, to my intense surprise the Benches re-echoed with "Hear hear." I did not hear any of that when the Bill was passing its Second Reading or on Report or Third Reading. No, if any of us on this side had any doubts as to the necessity for this Bill, we were told that of course it was only a few persons connected with docks and roads that had any objection to the measure. Let me read a few extracts to show what was the opinion originally held of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) said:
        "It is proposed to give the Minister all the powers and duties in relation to a whole list of things, including unification, tramways, canals, harbours, docks, piers, and the supply of electricity. I am quite certain that the immense amount of unnecessary competition which my right hon. Friend so admirably described will be done away with."
        That was one important reason for setting up the Ministry. The right hon. Gentleman went on:
        "I wish at once to say that, as far as I am concerned, I am in favour of the principle of the Bill."
        Yet his leader comes to the House, evidently not having been instructed as to what took place last year, and makes the astonishing statement that this is a monstrous setting up of an extravagant Ministry. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) said:
        "We give a blessing to the Bill. We reserve our right in Committee to move certain Amendments, but we congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the admirable way in which he has stated the case, on the magnitude of the Bill, and, above all, I hope he may be as pushing in the remaining stages of the Bill and after he has got it as he has been in presenting it here to-day."
        Other Members spoke in the same way. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. A. Short), who is a very level-headed member of the Labour party, said:
        "This Bill is of a most practical character. We are compelled to come to the conclusion that it is not only desirable but essential that some drastic steps should be taken to secure a finer and more efficient transport system. He has proved that it would be possible, as a result of Government control and action, to secure greater efficiency and a more effectitve service, which would be not only to the advantage of the country but also probably to the advantage of those who to-day control these great transport
        762
        services. The Labour party regard this Bill as a step in the right direction."
        The right hon. and learned Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson), not wanting to leave the House in any doubt as to what the Bill meant, gave this solemn warning to the House:
        "No one can picture what powers you are giving to the Minister. Without doubt the expenditure will be enormous. We have not even had an estimate of what may be the cost. I venture to say that it will be by far the most expensive Department ever set up. You will have to deal with every local board throughout the United Kingdom, every road, railway, and electric undertaking, and you cannot do that without a mass of officials, if it is to be done properly and really controlled from headquarters. I cannot imagine what the limit of the staff will be. You will have by far the largest and most extravagant Department that could possibly be set up. The Committee is now asked to let all this go through without any limit whatsoever. I do not mind whether it is £200,000 or £2,000,000 which is fixed as the limit, but let us have some limit put in so that after all the Minister will have to come and face the House in some way or other before he is allowed to launch forth any great scheme. I am not saying the schemes may not be good. The Minister to be appointed has had a career of unqualified extravagance, and I do not say that he was not quite right during the War. We are all well aware of the railways which, under his direction, were so successfully laid down in France, and we are all aware of the work he did at the Admiralty; but all that is a bad bringing up. Nobody who has watched the growing expenditure—I do not mean merely the War expenditure, but anybody who looks ahead to see what is likely to happen in the immediate future as to the concession that has been made and as to all the problems of reconstruction—can have anything but the gravest possible anxiety as to the future of this country."
        The great argument for this Bill last year was that we had no proper transport system, and that a system was required and at once. If Members on the other side of the House thought the Bill required very minute inspection in Committee upstairs, I can only remind them that the attendance of free Liberals was very limited, and that the work was left almost entirely to Labour Members When we sought in Committee to curtail some of the powers of the Ministry, we met with strenuous opposition all through. After many struggles we managed to get an Advisory Committee agreed to, and some check put upon the Ministry. But in that we had no assistance whatever from Members opposite, who now say that the Act is a monstrous Act and altogether unnecessary. All I can say is

        763
        that I have never seen any change in regard to the necessity involved. If it was necessary to have this Bill, then I cannot see that it is unnecessary to have it now. A great many of the old conditions still exist. I am bound to say to the credit of the Department that it has, to a very considerable extent, eased the position. I do not believe that the Board of Trade, or any Board then in existence, could have brought about the same change as the Ministry of Transport has brought about. What did Members of this House expect when they set up the Ministry? They realised, I am sure, that they were setting up a very large Department, and one which was charged with enormous powers. Which one of us in business would expect that in nine or ten short months you were going to have all the fruits of all the expense and all the exertions you had made? It has been hitherto the spade-work stage of the Bill. Anyone who knows, as I know to some extent, what the work is cannot be surprised that the Minister has not been able to come down and show a perfect state of transport throughout the country in so short a time. The House is far too impatient, not only in this matter, but in others. It takes considerable time to evolve order out of chaos, and the railways were in a chaotic state. There is more traffic carried on the railways to-day than there was before the War, and there have been great disadvantages in carrying it—want of wagons. want of engine power, deterioration of material, and so forth. Yet, with it all, an enormous traffic has been conducted.
        The state of the ports in this country at present is very different from what it was when we had this Bill before us. There sore I say, "Give it time; do not be unreasonable; do not attempt to break this Minister, of whom you had nothing but good to say last year." I disagree entirely with the statement that the Board of Trade would have been competent to carry out the great changes that were wanted. Upstairs some of us wanted to keep the docks under the Board. We said that the Board had served the dock people very well and that we had no complaint to make. What support did we get? We were told that the Board was overweighted and that it was impossible for them to deal with such a big subject. We were overwhelmed to the extent of some-
        764
        thing like 25 to six. The Committee came to the conclusion that the Board were not competent to deal with the question of the docks. As to the question of salaries, I consider that the able and competent men who are at the head of these Departments of the Ministry are not getting salaries equal to what they could get if they liked to apply to commercial and industrial concerns. If you are going to have brains you have got to pay for them. I have as great a regard as any Member for the ability and enterprise of the Civil Service, but when it comes to a question of the conduct of business, I do not think they are to be compared with those engaged in trade and commerce, and Civil servants would, I think, be the first themselves to admit it. There is the subject of the coasting trade. The subsidy agreement has terminated, and those engaged in the coasting trade are in the very uncomfortable position that they have now to compete with low railway rates. That is an alarming position, but I understand there will be very soon an all-round advance of railway rates. That is not very good news to some people, but it is to those engaged in the coastal traffic. It would be a terrible evil and loss to this country if the coastal trade were blotted out. What the coastal people say is, that they do not want a general rise of rates, but that they want the rates, which were cut down before the War for the particular purpose of attracting this trade, put right and brought to a proper level. Before the War those rates were 25 or 30, or in some cases 50 per cent. below the ordinary level. One very useful function which the Ministry of Transport can discharge is to see that those rates are brought up to a fair level. While I am the last man in this House to advocate bureaucracy or any increase in it, and while I want to see less Government interference, yet having established this Ministry and given it large powers, I think we should give it fair play and not grudge decent salaries to those who carry out important work.
        8.0 P.M.
        Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON:In the course of this Debate reference has been made to the discussions and the speeches when the Ministry of Transport Bill was before the House. I think if you contrast the speeches made then by the Minister in charge of the Bill with the speech made to-day it would be hard to find a case where there was a greater difference between promise and

        765
        performance. It was then heralded as a scheme which was going to remodel our transport system, and as the first step in the programme of reconstruction which this Government had in hand. It was not merely to co-ordinate the existing systems of railway transport, but it was to electrify and improve the condition of things, and produce order and harmony where chaos and confusion ruled. There were to be additional railway facilities in connection with housing and in the development of agriculture, and, in fact, the Ministry was to herald the dawn of a new era. To what extent have those promises been realised? To what extent has reference been made by the Minister last week and by the Parliamentary Secretary to-day to those things? Apart from a passing reference last week and a very few words this afternoon the main three speeches we have heard from the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, occupying more than three hours of the time of the Committee, have dealt very largely with questions of accountancy, which is, no doubt, important and interesting, but is a very different matter. What the country is really anxious to know, whether this House is anxious or not, is what is the improvement in our transport system, and what is the Government doing to redeem its promises and pledges in order to restore order out of chaos. Instead of hearing of measures for reforming the transport system by rail or road or steamer or dock, we have had interesting disquisitions as to capital or revenue or annual charges, and we have been told of a blizzard and a snowstorm which blew down the telegraph poles, and of a landslide near Dover, and as to what ought to be the cost of champagne in the railway company's hotels. Those things may be very important, but what the country and the traders of the country want to know is what improvement the Ministry is achieving in the transport system of the country. We can only speak each of us from the knowledge we have of our own particular district. I submit, so far as the northeast area is concerned, that the position to-day, judged by the accumulation of stocks and by the reserves which have been accumulating through congestion of traffic, is three times worse than it was a year ago at this time. I do not suggest that the
        766
        whole position is three times worse. But when the Parliamentary Secretary tells us that there has been great improvement in the traffic conditions of the country, I submit that that is not borne out by the facts and figures dealing with the North-Eastern area. It may be that we are exceptionally badly placed. I have figures from that area which I will give the House in order to substantiate my claim that in the area which extends from the Tweed to the Humber, with large factories on the Tyne, Wear, and Tees—shipbuilding, blast furnaces, rolling mills, steel and iron products—the position to-day is worse than it was a year ago. During the Armistice and the time which followed we expected there would be confusion and chaos in the transition period, but in March, 1919, it was my lot to approach the Board of Trade with a deputation from the North-East Coast, complaining that the stocks of accumulated rolled steel had amounted to 64,000 tons. When I made reference to this on the last occasion, the Minister of Transport said it was very easy to take an isolated case and point here and there to mistakes, but what one had to do was to take a broad, general view of the situation. I say that when you are dealing with an area of that size it is a fairly large area. When I say accumulated stocks of 64,000 tons, I do not mean crude products of the district, but rails, plates, and all things needed for the whole of the iron and steel industries in this country, and when I refer to stocks I do not mean material which is rolled on the chance of an order coming on, but every ton of which is rolled against a specified order. There are ships waiting for it; there are engines requiring plates, and they cannot get delivery because of the congestion and inefficiency of our railways. The Board of Trade—let me give credit where credit is due—through the influence they brought on the railways, reduced it by the end of June last year to 32,000 tons. I do not say the rise since has been due to any change, but it happens to be a somewhat curious coincidence. In September it increased to 53,000 tons, in December to 70,000 tons, in March this year to 90,000 tons, and now to-day a telegram I have received states that the stocks in that area are over 92,000 tons of rolled steel which cannot be taken out on account of the lack of facilities.
        Mr. NEAL:Will my hon. Friend be able to tell the Committee what is the relative productivity of the same district. and whether, in fact, the railways are not handling much heavier traffic?
        Mr. THOMSON:The output of the area is an important item I admit, because if your output is going up all the time there might be some justification for your stocks going up. But I have figures for last year up to the end of December and up to March this year, but not since. The output of the district last year was 33 per cent. below what it was in February, 1919. Compared with the pre-War output, I am informed that there has been no increase whatsoever. I know what my hon. Friend (Mr. Neal) is referring to when he shakes his head. I am coming to the figures, and I hope I shall be able to convince the Committee, if I do not the hon. Gentleman, that there is some substance in the complaint which traders of that district make with regard to the inefficiency of the traffic arrangements. The Parliamentary Secretary in his speech to-day said that the traffic conditions had very greatly improved, and he went on to say that this was borne out because the estimated freightage was 20 per cent. up over the whole of the railways. He went on to say that they had no figures for any railway except the North Eastern, and on that the ton mileage was 30 per cent., so that I take it the 20 per cent. for the country is simply an estimate based on the figures of the North Eastern Railway. He tells us that on the North Eastern the ton mileage is 20 per cent. up and the output from the steel works was 34 per cent. up. I presume he means finished steel?
        Mr. NEAL:The steel works of the country officially report an increased output over pre-War of 34 per cent.
        Mr. THOMSON:That does not necessarily mean that the increased output has been carried by the railways. To begin with, the stocks are ever so much more. That accounts for a great deal. It does not account for the whole 34 per cent. Another thing is that the export trade of the country is infinitely greater this year than it was before, and those connected with the iron and steel industries know, with regard to rails, plates and
        768
        many other things, that this material is shipped direct from the firms' wharves, where it is manufactured, and therefore you might perfectly well have your output of steel up by 34 per cent., and yet the amount carried on your railways might not be increased by one per cent. The stocks are three times what they were a year ago in one district alone, and the export trade of the country, particularly in iron and steel products, is infinitely greater to-day than it was a year ago, and the great proportion of the output never comes on to the railways at all. My hon. Friend (Mr. Neal) shakes his head, but I know what I am talking about, and other Members connected with the iron and steel trade will bear me out. For instance, firms like Bolckow, Vaughan and Co., Ltd., and Dorman, Long and Co., Ltd., ship at their own wharves. They ship thousands of tons of billets abroad which never go on to the railways. What applies to the Tees, applies to the Tyne and the Wear, and the whole of the iron districts of the country. I know it does not apply to the Sheffield districts, because they have not the advantage of sea-borne traffic, but a large part of the export trade of the country is shipped direct without going over the railways at all.
        Therefore, merely to say that the output of steel has gone up 34 per cent. all over the country does not prove at all that the railways are getting it. Then the hon. Gentleman said that the ton mileage had gone up 20 per cent. I do not dispute that for a moment, but it is not at all at variance with the statement I made, that the facilities for traders are not equal to what they were before the War. In the first place, you have a much bigger haulage than you had before, and if you are bringing coal, as you did the greater part of last year and during this year, by rail instead of by water, you get a very much larger ton mileage, with no additional advantage to the country at all. In the same way with regard to many districts, the Government, rightly or wrongly, have been diverting and interfering with the natural channels of trade, and putting a much bigger strain on the railways than there was before the War. The consequence is you may have a very much bigger ton mileage without the same facilities to the trader which existed before. There is another point in regard to that. The rise in the coastal

        769
        freights have reduced the amount of traffic which these steamers have got on account of the lower rates on the railway. In my own district that accounts for a great deal of the extra burden on the railways. We used to send into Scotland pig-iron by water. None of that now goes by water but by rail. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Neal) agrees. I am not, however, trying to put the blame upon anyone. What I am trying to show is that the facilities to traders in the matter of transport are less now than before the War.
        Mr. GREENWOOD:And under the Ministry of Transport, too!
        Mr. THOMSON:That is why I want one—to put the thing right! Before the War a large quantity of this material went into Scotland, South Wales, or to London by water. Now it goes by rail. Although you may show a ton-mileage bigger than before the War, your facilities to traders are less than before the War because of the rates of coastal traffic, on account of the larger haulage, and also on account of the huge stocks carried. There are various ways to remedy it, I agree; but I am anxious that the Ministry of Transport should realise the condition of things, and I speak on behalf of that part of the country of which, at any rate, I can speak with some little knowledge. The condition of things there is bad, and going from bad to worse. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Neal) shakes his head; but if you have stocks increasing each quarter so that you have instead of the normal condition of stocks and of raw material—this does not refer to pig-iron, but to rolled steel and iron—if you have stocks of 10,000 tons normally, and now have stocks of 80,000 tons standing in the works, you have not only that, but you have capital of about £2,000,000 lying idle, and you have under-production. I think hon. Members will agree that if you can turn out 4,000 or 5,000 tons per week, and run for a month, and so turn out 20,000 tons, and the railway facilities are only to the extent of 16,000 tons, leaving a balance of 4,000 tons, that that sort of thing cannot go on accumulating. There is no room in the yards for stocking purposes, nor capital available to finance this big stock; so once in every four or five weeks the works have to stand idle, and the men miss a week's work.
        770
        The men, being human, naturally say to themselves: "Why should we exert ourselves in the way we are asked to do if we have to stand idle one week in every five or six? We will reduce the output so that it will be more in keeping with the railway carrying capacity." There follows a deplorable reduction in output, with its influence on our foreign trade, at a time, too, when the world is clamouring for our goods, and we should be encouraging output—that is, if the Government wishes exportation to continue and increase. You have blast furnaces which are producing pig-iron working at half-blast, and many closed down because the management cannot get the coal, the limestone, or the ore necessary to produce the iron. You have works managers refusing to take orders. I had a letter the other day from a big firm saying they were turning away orders, and likely to stand still, because they could not get the necessary pig-iron to carry on their works. I do appeal to the hon. Gentlemen opposite and to the Ministry of Transport to use every possible means to improve the facilities. Doubtless they are anxious to do this, and I ask them again to do their very best in the matter. If they have not got the powers let them seek for the extra powers. The present system is really a hybrid, mongrel sort of system which has the disadvantages of both and the advantages of neither system; neither of nationalisation or private enterprise. The Minister of Transport last week referred to the freightage rate per ton of the traffic on the Continent. He gave figures which showed an average of 1.49d. for this country, compared with 66 for France, and 68 for Prussia. Surely the point that we are so high—
        It being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

    PRIVATE BUSINESS.
      LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANIES (FARES, ETC., BILL) (By Order).
      Third Reading deferred until Monday next, at a quarter-past eight of the clock.

    SUPPLY.
    Again considered in Committee.
    [Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]
    Proposed proceeding resumed on consideration of Question,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £848,642, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Transport, including sundry Charges in connection with Transportation Schemes, &c., under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, and certain Repayable Advances under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919."
    Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £748,642, be granted for the said Service."
    Mr. THOMSON:When business was interrupted I was appealing to the Minister of Transport that he should use his very best endeavours, and every persuasive effort, to assist in the appeal to the railway companies to improve the position, at any rate, on the north-east coast. I know he has advised that a Committee should be appointed. I hope he will not say when we get that Committee appointed and at work that we must refer to that Committee, and that the Committee will be able to settle our troubles. We shall still require the support and assistance of the Ministry. I hope that, realising the tremendous importance it is to every section of industry, employers and employed, that we shall really get greater and better facilities of transport.
    Just one other point to which I should like to refer, a minor point, and apart from the question of transport facilities May I put in a word for, what I am afraid is, the much-despised cyclist. The Ministry of Transport has put up rates all round, and they have hit cyclists harder than anybody. Whereas the ordinary rates have been put up 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. The hon. Member told us earlier that the extra charge for carrying a cycle by passenger train has been put up 130 per cent. What was threepence before the War for carrying a cycle the minimum distance was subsequently raised to 9d., and now has been put to 1s. 2d. This may seem to be a very small and trifling matter, but I submit that it is a very real grievance and a hardship to many thousands of people to whom the cycle means getting into the country on a
    772
    holiday afternoon, or perchance on a Sunday. It may be they want to get out of London, or Manchester, or Sheffield, instead of cycling through the streets of the town, and so commencing their journey on the outskirts, and getting quickly into the open country. They are heavily burdened by this extra charge. Nowadays when everybody motors, when perhaps very few in this House cycle, and therefore when perhaps the sympathy with cyclists is not so widespread as it might be, I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to see when the Rates Committee are sitting, whether the influence of the Ministry cannot be used to support in this matter the under-dog, and that the motorists should not have the only consideration.
    There is another point which the Ministry will have to consider, and that is the question of the rear-light. This was imposed during the War. It was said by the Minister when it was renewed that it was done in the interests of cyclists themselves. This contention does not go very far with practical cyclists, and if it was left to them, I think the Ministry would find that in a vast majority of cases they are utterly opposed to its being compulsory. One knows perfectly well that our roads were very much neglected during War time, and they have been rendered so uneven and in such a rotten condition that I defy any Member of this House, who happens to be a cyclist, to ride any distance at night on such a road cut up by heavy motor traffic and keep his rear light in. Only a few weeks ago I arrived at the main station on the way to my North country home to find that the last local train—owing to the excellent service provided by the Ministry?—had gone. I got out a push-bike and started off home 12 or 15 miles. In that time my rear light went out three or four times. It is absolutely impossible to keep your light in. The Ministry should seriously consider whether it is necessary nowadays to maintain an Order which was imposed under D.O.R.A. It is said that there is a danger to cyclists if they have no rear light being run down by motorists, but as long as you exclude some methods of transport—certain farm vehicles and other means of slow transport—from the carrying of a rear light, I submit that you might also exclude cyclists. You do not require a civilian pedestrian making

    773
    his way along the road to hang a lamp at his coat-tails, and it should be left to motorists to see that they go carefully enough so as not to run over pedestrians or cyclists. The public roads are surely as much a highway for the cyclist as for the motorist, and if it means by the withdrawal of rear lights that the motorists will have to drive more carefully it will be a great advantage. I appeal to the hon. Member who represents the Transport Ministry to consider the humble cyclist, and to realise that he has his rights as well as the motorist. In the interests of the cyclists you should leave this matter of rear lights optional, and not allow the motorist to go scorching along the roads late at night.
    Sir BURTON CHADWICK:I wish to protest against what has just been said by the hon. Member who has just sat down in regard to rear-lights. As a motorist, I myself find very great difficulty when overtaking cyclists, and I wish to counteract what the hon. Member has said about rear lights. In the Debate, both last Thursday and this afternoon, unfortunately the Committee has been drawn away from the immediate subject which is before the Committee, namely, the Estimates for the Ministry of Transport for 1920–21, by an unfortunate occurrence of personalities, the result of which has been that a large part of the discussion on these Estimates has wasted the time of the Committee. The discussion has been more or less irrelevant, though possibly inevitable, but in any case, it is regrettable. I have been struck by the number of hon. Members who, setting out to reduce these Estimates, have proceeded to urge the dismemberment of the Ministry of Transport, a proceeding which according to what happened last week, I understand, to be quite out of order because it would involve legislation.
    It is interesting to note that the greatest sinners, particularly last Thursday, have been those high priests of Parliamentary law and order on the front opposition bench who obstructed my right hon. Friend in making his speech about his railway policy. I think that we are in danger of losing our perspective in our anxiety (and I share that anxiety to the full) to reduce Government expenditure and we are pursuing this bogey of Government extravagance to such lengths and with such panicky excitement that we
    774
    are creating about it an appearance of reality as a national menace entirely out of proportion to its real importance. That extravagance exists I will not deny for a moment, and where it raises its head in Government administration I would crush it ruthlessly. I speak perhaps with a more intimate acquaintance of national transport and Government Departments generally than some hon. Members who have spoken, and I believe that there is a greater tendency to economy and less tendency to extravagance in the administration of public funds amongst Government Departments than any other section of the community. The great danger in the wild statements that are made about Government waste—and we have heard and read a great many wild statements about this particular Department under review—is that the British public is being mislead into the belief that this extravagance exists, when it is they themselves who are wallowing in an orgy of extravagance that follows every great war. They are being misled into the belief that there is only one main road to relief from high taxation to lower prices, and to a better and more comfortable condition of life, namely, the reduction of Government expenditure.
    The mass of the British public believe firmly that the cost of living can be reduced, and the only way to reduce it is the reduction of Government expenditure. That is a mischievous doctrine, and it is one which is being fostered by hon. Members of this House, and those outside, who know how mischievous it is. I do not deny that there is waste, but I do not believe that there is a single direction—certainly it is not the Ministry of Transport—in which the Government to-day could prudently reduce expenditure by such a sum as would appreciably alter or reduce the cost of living. It is necessary that we should scrutinise rigidly Government expenditure, but in that way salvation does not lie if we lose sight of the greater issue that this country has emerged from the War at a pinnacle of potential prosperity such as we could never have foreseen, and our hope lies in the direction of seizing every opportunity for the development of our trade, leaving the trader alone to trade, and not strangling him by intolerable taxation, and leaving the workers alone to work and allowing the capitalist to earn as much as he can with his capital and the

    775
    worker as much as he can by his work. That is the direction in which we could more usefully devote our energies instead of bandying personalities about and wasting the time of the House.
    It is in that frame of mind that I try to approach the discussion of these Estimates. In reading the Estimates and the Report of the Select Committee together, I have been impressed with three considerations. Firstly, that the enormous liabilities that have been entered into by the Government with the railways are taxpayers' liabilities, and the taxpayer has to foot the bill. It is therefore essential that you should have an expert organisation which is adequate to protect the taxpayer in the liquidation of those liabilities. Secondly, that the Select Committee have not found any point in the administration of this Department which at present is extravagant. The third consideration is that we have found it has been the policy of the Government during the last five or six years to call in shipping men to deal with shipping questions, food men to deal with food questions, steel men to deal with steel questions, and so on. That policy has been found wise, and it would be sheer folly, in the face of a railway question of such magnitude and complexity, to abandon it now or to weaken the organisation by parsimonious treatment. It is unfortunate that the Ministry of Transport was not established in 1915. We might have been free from a good many troubles from which we are now suffering had that been done.
    I listened with deep interest, both last week and to-day, to the statements of the Minister of Transport and of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department, and I would like to congratulate both Gentlemen on the force and lucidity of their speeches. Both of them treated their subject very comprehensively, and they dealt with their critics in a spirit of great moderation, much greater moderation than I would have been inclined to display. What were the chief complaints? The right hon. Gentleman was attacked in unmeasured terms by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), and he defended himself, but in defending himself he hurt somebody else. I consider it extremely unfortunate that so much time has been wasted on this question. In my opinion it was not the fault
    776
    of my right hon. Friend; it was rather the fault of those who attacked him. He has been mainly attacked throughout the Debate on the scale of the salaries which he proposes for the officials of his Department. His organisation is in its infancy. His policy—on the wisdom of which the well-being of this country so greatly dependspply—can only be developed gradually in regard to the future of transportation. In order to meet the charges of the right hon. Member for Paisley, my right hon. Friend had to describe to the Committee the very troublesome legacies left for him to carry, and I think he was perfectly justified in his description. He may have been wrong or unwise in endeavouring to establish the parentage of the baby, but some explanation had to be made. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) said a good deal about a certain illustration cited by my right hon. Friend to show the variety of the duties which devolved on his Department—the illustration in which he pointed out that even in checking the revenue derived from the sale of champagne in railway hotels he had to take certain steps. Great play was made on that point by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, but, after all, it was a simple illustration, no doubt designed to reach simple minds, and although in itself small, probably involving a far greater sum than any reduction of the Estimates which could be made by this Committee.
    We have listened this afternoon with great pleasure to one of those forensic efforts of which the right hon. Member for Paisley is a master. It was a most pleasurable experience as an entertainment, but it did not contribute a single word to the subject which we are debating. It must have carried many of his contemporaries in this House back to those days when time was less important and when politics and the business of the Government were not quite so stern as they are to-day. Last week the same right hon. Gentleman, if I may crib an expression used by the Secretary for War recently in connection with an hon. and gallant Member of this House, developed a great deal of indignation—an undue amount of indignation—over this Ministry of Transport, and this, of course, was supported by elements around him which have risen or are rising to the surface of a somewhat fizzy

    777
    Opposition. I have not heard a single world said which suggests or advises a practical alternative to the Ministry of Transport, or a sound line of improvement in the administration of the Ministry. I agree with the criticism of the Select Committee where they point out that these Estimates are misleading, in that they do not show or at any rate do not make clear the War bonus accruing in the various grades of salaries. Moreover, they do not include the very large sum of £25,500,000 of expenditure for which the Ministry is responsible in the current year, nor the £22,000,000 of this is required for the liquidation of the railway agreements made long before the Ministry of Transport was ever contemplated. It would be helpful if all these sums appeared in one statement. The right hon. Gentleman said last week that he was only following the ordinary Treasury practice. That may be so, but I think it is not a good practice. It is not helpful to have these statements appearing in a number of documents. They should all be given in one statement in order that the position may be made perfectly clear, and then we can have a useful discussion upon it; for otherwise hon. Members of this House, as well as the public, are not able to grasp the enormous amount of work of squaring up as distinct from the current transport administration that devolves on this Ministry.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Sir W. Raeburn) said just now, the critics of this Ministry are divided into two groups, namely, those who do not agree with a Ministry of Transport at all, and those who disapprove of its administration on the ground that it is extravagant. I was one of the Standing Committee who considered the Bill, and later I was one of the large majority who voted for it in the House. I would do exactly the same to-day, and should be strengthened in so doing by the results of the first ten months' working of the Ministry. As to whether the Ministry has justified its existence, I think the statements made by the Minister of Transport and his colleague, and the policy foreshadowed in the two White Papers that we have had before us, have amply justified those of us who supported the Bill a year ago. As regards the question of the administration of the Department, the revised Estimate calls for a sum of
    778
    £1,348,000. Of that, £1,000,000 is for miscellaneous services which; I understand, have been foreshadowed in the White Paper published yesterday. It is the £348,000, for administration and salaries, which is causing all the opposition. This amount is already £85,000 less than the original Estimate, and I confess to some surprise that the right hon. Gentleman has so readily met the advice of the Committee as not only to reduce his Estimate by £70,000, as they recommend, but to go £15,000 further, although he stated last week that his Department will require a large staff, and although the Select Committee themselves consider that the work of the Department is on a rising scale, the right hon. Gentleman, before he came to this Committee last Thursday, had reduced his Estimate by £85,000. As far as I can see, he has simply deprived himself of a margin which he considers will be necessary.
    A great deal has been said about high-salaried officials, and many of the critics of this Ministry have stated with much emphasis that the salaries of this Department, as compared with the Board of Trade and other branches of the Civil Service, are outrageous. What, however, do those hon. Members suggest? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley has himself denounced as totally inadequate the ordinary Civil Service salaries. Do they suggest that these gentlemen, who are not Civil Servants, who are bringing expert knowledge and experience to the solution of a very difficult problem, should be offered the inadequate salary scale of the Civil Service? They speak of a Minister with a salary of £5,000 a year as an expensive Minister. I wonder if they realise how much of that £5,000 is left to him by the tax-gatherer for his own personal needs. Yet that is the salary of the Prime Minister of this country at the present day—a pittance of £5,000 a year; and we are following out this ridiculous kind of economy, which is better described by the word "folly." We have, after mature consideration, established a Ministry of Transport. We cannot wisely screw down to-day the salaries of the men in that Ministry. If we do, we shall impair the efficiency of the Department and defeat the very object we had in setting it up.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. ROYCE:The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, in his speech

    779
    a week ago, and again this afternoon, eulogised the older Board of Trade administration of the railways. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts), who is an ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the same Department, took an entirely different view, and said that the Department was totally unequal to the duties imposed upon it in connection with the railways of this country. With the latter opinion I am entirely in accord. I have had some experience of railway construction and working, and what has struck me especially, in connection with the railways of this country, is their extraordinary backwardness in comparison with some of the railways in our Dominions. This consideration largely influenced me, when I came to the House of Commons, in desiring to become a Member of the Committee which dealt with the Transport Bill. I supported that Bill through all its stages, I attended, I believe, every meeting of the Committee, and I invariably voted with the Government, because I felt that some other authority was absolutely necessary than that which had previously subsisted, if we were to bring the railways of this country into anything like the condition in which railways are, to go no further afield, in our own Colonies and Dominions. As the result of inquiry and investigation, I felt certain that the then railway administration through the Board of Trade was not only incapable of effecting this improvement, but was absolutely a stumbling block in the path. I have nothing to say with regard to their care for the safety of the travelling public, but, looking at the condition of the railways, I am forced to the conclusion that very little improvement, in some sections, has taken place since the days of George Stephenson, and certainly not in the matter of permanent way. Some people say, and the right hon. Gentleman himself has said, that our railways are the best in the world. He did not endorse that, and certainly I cannot. Our permanent way is most expensive. The same effect could be produced to-day with probably an annual saving of at least£2,000,000 on our railways, and it would be infinitely better in many directions. Our passenger services leaves very little to be desired, and I think in that respect we are fairly abreast of other countries.
    780
    When I come to the goods, in which every single member of the community is deeply interested every day—some days some of our people travel on the railways, but every day the railway affects the life of every man, woman and child—and when I come to the goods section of the railways, that is very far behind indeed.
    When I take an important section of our railways, the coal and mineral communications, the number of axles that these poor struggling locomotives drag for the amount of load they carry, I am profoundly impressed with the necessity for a change. I thought that change might possibly be effected by the creation of the Ministry of Transport. I had other reasons. I thought and I believe there is necessity to carry out the promises made by the Prime Minister that a considerable impetus would be given to the development of light railways for the purpose of improving our agricultural communication. That was an important matter to me, and that was another reason why I realised the necessity of appointing someone who would have authority to help to bring about the construction of these light railways, and I do not despair that the right hon. Gentleman will do very much in the direction of developing agricultural communication. You can talk sympathetically of agriculture, but if you do nothing to improve the communications or to cheapen the means by which the produce of the land can be brought to the markets, your talk is of very little avail, and I hope from this Ministry that something will be done. In the absence of this Ministry, in the old bad days the railways were worked for their own especial good, without any reference whatever to the needs of the community. Their very territory was sacrosanct, and not only that, but the various concessions which have been made to the railway companies—they would hardly regard them as concessions, but I do—gives them an opportunity of levying tribute on the whole of the country which they traverse.
    We have an opportunity of amending those conditions under the direction of a responsible Minister. Here we have a Minister, and, whatever else may be said with regard to this Ministry, every Member of the House who has any grievance or any question in connection with the railways can put the question direct to a

    781
    representative of that Ministry, and he gets a fair amount of satisfaction. One might say, that is very little for the expenditure of so large a sum of money, but it is something. It is some service that is conferred upon the community, and it is something that this House has not enjoyed in the past. You have had no opportunity of coming in direct communication. In the past, under the Board of Trade direction, you had a Minister who probably was as ignorant of railways as he was of many other subjects, and it is altogether improbable that he was an expert in connection with railway administration. In the Minister we have before us we have a man, at any rate, who is full of energy and who also has very great knowledge of the business that he is engaged in. He is a man who knows his job—I have never heard anyone say he does not—and to that extent the country is very fortunate in having his services at this juncture. I am not like my hon. Friend who went over from these Benches. I am not looking for a secretaryship, but I am compelled when I rise to speak on this subject to do, at any rate, justice, and when I hear the opposition that is being levelled at the Minister I remember with a good deal of disquietude in my mind the struggle we had upstairs, and how we fought him from start to finish, and it makes us and the party with which I am associated loyal—I think we are in perfect harmony on this subject—and we desire, so far as we possibly can, to defeat the efforts which are being made to bring distrust and condemnation on a Minister who, in my opinion, is doing excellent work.
    Take the position of affairs when this Ministry was instituted. We had the country just emerging from war and the railways seemed to have been diverted from their regular course in every direction in a hopeless tangle. It seemed to me, who know something of railway administration, a hopeless task to attempt to bring back those railways to work in the channels that they had previously worked in, and it has not been done today. The coastal traffic, which formed an important part of the carrying power of the country, has been practically destroyed and the various other forms of transport have been disorganised and diverted from their usual channels. To me, who understand something of this subject, it is something of the nature of a
    782
    marvel that things have been so rapidly brought to something like a reasonable condition of affairs, and to-day we know very little difference, so far as the travelling public and the carrying capacity of the railways are concerned, from what they were in pre-war days. This is something to be thankful for and we have to thank the Transport Ministry for this state of affairs. When we come to other things which have arisen in connection with this Debate, a slip from the cliffs on a portion of one of the railways is dismissed with the very airy remark, "anyone would charge that to maintenance." Would they? As an old railwayman who knows something of the business of working extras and having to pay for them occasionally, I know how these things are worked, and if I were a railway director I should find many reasons—the line was occupied, excessive traffic was being run, and I was not able to take the necessary precautions to shore up or save these slips—I could bring a thousand things to prove that that would not be ordinary maintenance.
    Then with regard to charges in connection with handing back railways and stores, I think there are several questions involved there. It is quite right that the railways should be handed back in their original condition. It should be, but you must not forget that you have to deal with five years of wear and tear of every section and every part of the railway, and, though you can bring your road back to its previous condition, you have had five years' wear out of it, and that has to be taken into consideration. All these matters require expert knowledge and expert administration, and he has got a big job. When you consider that the right hon. Gentleman has to deal with progressives in his administration, like the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), for instance, and directors of that type, you will realise that not only has he the greatest possible difficulty in bringing about anything new in improvements in the condition of affairs, but he has the greatest possible difficulty in discharging the Government's liabilities and seeing that the State is not charged with that which is not fair and reasonable. He has got the most difficult task to perform, and he deserves and requires the support of this House rather than its condemnation. He deserves the sympathy and the help of the House. That is all

    783
    the good I can say of him. Now I come to another point. I have told the Committee why I support him. I have said that I want agricultural light railways built, and an improvement in the administration of the railways and of the permanent way. I want the railways generally improved and brought up to something like 20th century practice. George Stephenson was a very great man, but we hardly think he was equal to the present century requirements. We of the Labour party supported the establishment of this Transport Ministry because we wanted to bring the railways under one head and to have them nationalised. The right hon. Gentleman would have been far wiser and far better advised if he had grasped the nettle firmly in his hands. I am not in favour of bureaucratic administration if nationalisation of the railways means the payment of a miserable pittance to a permanent officer of any Department of State or to pensioned officers. If it means that, I am opposed to it. You can never work the railways under those conditions.
    There may be other Transport Ministers in the world as capable as the right hon. Gentleman, although it will take a good many of them to furnish the same degree of steam that he can. I have no doubt we shall be able to find them in due course, and we should find none of the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman predicts in connection with the nationalisation of the railways. He said that no invention either in method or of material has come out of a nationalised system of railways. What invention has come out of our system of railways during the last 50 years? Take your coupling system—a system by which hundreds and thousands of men have been maimed and lost their lives. That is a specimen of what English administration of railways has done. The right hon. Gentleman will not defend the present form of coupling or the medieval trucks with solid buffers that go clanking along. Half his trains are not coupled with an automatic brake; they are coupled with a brake which is not an invention of anybody connected with English railways.
    Sir E. GEDDES:Hear, hear.
    Mr. ROYCE:Are they?
    Sir E. GEDDES:No.
    Mr. ROYCE:Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman tells us that he cannot get any invention or any initiative out of a State railway, I ask him what has he got out of the English railways during the last 50 years.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall):The hon. Member cannot discuss matters requiring legislation by way of analogy on this Vote and ask the right hon. Gentleman to reply on matters that involve legislation.
    Mr. ROYCE:I will not trouble further. It is very painful to me to lecture the right hon. Gentleman on a matter of judgment when I have such a high regard for his ability. I trust that when the time comes the Committee will by their votes show their sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman and give the Ministry a chance. We have heard so much about a business Government and business men. Here you have a business man. If anyone has any doubts about his being a business man let them think of the £50,000 he took from the North-Eastern Railway and there will be no question in future as to his business capacity. You want a business man for this work. You have got a business man. Give him an opportunity. The fruits of his labours cannot be borne for one, two, three or four years. You have to plant and wait for the harvest. I believe that he is preparing the harvest. I have had an opportunity of going into his Department in several directions, and I have found them a business community, alive to the responsibilities of the situation, and capable, so far as I am able to judge. Give them a chance and I am sure they will justify the toleration you have shown and the support you have given them.
    Mr. SEDDON:I have listened with great pleasure to the speech of my hon. Friend, but I wish to avoid either compliment or attack. I join with other speakers in deploring the attacks that have been made and the personalities used in connection with this question. I wish to avoid personalities, because the question of transport is a very vital national question. When the Department is asked what has been done during the last 10 months, hon. Members seem to forget that the original proposals were proposals for reconstruction, and not merely scavenging after the results of the War. Looking at the last 10 months, anyone who has had to do with the work

    785
    of this Ministry must be forced to the conclusion that in face of the difficulties left by the War, there has been an acceleration, so far as transport is concerned, which seemed impossible 12 months ago. I am not giving credit entirely to the Department. The railways have recognised that they have a public function to fulfil, and they are cordially co-operating with the right hon. Gentleman in clearing up the mess of the War, and getting as efficient a service as it is possible to have under the present conditions.
    I want to ask a few questions of the right hon. Gentleman as to the future. He may take it for granted that this pinpricking that has gone on this afternoon, whether it is introducing personalities or otherwise, is merely part of an old political game, that the "Outs" must attack the "Ins," but the man in the street, and the great public outside, are wanting to know what this Department is doing. It has cost a lot of money; I do not say too much, for if you want efficient men who can do the job, you have got to pay them, and as long as Government Departments are in competition with private enterprise, the Government cannot expect to get the best men unless they offer something comparable with what can be obtained from private concerns. I am not complaining about the money spent, but for the sake of the Department and to satisfy my own curiosity I would like the Minister to give us some indication of when we may expect some of the fruits of co-ordination. There were fierce Debates on the very ambitious proposals in the original Bill. We were asked to include railways, canals, roads, and electricity, and there was a general feeling—I think it was expressed in pantomime—that one person was going to be the director and controller of our being from the cradle to the grave. In any case, the scheme was emasculated by the dropping of the electric proposals. But the Minister has under his supervision the question of roads as well as of railways and canals. I am one of those who believe that road transport, if not as great a benefit as railway transport, is going to take an enormous place in the life of this country. I believe that with road transport we are going to solve a great many of our transport difficulties, and the same remark applies to canals, and I
    786
    would like to ask whether we may expect some scheme in which this co-ordination shall be visualised in the minds of those who are looking to the Department to ease the congestion of traffic in every direction. Take the case of a small railway—the right hon. Gentleman knows the railway I am referring to, for I have spoken to him about it. I would like to ask whether that railway, which may have been efficient in the days of George Stephenson, has not now become a hindrance to the locality, and whether we can look forward to its being absorbed or transformed, and made into a public utility for the locality and the trade of the district. With reference to canals, we all know that in the days gone by it was the policy of the railways to cut out their competition. Many of the canals have been left derelict. Can the Department give us any hope that we shall have, in the co-ordination, a scheme of linking up the canals which shall be of use in carrying heavy traffic? Regarding the charge of lack of inventiveness, I think the hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Royce) was a little unfair to our railways when he suggested that they had not progressed since the days of George Stephenson. I would like him to come down from Lincolnshire in winter in the same carriages as the contemporaries of George Stephenson came down in.
    Mr. ROYCE:I made special reference to the permanent way. I was not thinking of the carriages. I know they have been scrapped, they are the only things they have scrapped.
    Mr. SEDDON:It has been my privilege to travel in one or two other countries where they are supposed to be very advanced, and it has been my privilege to travel in this country with people who come from very advanced countries, and I have heard a chorus of approval, which I endorse enthusiastically, for our permanent way. There is no country in the world where the permanent way can equal that of our country for comfortable travel.
    Mr. ROYCE:I think I said the permanent way was in excellent order, but that it was costly, and that it had not improved.
    Mr. SEDDON:I hope the hon. Member's zeal for economy is not going to result in getting our tracks into the same condition as those of some other country;

    787
    otherwise, instead of getting blessings, he will have curses upon his head. I hope that what was said by the hon. Member is deserved by the right hon. Gentleman. I am not so familiar with his past, but I am trying to get to know something about it, even if it is only from his critics, though probably that is not a fair standard of his capacity. His Department has got great possibilities and great potentialities, and though he is sniped (either through a desire on the part of those who are out to be in, or with the idea on the part of the snipers that they will get on to the Treasury Bench quicker that way), I want him to remember that his Department is entrusted with one of the greatest missions of reconstruction, and if he can give the people some idea that reconstruction and co-ordination are going hand in hand, and that at no distant date we shall have presented to us this great scheme for the transformation of our national life and the improvement of our transport, then, so far as I am concerned, he will have nothing but support, and I shall wish him God speed in the good work—if he will get on with it.
    Mr. RENWICK:I am one of those who for nineteen days after this Bill was introduced fought it to the best of my ability. I never hesitated in opposing the Bill, and I pointed out in the Debates in Committee that we were setting up the greatest bureaucracy we have ever had in this country at a time when the country was sick and tired of bureaucracy; and I venture to think that that prophecy was not far wrong. It is a great bureaucracy now, and it is going to be a much greater bureaucracy. But, although I fought that Bill, yet I recognised, when the Bill was passed, that it was my duty loyally to support the Minister appointed under the Bill, and to endeavour to make it a success. There is not a single Member in this House who can rise and say that he voted against the Third Reading of the Bill, every Member either voted for the Bill or abstained, and therefore it is rather surprising to me to find Members in this House and the Press after the Minister like a pack of foxhounds after the fox. They brought it on themselves, and it is their duty to give the Ministry a fair trial. I have not altered my opinion that I do not like the Ministry; I do not
    788
    think there was any necessity for it, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. Roberts), who thought that this scheme ought to have been worked by the Department of the Board of Trade. But it was much too big a scheme to put in force with the strength that one had during the War. We should have waited to see what happened under normal conditions when the War was over. However, instead of that, we took advantage of the abnormal conditions during the War and we formed the Ministry. We shall have an opportunity in about eighteen months of getting rid of it, and it will be extremely interesting to see what view this House takes eighteen months hence.
    What the Transport Ministry has got to do is to convince the country of its necessity, and it never had a more difficult task. The first thing the average man wants to know is how it is that under this Act he has got to pay 50 per cent. more for every railway ticket that he buys and that he is threatened with a still further advance. He also wants to know why every person who sends goods by rail has got to pay 50 per cent. increase for carrying those goods. The right hon. Gentleman has got to explain how it is that there is still great delay on the railways, how it is that we have got fewer and slower trains than we had before, and how it is that we have no excursion tickets and no week-end fares. Unless he can satisfactorily answer these questions, we can say that he does not justify the necessity for the existence of his Department. He has also got to explain how it is that the coasting trade is in a languishing condition and practically destroyed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) referred to agriculture. Let agriculture ask how it is that trains are still carrying foreign produce past their farms and fields at less than they are asked to pay for carrying their produce to London. How is it? I will tell the Committee how it is. It is because the railway companies are carrying foreign traffic at rates far below cost price, by what is called exceptional rates. They are exceptionally exceptional rates, and the railways are endeavouring to carry all the traffic with a view to killing the coast traffic. The orders apparently are to their agents, "Go and get certain traffic, at a certain rate, if you like, but get it." It

    789
    is like the advice the old woman gave to her son who was going out into the world: "Get money if you can, get it honestly if you can, but get it."
    The goods are being carried at present, and I defy the Minister of Transport to say that I am not speaking correctly when I say that the railway companies are carrying traffic at a dead loss. Who pays for that? Everybody who takes a ticket by the railway and everybody who sends goods by rail pays for it, and notwithstanding that, the railways are making a demand for £41,000,000 at present to make up the deficiency in the working. I do not envy the task of the Minister of Transport. An hon. Member said just now that certain Members attacked the Government because they wished to be on the Government Bench themselves. I have no wish to occupy the right hon. Gentleman's position; I would not occupy it for any sum that could be offered to me, because I know the difficulties; and I warn the Minister that he is making a huge mistake in allowing the coasting trade to be destroyed at the present time. He is taking advantage of the slack experience of the year, when everybody knows that there is very little traffic being carried by water, but when the autumn comes again, there will be a congestion on the railways. It has been alleged that the coasting owners asked for a subsidy and got it. They never asked for a subsidy. They did not want it. They are quite willing to carry on their business. We did not ask for a subsidy, and we did not want it, but let me just inform the Committee of this, that last August the Government itself issued a circular absolutely ordering people to send goods coastwise, and this is what was said:
    "In consequence of the withdrawal of coastwise steamers, a large volume of traffic has been diverted from the sea to the railways, with the result that the railways are now burdened with traffic which they have not previously carried. The absence of normal coastwise shipping facilities is impeding the transport of the food supplies of the nation and the raw materials needed in our mills, factories, and workshops … and thereby the cost of living has advanced, the re-establishment of our industries and commerce is retarded, and the difficulties of finding employment are increased."
    Who is there that dare get up and say that the same conditions will not occur in August, and if they do and they are unable to find the coasting steamers, who is to blame? The Ministry of Transport
    790
    is. Therefore, I hope the Ministry will give attention to that particular form of transport, which is equally important in many respects to that of the railways. I hope the few remarks I have made will go home to the Minister, and that he will recognise the importance of that great industry and not lift a little finger to destroy it, because, once destroyed, it will be no easy matter to re-organise.
    Mr. PALMER:I have listened for practically two days to a very interesting discussion on the Vote for the Ministry of Transport, and if the right hon. Gentleman were present I should feel it my duty to congratulate him that, amid all the criticisms, he has had one or two Members ready, if not to praise him, to praise him with very faint praise. I rise with a very definite purpose in order to call attention to a matter which I think cannot be allowed to pass so long as we have these Estimates before us. The Minister was, as we all know, deputy-manager of the North-Eastern Railway, and, as may have been gathered in an answer given to me yesterday, a sum of no less than £50,000, which was granted to the Minister of Transport by the North-Eastern Railway under circumstances so remarkable and so exceptional that I shall ask the Committee to bear with me while I explain them, is, if the Company can arrange it, to be put upon the British taxpayer. The answer I received from the right hon. Gentleman was that this £50,000, granted under the most extraordinary circumstances in which, I suppose a grant was ever made to a distinguished gentleman, has already come before the right hon. Gentleman in the form of the accounts of the Company, but that he had returned it.
    "I have returned the item as far as I am concerned, but I have said if that item is considered again it must be considered by the Treasury. I will have no part or lot in it."
    I raise this matter because I feel that, when we are passing Estimates to give powers to a right hon. Gentleman of great capacity, it is our business to try to understand the mentality of the right hon. Gentleman, the mental processes by which he arrives at his decisions, and to see whether, with all his great ability as a railway man, he is quite a fit person—I do not mean in an offensive sense—quite the type of man we want to rule

    791
    this country in one of the greatest positions to which a Member of this House can be called. The right hon. Gentleman did great service in the War, and if I may, in my humble way, pay tribute to him, I do not agree with the sneers which the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant) cast upon the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. I think that the right hon. Gentleman did great service to this country during the War, and it is because I feel that that I think I have a right to criticise his conduct in regard to the grant from the Northern Railway. Under an agreement that the right hon. Gentleman had with the North-Eastern Railway Company, in the event of nationalisation he was to get some large unascertained sum. He went to the Ministry, and there came a time when he had to make what I will call a great decision—whether he would go back to the company or remain one of His Majesty's Ministers at a considerably less salary, with considerably less financial possibilities. The position was that he had this agreement with the North-Eastern Railway Company, under which, if there was nationalisation, he was to receive a large sum of money.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:This particular subject could not now be referred to under this Vote were it not that it has been mentioned by previous speakers, but, although it has been mentioned, I doubt whether a general discussion on it, such as is indicated now by the hon. Member, would be strictly in order on the Vote which is before the Committee.
    Mr. PALMER:With all respect, I may point out that the right hon. Gentleman is the new Minister for Transport, who comes to this Committee with large Estimates in connection with a great national policy which he intends to put before the House. Am I not in Order, seeing that this particular item of expenditure, £50,000, is sought to be placed upon the Exchequer, possibly to come into the accounts of this very Ministry, in calling attention to the matter and making certain deductions from it?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:If the money in question comes within the sum which we are now discussing, it would be in Order, but if it is not included in this sum of money, then some other occasion would have to be taken.
    Mr. PALMER:I will not pursue that, but might I point out that the salary of the right hon. Gentleman is included in this Vote and that matters have been raised to-day, notably in regard to these agreements, which do not occur in the actual Estimates but have to do with the right hon. Gentleman in his conduct of his Department. His salary is on the Estimate, and, surely, it is in order to criticise the right hon. Gentleman's conduct of his Department and the circumstances in which he came into his present position.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:Any action by the Minister in his position as Minister as head of the Department which is spending this money may be criticised, but we cannot go outside that.
    Mr. PALMER:Then I shall have to take an opportunity outside this House of publicly exposing this matter.
    Mr. SUGDEN:The subject which we are debating to-night is one of the most important, from the national, the Empire, and the international standpoint, which could come before this House. The question as to how the Ministry of Transport should be organised will have a definite bearing on the cost of living and a dominating effect on the industries of this country, either in furthering the progress and expansion of British trade in the future and the well-being of the people, or in acting as a severe handicap, if the wisest course be not pursued, as to the method of conducting railways and general transport. I was one of those Members who supported the appointment of the Minister of Transport, but in doing so I certainly had not in mind the necessity which apparently has come before the Minister of creating and augmenting a salaried staff such as that large staff whose salaries we are asked to vote to-night. Those of us who know something of early Victorian history know, whether hon. Gentlemen on this side agree or not, that the ships and railways of this country, together with the splendid industrial esprit de corps of the craftsmen of industry, gave a greater stimulus to the progress of this country in that period than any other factor. Therefore, if we can now utilise all the new splendid agencies of transport, and combine civil aviation with the proper use of the canals, the readjustment of the coast traffic with the railways—if all these

    793
    sections can be welded perfectly together, then our country will make greater headway than any other country in the world.
    But the point which I want first to lay before the Committee is that the railways, during the forty years before the outbreak of war, did show themselves capable of giving a free impetus by the special expert leadership which they possessed (when removed from the paralysing influence of certain sections of the Board of Trade), and gave great proof that they were able, through specialisation of the transport and enterprise, to co-operate together with business ability, and often to lessen the cost of living of the people, as also to build up our export trade and commerce. And to-day I suggest that these experts might be still utilised. I repeat we still have these experts on each of our railways, and when we substitute for them certain Ministers or Deputy-Ministers—I do not say too highly-paid Ministers—under the Ministry of Transport, I suggest that there will be economic waste, which eventually must come on the taxpayer. Therefore, I suggest that as the taxpayer must be protected, since he is finding the money to run this great Ministry, we should first utilise the experience of the railway companies, and the expert guidance and knowledge of the experts which they possess. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport as a brilliant railway expert. If he will permit a very humble engineer officer to pay a tribute to his work in France. I suggest that he is the product, not of the Board of Trade, of a Government Department, or of the Civil Service, but of the great industrial business community. I therefore urge that there are other men, not so titanic in application as the right hon. Gentleman may be, but men of similar class and status on the railways, who could be utilised at the expense of the railways, and thus save the expense which it is now suggested should be put on the taxpayer in respect of this Ministry.
    Sir E. GEDDES:A number of officials in the Ministry I now use in exactly that way. They are borrowed from the railways, and are used in the Ministry of Transport in that way wherever it can be done.
    Mr. SUGDEN:I have not heard a single railway director or railway chief
    794
    object to the lending of these experts. They lent them in war time for settling the great transport problems that arose out of the War. We ought to utilise their services now, and secure that co-operation and co-ordination of each section of transport which is so vitally essential to-day. It is in the interests of the railway companies, equally as much as that of the community, and I believe the railway companies would, therefore, be willing to bear the expense occasioned in loaning these experts. Is it wise or right to pick and choose these experts when, at the present times, there are Committees sitting dealing with such questions as the adjustment of rates, civil aviation, coast and canal traffic, and various other transport questions? Is it wise to appoint officials to operate under the Ministry of Transport, to deal with the transport of the country, when these and other problems have not been settled? We must maintain a progressive outlook and a wide horizon, but we want to keep our feet on mother earth, and go step by step on proven facts.
    Having regard to the fact that on such questions as rates, civil aviation, coastwise traffic and canals, there are Committees sitting to decide policy in its bearings on transports, I would urge that these officials should not be appointed by the Crown, but that we should take the guidance and the leadership of the railway and steamship companies as to what should be done. There is an international point of view. I speak with a distinctive British mind on this subject. I have no international thoughts which will prejudice or depreciate my own country. I stand for Britain and the British people. Are we to have a rate war such as we had before the War? Our international friends from across the water, the American people, are making a strong bid for shipping. I hold that those who operate under the Ministry of Transport have not the capacity for dealing with the international competition which we have to face. The necessary leadership can be obtained only under the guiding hand of the experts in railway, shipping, and air transport, as also of the leaders we have in the great industries and businesses of the country.
    Let me say a word as to the position of the taxpayer. It has been suggested that in the Ministry of Transport the taxpayer has a great protection. It is,

    795
    however, the Treasury that is the great guardian of the taxpayer. I hold that the Minister of Transport, with all his powers and capacities, is not equal to the Treasury in regard to the protection of the taxpayer. I would like the Committee to appreciate the bearing of increased rates on the cost of living. Some of us know a little about cotton. The advance of rates means to cotton a farthing a pound; to tobacco, 11d.; jam, ld. for three and a half pounds; butter carriage, Hull to Manchester, ld. on nine pounds; fish rate, Grimsby to Sheffield, ld. on 10 pounds; and bacon carriage, Liverpool to Glasgow, ld. on 11 pounds. I would also draw the attention of the Committee to the hardship of advanced fares on the workers in our great industrial areas, in their endeavours to get out for recreation into the countryside and to the coast. If we are to do our duty to the taxpayer and the ratepayer, we must utilise the experts of the railways, and at the cost of the railway companies. With all his powers, the Minister of Transport has not done one whit better than the great railway chiefs who operated the railways in pre-War days. All he has done is to operate on the advice of such railway "chiefs." In the days of stress and strain we relied on the Board of Trade and the great civil "chiefs" of the railways. They served the country well, and did great and wonderful things. I ask the Committee to pause and remember that whilst there is distinct proof that there was not coordination in the early days between the different sections of transport—later they rose to their great responsibilities—it is not a wise policy now to appoint officials operating under the Minister of Transport, but rather fully to utilise, at the expense of the railway companies, the ability of those men whom the companies are willing to lend. Then at the end of two years, if the policy of the right hon. Gentlemen be proved to be useful, the time will have come to take a further step forward.
    Dr. MURRAY:The hon. Member who has just spoken dwelt on the necessity for keeping on mother earth on this subject. What I object to is that we are doing so entirely and forget that we live in a sea-girt island. The Ministry seems to be obsessed with the idea of rolling stock and neglects the rolling waves,
    796
    which are perhaps the cheapest permanent way we have got. The British Islands have flourished upon the facilities of seaborne traffic, and yet in two days of Debate there has hardly been a reference to that subject. There was not much provision in the Transport Act for coastal traffic, but even that has not been developed by the right hon. Gentleman in the way that those who were dependent upon it demand should be the case. I quite agree that the Department could not do very much yet, but even in prospect the importance of coastal traffic is not recognised. I belong to the blue-water school. There is a large population along the coast of England as well as of Scotland which depends upon sea-borne traffic. I cannot conceive a properly co-ordinated system of transport unless the Minister devotes attention to the development of sea-borne traffic. That is necessary to complete the system and to provide the means of subsistence for large areas, and especially in Scotland. I hope to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of dealing with this question, and if I succeed in doing so I am sure he will in future treat it with more sympathy and more practical help than he has been able to give in the past. I invoke his interest for those people on the west coast of Scotland and on the east coast, who rely so much upon this traffic. There is not a word as to their interests in any of the actual or contemplated schemes. During last winter many of these areas were actually short of food in consequence of the lack of transport facilities. We were told at the time of the General Election that in the reconstruction the question of transport would not be lost sight of, and that the Government were to provide us with a new world. All we know about that is that on the west coast of Scotland we can hardly get across to the mainland to see what the new world is like. The system of transport in those parts is worse now than it has been for 60 years, and it has never been so bad as during the last six or nine months. It was better during the War than it has been since the Armistice. I could read many letters to show that the condition of affairs in many parts of my own constituency deserves some consideration, and were it not for the physical protection which the Western Isles afford to the mainland of

    797
    Great Britain, the surging waves of the Atlantic would have washed you off the face of the earth long ago.
    Mr. BILLING:What about Ireland?
    10.0 P.M.
    Dr. MURRAY:Ireland has adopted Sinn Fein, which means that they wish to protect themselves. We think of the other parts. There is also the question of the conveyance from these districts of marketable produce and in that respect the people have been very badly treated by those responsible for regulating the traffic in Scotland. In these islands it is very difficult sometimes to get to market the stock on which they depend for a living. Recently in one of the islands a number of farmers brought 150 head of cattle to meet a steamer on the Thursday, but they would not guarantee that the cattle would arrive before the Saturday night. The farmers, of course, would not trust their cattle on a small boat closely packed together— 150 of them—for three days and three nights, without food and almost without water. Consequently the farmers had to bring back the cattle to their farms and lost the market. That is the sort of thing happening every week. It is simply ruining the means of livelihood of these people on these islands. When they do get the cattle to the markets, the cost of the freight is very high. Railway rates have been subsidised by the State during the War, and the consequence is those rates are the same as they were before the War; but these farmers and others who have to send stock by steamer have to pay from 200 per cent. to 500 per cent. more freight than before the War. What chance have they of competing with the farmers on the mainland in the markets? None whatever. It is simply a corner of the map to the right hon. Gentleman and the Ministry, but I claim that the right hon. Gentleman ought to take these islands into his purview when drawing up a scheme for co-ordinating and developing the transport services. Then there is the passenger traffic. I have not been to my constituency for a year. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] Well, I act upon the principle enunciated by Dickens, who, when he began to wear a beard, was asked by someone why he did that, and he replied that he wore a beard because his friends liked him more, for they saw less of him. It is a notorious scandal travelling
    798
    in those parts. I know the Minister is sympathetic on this subject, and I know his difficulties, but I wish him to bring his mind to bear on the problem of transport generally throughout the highlands and islands, which will become derelict unless there is improvement. I hope the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy will be translated into actual practice, and that he will see to it that the transport services in those parts are developed.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON:I wish to associate myself, first of all, with the eulogy that fell from a Member on the Labour Bench with regard to the Minister of Transport in respect of railway matters. When he stands at that box, knowing perhaps more about railways than anyone in this House, he always reminds me of an engine-driver on the footplate, with a very capable stoker at his side. But when I imagine him as sitting in a motor car, I always feel a little nervous about him, and fear that he is going to do a side-slip, because in that particular matter he is not so knowledgeable as on railway matters. I am afraid he gets bullied a little by a particular group in this House, which I will call, without discourtesy, "road-hogs". I do not like to see a young and promising Minister bullied by any group in this House, and that is why I want to defend him to-night. I do not want to be called in any way a reactionary with regard to motor transport. I was one of those who drove a motor car when red flags were essential, and later I served my time in the works, and have done everything, including racing and breaking the law, that is possible for the advancement of motor cars in this country. But I do believe now we have got to a state when we have created a bogey which is going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. I am a little mixed, I admit, in my metaphor.
    We have got to a stage where we have transport which is too large for our roads. If we were considering the running of a railway—if you compare the two forms of transport, motor lorries and railways—no railway company would ever tolerate a locomotive running on its permanent way which knocked its track about without consideration, because the railway company has to keep its track up and pay for it. But with motor

    799
    lorries those who run motor services do not in any way consider the damage to the roads, because they have not got to pay for it. That is done by the poor ratepayers. The consequence is that in building motor lorries no consideration whatever is made in the design to in any way avoid unnecessary damage to the roads. There is a certain type of wheel which is ruinous to the roads. Take again, for instance, that motoring monstrosity we see now, the charabanc, which the hon. and gallant Member for Leith the other day said was democratic. It is nothing of the sort. It is a mere kind of travelling Soviet, dealing death and destruction as it goes along, and the poor cyclist and the ordinary man have no chance at all when this monstrosity goes along the country road.
    I believe as our roads get better we shall be able to go at a bigger speed, but in the coming development of motor transport, and until we have got better roads, I do think we ought to ask the Ministry to use the powers they have, to in some way limit the weight and design of the heavy moving transport on our roads.
    There is one other small point which has now come under the Minister, and that is, traffic, which used to be under the Home Office. We are told by all traffic experts that the speed of the slowest moving vehicle is also the speed of the traffic in our cities, and the slowest moving vehicle is the motor-bus. We see in London a state of things which has never been worse in the way of congestion. I do not believe that ever, at any time in London history, have matters been worse. What policy is laid down by the Minister in regard to the regulating of traffic? No policy at all seems to be behind the policeman as he stands in our main streets. You are driving a motorcar, and you arrive at a place where you are likely to be held up. If you have a nice kind face you go on; if you have not, you stay there until he lets you go on. There is no co-ordination at all. Take such a place as Piccadilly Circus. I have never seen such a sight as is to be seen there. In Piccadilly Circus I have seen a policeman deliberately cause a block in the traffic, not from any intention, but simply from ignorance—because everybody in London, more than any other city in the world, immediately obeys the policeman.
    800
    I have seen an absolute block, caused by no fault of anybody, but by the policeman directing the traffic not knowing what the policy was of looking after our traffic. Anybody who knows anything about London traffic knows that a refuge in the middle of the road does not facilitate, but impedes traffic. London is full of comic policemen on horseback, some with red rosettes from the Horse show, and when you simply ask them to go to the left they are rude. It is suggested that these policemen are there to deal with the slow traffic, but they impede it more than they facilitate it. I have read the Report of the Traffic Committee, and they seem proud of some of the things they have done. One is the way they have asked 'buses to stop at different places from where you want to go. My experience of this is that they land you now at Downing Street and call it Westminster Bridge. One of the criticisms which has been directed against that Ministry is on the question of salaries, but I support very heartily the policy of the Ministry, because at no time of the history of any new Ministry is it more important to have good brains than at the start, and when different policies have got to be initiated that is the time when you want the very best brains. It is no good thinking that because you are a Government that you are going to get those brains for nothing. There may come a time when everything is working smoothly, and we may economise then, but at the start it is essential to have the best brains, and you cannot get them without paying for them.
    Mr. SEXTON:This Debate has been somewhat remarkable, and the little of it I have listened to has taken a very wide range extending from the early Victorian era to the present day and from the bicycle and the motor car to the comic policeman in the middle of the road. Every bit of opposition has been used as a peg on which to hang an attack against the Minister and his colleagues, who are struggling with one of the greatest problems which has ever presented itself to this House or the nation. I am not going to haggle about the cost, but anybody who knows anything about the chaotic state of our transport previous to the War will admit that some drastic reform is necessary. I happened to take a part in the initial stages of this Trans-

    801
    port Ministry scheme, and the fault I had to find with the Minister for Transport is that he did not, in my opinion, display sufficient courage, a courage which is characteristic of him, to stick to the powers which were in the original Bill. Who was responsible for that? The very men who are now attacking him. I think it will be admitted that when we remember the chaotic state of the railways before the War, and the enormous waste of raw material in the shape of lengthy trucks and other matters, we ought not to haggle about the price of a policy that will put an end to that chaotic state of things. Of course, in the initial stages there was a heavy expenditure, but I venture to suggest that when the results come to be shown in a practical manner we shall not be at all dissatisfied. An hon. Member said we ought to keep our feet on mother earth. Some of the attacks have been made by persons who know very little about transport. They have made these attacks specially for the purpose of saying something, but they have contributed nothing of real value to the Debate. We are told that transport now is worse than it was before the War. Is it any wonder? Surely, hon. Members have short memories. The whole of our transport system was demoralised during the War. Rolling stock was taken away, rails were even torn up in order to be sent to France. This seems to be all forgotten. Attempts are being made here to belittle what has been done by the Ministry of Transport. I am not going to carp at the question of cost. I say that the Minister and his colleagues ought to receive not the condemnation but the whole-hearted support of this House for the efforts they have made to relieve the situation. I know something about congested traffic, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give greater facilities if possible to relieve the railways by granting equality of treatment to coastwise traffic. I will leave it to his ingenuity and his responsibility and energy, and he has plenty of it, to find some way out of the difficulty. I am sure if he will devote his attention to this, he will be able to do a good deal to relieve the existing congestion.
    Mr. WILSON-FOX:I believe the Amendment before the Committee at the present moment is one to reduce the Vote
    802
    by £;100,000. On the last occasion on which this Vote was discussed, a week ago, the Motion was one which I myself had proposed to reduce the Vote by £;750,000. I think it right to explain to the Committee how it is that I am unable to support the Motion now before it. The Amendment which I moved last week was moved for a specific purpose. Three Motions were on the Notice Paper last week, and they were the outcome of recommendations made by the Select Committee on National Expenditure. The first was a reduction of Sub-head A by £7,000. That was made on the recommendation of the Select Committee, but, at the time that Motion was put down, the revised Estimates of the Department were riot before us, and now in those revised Estimates we find provision is made for a reduction not of £7,000 but of £85,000. The next Motion standing in my name provided for a reduction of £750,000, and the third related to the Canals Compensation Vote, which I proposed should he reduced by £75,000. In the result I dropped all these three Motions, and moved to reduce the Vote by £750,000. I did that because, as I explained last week, the Minister of Trans-port at the present time has not before him, at any rate in a shape in which he can recommend them to this Committee, any of the schemes for the purpose of which he is asking for this £1,000,000. I objected to giving this large Vote of Credit, for that is what it amounts to. Seeing that the House will be meeting for an Autumn Session, and again, no doubt, early in the New Year, I thought that, if we have him a credit of £250,000, and he afterwards wanted more before the 31st March next, there would be plenty of time for him to come and ask for more, and I felt certain that the Committee would readily give it to him. I had no intention of attacking either the Ministry or the Government, nor of moving a Vote of want of confidence in the Government. From the speech of the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir J. Remnant), and especially from his attack on the right hon. Gentleman, I gathered that his purpose was wholly different from mine, and I desire to explain the difference between us, and the reason why I shall not be able, if he carries his Motion to a Division, to support him in the Lobby. I wanted, if possible, to try and introduce again what I regard as a beneficent practice, namely,

    803
    that Motions for reduction of Estimates shall not be regarded as necessarily being attacks on the Government, but as endeavours on the part of the Committee to do its duty and assist the Government in bringing about that economy which on many occasions the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other leading Members of the Government have pressed us to observe. I hope that from now onward it will be exceptional to regard a bonâ-fide Motion for reduction of a particular item as being a Vote of want of confidence, when proper reasons are given for desiring the reduction of that particular item. I hope that the Government will seriously consider this very important question of dealing with Estimates in a manner which will give the Committee greater power to effect the economies which we all desire.
    Mr. GREENWOOD:Although I have been trying for about five hours to get the opportunity of inflicting myself upon the Committee, I feel a certain amount of diffidence in rising, as an ordinary business man, to speak in this Debate, especially after the very severe trouncing which business men seemed to get at the opening of the Debate from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, who seemed to refer rather sneeringly to business men, and particularly to their mannerisms and their language. He made a great deal of play about the words "Look here!" and it struck me that it was rather inconsistent that he should lay so much stress on the words "Look here," as a man who himself had always given the advice of waiting before one looked. It appeared to me, as a business man, that he would have been more successful as one who would "Look here," than as one who would develop too much the policy of "Wait and see." This Vote is for £848,642. I understand the total capital of the railways is £1,300,000,000, and although it has been stated by the Parliamentary Secretary that about half the cost of this Ministry is being used for services that were ordinarily in use before the War—that is to say, only one-half of it is used for what we might term the research or re-construction part of the Ministry—taking the whole of the Vote to be used for the purposes of research and coordination, the cost of the Ministry per annum is only one-fifteenth of 1 per cent. of the capital involved. As a business
    804
    man, it seems to me that we ought to be able to put on one side out of such a tremendous business such a small amount as that for the benefit of research.
    A point the Committee ought to ask itself is, "Is the money necessary?" The question of the Ministry has already been decided. It can now only be a question as to whether the Ministry is serving its purpose or not. What are the criticisms against the Ministry, or rather not so much against the Ministry as against the Minister? If you want to run a business successfully, just as you would wish to run this particular Department successfully, you ought to try to look out for a successful business man, and if we are to use the science of psychology a little in deciding the type of man whom one would employ for this peculiar position, there is not the slightest doubt that we should support the Government in the particular type of man they have chosen in the present Minister of Transport. If you look on each side of this House for those who have been successful in administration and in business, you will see that they are very often, something like the right hon. Gentleman, very rotund in appearance, which shows that they have had plenty of time, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith) said they should have. for proper contemplation. The point is was it good judgment to select him. I really think he is the best man who could he found for the job as far as I could gather. He had a very good case to put forward on Thursday, and he put it rather badly, if I may say so very respectfully. He brought forward a very pettifogging instance which made it appear to the House that in his opinion it was a right one —I am referring to the question of testing the prices of champagne at various hotels. I think in that he made a big mistake, but he is not the first business man or politician who has had to call in champagne to help to build up his case. He has shown us that he is the best man for this position by the fact that he has taken care to select a very good deputy, who put forward a far better case for the Ministry. It was possibly the modesty of the Minister himself. He is evidently by his physical development a man who is prevented from blowing his own trumpet. There is no doubt that in the Parliamentary Secretary he has chosen a man who certainly can state the case for the Ministry very favourably and very well. I

    805
    think the case for the defence was a good one which was put badly, while the case of the Opposition was a bad one which was put worse still. The Opposition complains about too much time being spent in contemplation and observation. It is quite time that in this country, with regard to its business developments, more time was spent in contemplation and observation. From the criticisms of the Opposition, one would argue that no high salaried men ought to be employed in using their brains in the matter of reconstruction with regard to the great transport questions of this country. We are told that very high salaries are being paid, and that nothing has been done. What business man, other than one of the pettifogging, out-of-the-world business men, would expect any results from a research department in the first twelve or eighteen months of its existence? Everybody knows that in questions of research it is a long time before your reap the results, and that applies in connection with a Department of this sort. We were given an instance by the Minister of Transport which shows the necessity for this Ministry, and that is that the duplication of track in this country is 1·8, compared with the American duplication of 1·1. Assuming that by research, co-ordination and co-operation, this Ministry could bring down our duplication of track to the same percentage as in America I calculate that that would save not less than £30,000,000 a year.
    The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) complained that the reducing of the Estimates of this Ministry by £85,000 was no real reduction. He said that the only thing that had been done was to refrain from making appointments which ought to have been made. Surely, if this Ministry be so bad as we have been told by the Opposition, the fewer appointments they make the better. It is very inconsistent that they should complain about the Estimates being saved at the expense of an increase of the Ministry. A point was raised by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) who said he questioned very much the deferred maintenance sum of £32,000,000 on a capital of £1,300,000,000, even over a period of three to five years. That only works out
    806
    at 2·7 per cent. of the capital involved, although the cost of repairs has gone up in the proportion of three to one since 1914. Nobody can say that that is a very expensive or very serious consideration in comparison. He also referred to the agreement relating to the replacement of stores on the 1913 basis as being something the like of which he had never seen before. That seemed to be in direct opposition to what was said by the hon. Gentleman sitting next to him, who said it was no doubt a fair thing that the railways should be allowed to go back to exactly the same condition that they were in before the War. There ought to be consistency from those who oppose the Ministry.
    I should like to support the Minister of Transport very much, and as an ordinary plain business man to give him a little encouragement. I noticed his worried look when he was being trounced by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). It reminded me of an old type of Lancashire mill manager who used to have a stocktaking every thirteen weeks, seven weeks of which were in awful contemplation of the results, and six weeks of which were in awful condemnation. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has had a little encouragement, though it is only from the back benchers, I am glad to see that he has changed that worried look, and that he is all smiles. He realises that people cannot work unless they are contented, and the manner in which he is being chastised by the Leader of the Opposition explains the diffidence of a good many business men to accept service under such leaders. I would ask the House to encourage to the fullest possible extent the spending of money in research. It will be well spent. Further, Members ought not to expect too much, or too quickly. These things must grow, and it is well that they should grow slowly, because this country is like a man who has been going through a serious operation. Nobody is more anxious to see him recover than his doctors, but, unfortunately for the poor fellow, the only reason they want him to recover is that they may perform another operation! I ask the Ministry to hold their hands and do the best with what they have got. Then I for one will give them my entire and cordial support.
    Mr. BILLING:We have had enough Members this evening qualifying for junior posts in the Ministry of Transport. We have had a great deal of criticism which amounted to a very little, and a great deal of eulogy that amounted to still less. The question of road transport was raised by the hon. Member who has just left the House (Colonel Moore-Brabazon), and I am sorry he did not carry it a little further. He tells us, and he is perfectly right, that the destruction of roads by road transport is a matter of no consideration to those who employ the transport. Yet it is quite within the power of the Ministry to put direct taxation on to those who destroy the roads by taxing that part of the vehicle which does the damage, the tyres. However, the Ministry has refused to consider that, and prefers to tax the horse-power, which has no relation whatever to the road destruction. I only wish we had not so apologetic a tone from the Government in this as in other matters. If we had a Napoleon in the Ministry he would drive roads through the country, but instead we have the same mental condition of compromise that we have in all directions. The Minister of Transport is a railwayman. He cannot help it. I am sure that when he started out in the railway world he never anticipated attaining the position he holds to-day, but he has spent the whole of his life with railways, and, just as an Army man will always be an Army man, and a Naval man will always be a Naval man, so a railwayman will always be a railwayman, and you cannot expect any sympathy from the present Minister either for roads, the sea, or air. The whole Debate has circled round the question of whether railways are paying or are not. That is not what is interesting the man in the street. What he wants to know is whether it is the intention of the Government to set up a new scheme, even if it is by developing old schemes, to revitalise the transport system. Every Member who gets up from the Treasury Bench endeavours to excuse the condition of chaos in his own Department by blaming the Ministry for Transport, and occasionally the Minister of Transport hits back, sometimes effectually. We all blame the Minister of Transport, and when he replies I want him to tell the House whether
    808
    he has done anything more than to make up wages and the dividends of the shareholders of the railways. I am not interested in the position of the shareholders, although the competitive commercial class must be given consideration, and here I would appeal to the Labour Members that if they, in their endeavour to produce the perfect State, stamp out the competitive commercial spirit, they will stamp out the enterprise and with it the advancement which is so necessary. An hon. Member said the student of psychology would say: "What better man could we choose than the right hon. Gentleman for the Minister of Transport, because has he not had a successful career in railways?" But a more careful student of psychology would have said: "How is it more simple absolutely to ruin a man than by placing him in a Government Department?" We ought to appreciate that directly a man gets in a Government Department he ceases to consider whether a thing is a paying proposition or not. He has all the various vested interests outside, and so long as he can keep them outside and not affront too much the interests of the other Departments, he is satisfied. There is nobody at the Cabinet meetings like one gets at the board meetings of a limited company, who want to know how the money is being spent and where it is coming from. That is never taken into consideration at all. It is not a question of whether a thing pays or not, and really the Minister should appreciate that the transport of this country is a commercial proposition. It cannot be done by subsidy. It is far greater than the railways or even the transport of the country; it is greater than an Imperial matter; it is an international matter.
    What has the right hon. Gentleman done to develop our canals? Surely he would have known, had he spent his life as a lock-keeper, instead of as a railway manager, the enormous possibilities of water transport. On inland waters you can move 1,000 tons for less than you can move 100 tons by rail. What are we doing to develop that? Nothing. The canals are sitting up, because the interests of railway shareholders must be safeguarded, and that is why the railways have purchased all the canal interests of the country, simply to shut them down, because they were unhealthy competition in the interests of the shareholders,

    809
    although healthy in the public interest. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what he has done in order to develop the canals of this country, and what he proposes to do to enable the British mercantile air force commercially to capture the international air-borne traffic of the world, which will justify us in setting up an Air Service, as our mercantile marine justified us in setting up a Navy which has saved us on every occasion when our national life has been jeopardised.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY:The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) challenged this Vote upon the ground that the Ministry itself was unnecessary, and that a section of the Board of Trade could carry on the necessary duty. The hon. Baronet the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant), in support of that allegation, moved a reduction, and that reduction will be voted on in a very few minutes by this Committee. The allegation of the Leader of the Opposition has been supported by the further allegation that the salaries of the directors-general and the numbers of the directors-general under the Ministry of Transport were altogether out of proportion. The salaries which are the subject of criticism by the right hon. Gentleman are less than those men for the most part would have been able to earn outside of Government employment. Take the case of an officer of the London County Council, the engineer-in-chief. We have been told in the newspapers within the last day or two that he is to have an additional £2,000 a year for the duty of housing administration. If I am not very much mistaken that would mean for that officer a total salary of over £4,000 a year, or even more. How does that compare with the salary of any official of the Ministry of Transport? Surely a Government Department competing with the London County Council may say for itself that it has succeeded if it has no official whose salary is equal to that which the London County Council are able to pay.
    The whole issue is this. Does the Ministry of Transport hold itself responsible for one section of transport or has it the duty of dealing with the whole transport of the country both by sea and land, or as the hon. Baronet behind me (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) would say also by air, though that development seems very slow. The hon. Member for the Western Isles
    810
    (Dr. Murray) had a great deal to say about coastwise traffic. There is no doubt that coastwise traffic presents opportunities for the development of transport that will give enormous benefits to our trade in comparison with the railways. The point is that the Ministry of Transport has the duty of guiding, choosing and organising not only railway transport but road transport, tramways, canals, coasting ships and docks, harbours, if necessary, and even of arranging for the accommodation of travellers through the hotels. The duty of the Minister of Transport is to bring all these into harmonious organised co-working together, and if the Ministry of Transport is able to do so, and directing all those systems which are in operation, cutting down here and extending through and bringing agriculture and urban trade together, their hands will be very full for the next year or two, and they are justified. This Vote will prove whether or not, in the opinion of this Committee, they are justified. They are in my opinion justified by the moderate expenditure which they ask the Committee to sanction in view of the great and extended work which they had to perform in the interests of the trade and transport of the whole country.
    Sir E. GEDDES:I feel that I can be only pleased with the progress of this Vote. The criticism, so for as I have heard it, has been very helpful and useful. I have been asked a large number of questions, some of which are of purely local interest, and in regard to which I really cannot profess, at this moment, to have detailed information. The North-East coast was mentioned by an hon. Member. I can only say that the difficulty, as he is well aware, and as many Members are aware, is due to the fact that the steel output requiring special wagons has grown out of all proportion during the War, but wagons are being built as fast as possible, and manufacturers and railways are co-operating in every possible way. As to coastal shipping the position of the Government is this: the subsidy was given to assist coastal shipping in one respect, while the railway rates were at an artificially low level. When the increase was put on, it was found that coastal shipping freights, probably unavoidably, also had to increase, but the Government felt that with the improving

    811
    and improved position of the railways and with the fact that the tonnage on the market had increased very much and was still increasing, the time had come when the State subsidy must end. At the same time there is nothing but sympathy with the coastal shipping industry, and it is the intention of the Government, so far as they can, to fix the railway rates at a fair competitive rate with the sea. But hon. Members will understand that while that is desirable, and while we should not have abnormally low rates on rail in competition with the sea, at the same time one must not put railway rates up merely to allow much higher freights to be charged on the sea for coastal shipping. It is a matter in which the balance should be held evenly and fairly between the two parties, and that is the intention of the Government.
    I think that the Debate has been a very useful Debate. I cannot quite agree with everything that the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Greenwood) said about my own inability to hold up my end in this House. I realise that the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) made a strong case against me, but I wonder what sort of case he would have made against me if he had had my case. I hardly think I would be standing at this box to-night. However, he had not my case, and I am duly thankful for it. The Motion for the reduction of the Vote by £750,000 was, as the mover pointed out very clearly, not intended as a censure on the Government, nor as dissent from Government policy, but in order to enforce his view that it was desirable, and this is the attitude of the Committee, that these Estimates should be closer up than they have been in the past. That is sound finance. I personally, and the Government, entirely agree that the Estimates should be as close up as possible. We were going through a time of reconstruction and an abnormal period. The Ministry of Transport was in its infancy, and the Estimates were made on a basis which would not require Supplementary Estimates. At the same time, although in the Vote on Account we had money to spend, it was not spent and the Select Committee which went into the expenses of the Ministry said, and this I gather to be the sense of this Committee, "You must not go too wide; go on
    812
    and do what you are doing, be as economical as possible." They did not say, and I do not think this Committee is going to say, that any money has actually been wasted. They said be careful; they said do not spend more money than you can help. We agree; we will not. That I take to be the attitude of this Committee and of the Select Committee, and I fully accept it.
    Mr. BILLING:Can the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell us what has been done in the control of the canals, as to which the Prime Minister promised.
    Sir E. GEDDES:I referred to that in my statement. I think the future of canals is a matter which will have to be considered very carefully on present-day costs. I think the best step in that direction has been the appointment of a Committee with the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) as Chairman to deal with the subject.
    Mr. BILLING:For the last 17 months nothing has been done.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:As to coastal traffic may I ask if the railway rates will be raised to an economic level? That is all the coastal people ask.
    Sir E. GEDDES:The railway rates as far as possible in the general revision were raised to an economic level. It may be that as that increase was applied by percentage, where there was an abnormally low coastal rate the percentage was not quite a sufficient addition to bring the rate up to the general level. Wherever that can be done in the future that is the object of the Government. In these revisions where you get coastal and inland rates, it is almost impossible to pick out an individual rate. What the hon. Member has in mind is very much my object.
    Sir J. REMNANT:How much is this Committee going to cost the country?
    Mr. BILLING:May I ask whether it is not the fact that you subsidised the railways and coastal traffic, but that you did not subsidise the canals by one penny since the Act came into force?
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £748,642, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 206.

    Division No. 168.]

    AYES.

    [4.5 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Edge, Captain William

    Kidd, James

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Elveden, Viscount

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Fildes, Henry

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Barrand, A. R.

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Barrie, Charles Coupar

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

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

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Mallalieu, F. W.

    Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Matthews, David

    Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Bennett, Thomas Jewell

    Freece, Sir Walter de

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Gardiner, James

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Morris, Richard

    Blair, Reginald

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Morrison, Hugh

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Mount, William Arthur

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith

    Grant, James A.

    Murchison, C. K.

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Neal, Arthur

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Nicholson, William G (Petersfield)

    Bruton, Sir James

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

    Campbell, J. D. C.

    Hanna, George Boyle

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin

    Parker, James

    Casey, T. W.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Cautley, Henry S.

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Haslam, Lewis

    Perring, William George

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Preston, W. R.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Raper, A. Baldwin

    Colvin, Lieut.-Colonel Richard Beale

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Reid, D. D.

    Cope, Major Wm.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Renwick, George

    Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

    Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Jesson, C.

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Dawes, Commander

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Seager, Sir William

    Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Dockrell, Sir Maurice

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Simm, M. T.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)

    Wallace, J.

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Stevens, Marshall

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Waring, Major Walter

    Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Wason, John Cathcart

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Sugden, W. H.

    Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.

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

    Sutherland, Sir William

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

    Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)

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

    Younger, Sir George

    Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

    Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

    Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

    Ward.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Sexton, James

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D'by)

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Hallas, Eldred

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Bottomley, Horatio W.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Spencer, George A.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Swan, J. E.

    Brace, Rt. Hon, William

    Hirst, G. H.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Briant, Frank

    Irving, Dan

    Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

    Bromfield, William

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Thomas, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Cape, Thomas

    Lawson, John J.

    Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Lorden, John William

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Lunn, William

    Wignall, James

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Donald, Thompson

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Finney, Samuel

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Remnant, Colonel Sir James F.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Robertson, John

    Mr. Hogge and Mr. Myers.

    Division No. 169.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Sugden, W. H.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

    Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

    Billing, Noel Pemberton-

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Thomson, T. (Middiesbrough, West)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

    Briant, Frank

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

    Mosley, Oswald

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

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

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Rankin, Captain James S.

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D'by)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Sir J. Remnant and Mr. Johnstone.

    NOES.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Gardiner, James

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)

    Matthews, David

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Mills, John Edmund

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Gould, James C.

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Grant, James A.

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Barnes Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)

    Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Morrison, Hugh

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Murchison, C. K.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Myers, Thomas

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

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Neal, Arthur

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

    Blair, Reginald

    Hall, Captain Douglas Bernard

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Perring, William George

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Boscawen. Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Haslam, Lewis

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Pratt, John William

    Brassey, Major H. L. C.

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Preston, W. R.

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Bromfield, William

    Hirst, G. H.

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

    Bruton, Sir James

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Hood, Joseph

    Raper, A. Baldwin

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Hope, Lt.-Col, Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Reid, D. D.

    Cape, Thomas

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Renwick, George

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

    Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

    Casey, T. W.

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Chadwick. Sir Robert

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Robertson, John

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Colvin, Lieut.-Colonel Richard Beale

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Jellett, William Morgan

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Cope, Major Wm.

    Jesson, C.

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Courthope, Major George L.

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

    Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

    Seddon, J. A.

    Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Sexton, James

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Dawes, Commander

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Edge, Captain William

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Kiley, James D.

    Smith, W. R.(Wellingborough)

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Spencer, George A.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Stevens, Marshall

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Lawson, John J.

    Swan, J. E.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

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

    Taylor, J.

    Fildes, Henry

    Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Finney, Samuel

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Lorden, John William

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Waterson, A. E.

    Forrest, Walter

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Lunn, William

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Whitla, Sir William

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Mallalieu, F. W.

    Wignall, James

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

    Younger, Sir George

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

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

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Parker.

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
    Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS:I desire to raise on this matter a question which I think is important and practically one of privilege.
    Mr. SPEAKER:We have not yet decided to consider the Lords' Amendments.
    Mr. WILLIAMS:That was the point I wanted to put.
    Mr. SPEAKER:There must be some question before the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
    Sir D. MACLEAN:The Amendments now in the hands of hon. Members obviously afford an opportunity for hon. Members on this side of the House to discharge their public duty at the necessary length. We are not, however, desirous of in any way unduly delaying the proceedings, notwithstanding the importance of the subject we were about to discuss. I make a suggestion to the Leader of the House with regard to the next Order, which is still within the compass of the House for discussion. Is it absolutely necessary to take that to-night, and can the right hon. Gentleman not meet us by postponing the Ministry of Mines Resolution to another date? As far as we are concerned, we recognise that there are Governmental difficulties, although he cannot expect us to sympathise with them to the fullest possible extent. We do recognise the facts of the situation, and it may be absolutely impossible to take that Orde. except after eleven o'clock at night. I
    816
    do ask the right hon. Gentleman to meet us in regard to the Order to which I have referred.
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House):I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for the way in which he has put his question, and with what he said about discussion I quite agree. I gather from what he says now that there is not likely to be unnecessary discussion. As I explained this afternoon, our whole object in taking the Order referred to was to get the Coal Mines Bill in Committee. I have since had representations made to me that the miners' representatives will not be able to take part in the discussion on this occasion. I am willing to postpone it until Monday.
    Mr. WILLIAMS:The point I desire to raise is that on Clause 5, Sub-section. (1)e (i) of this Bill, as it left this House, a pledge was given by the Minister in charge in these words:
    "I will undertake to say that something of that sort shall be inserted in another place."
    That is a perfectly definite pledge, and those words have not in fact been inserted. The Clause was one requiring that where the tenant was in the employment of the landlord and the dwelling-house let in consequence of the employment he would have to give up possession if he ceased to be in his employment. Objection was taken that that might lead to very serious hardship and even turmoil in certain cases, and I suggested that the words taken from Sub-section (4) should be added as follows
    "And in the opinion of the Court greater hardship would be caused by refusing the order for possession than granting it."
    Notwithstanding the pledge to which I have referred those words have not been inserted, and I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to what this House can do to protect itself.
    Mr. SPEAKER:The Minister has not complete control of the other House, and all a Minister can do is to promise to do his best to secure an Amendment. The Minister proposes, and the other place disposes.
    Captain W. BENN:It is quite clear that we have come to a new condition of things in which the Government have no

    817
    control at all, and they cannot give an effective guarantee that words will be inserted in another place. It is quite clear that a modification of our own procedure will become necessary. When a Minister is willing to accept an Amendment, it will not be sufficient to say he will propose it in another place because he has no means of carrying out that promise. We shall be bound, not from any discourtesy to the Minister but in our own interests, to see that the Amendment is inserted at the time and not wait for it to be done in another place.
    Mr. SPEAKER:But the Minister also cannot guarantee that it will be inserted in this House. All he can do is to propose it.
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison):On this point may I explain that when the matter was discussed in this House on the Report stage, we had passed the point at which it would be possible to make the insertion asked for, and therefore it was not possible under our rules of procedure to put them in here. The Government did try to get the words inserted in another place, but unfortunately on the division were not successful. I did everything I could.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:It is clear that the Government in another place did their best to get the words inserted. It is clear advantage ought not to be taken of men being locked out or on strike to evict them. We do not want to have strikes and lock-outs made far more bitter than they otherwise would be by evictions. But although very definite words to prevent that were proposed to be put in in another place, they were rejected by those who have no responsibility to the electors of the country Now we are asked to consider the Lords Amendments. There is one obvious way in which we can register our protest against the action of the other House, and that is by refusing to consider the Lords Amendments. We have now no means of putting these words in, and the only way to make our protest is to refuse to consider the Amendments from the other place, and thus give their lordships an opportunity to reconsider their position and to carry out the wishes not merely of the Government but also of the entire body of this House.
    Mr. LAWSON:I wish to point out that I moved an Amendment to this Bill, which
    818
    was accepted by practically everyone in the House except the right hon. Gentleman, and he only refused it on the ground that he thought that it was just a little too widely drawn. There were hon. Members representing the employing classes who requested me to hold to the Amendment I had moved, rather than adopt the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. I agreed, however, on the word of the right hon. Gentleman, to accept the insertion of those words in the other House. Now I find that this Amendment has been turned down and refused. I am certain that the matter will be one of considerable importance in the troublous times in which we live, and I was amazed to read that the people who were chiefly responsible for the refusal of this Amendment in the other House were Members of that House who represented great industrial undertakings. It leaves us in this position, that those of us who move Amendments in the future, which may be accepted in the very fine spirit in which this Amendment was accepted by hon. Members of all parties in this House, will have to stand or fall by our Amendments, rather than run the risk in the other House. That particular Amendment was met by the employers' representatives in this House in a spirit of generosity which was a credit to them, and which would have gone far to create an improved spirit in the industrial forces of this country when it got abroad. I wish to register my protest, but I desire to give those hon. Members credit for doing their best to get this Amendment included, and so to carry out their promise to this House.
    Major Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME:I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it was on the understanding that it would be inserted in another place that this Amendment was not pressed, and that that understanding received the general assent of this House. The general intention of this House was that this Amendment should be made in the Bill. If there had not been a need for haste in this matter, this House would have taken more time over it, and we should have been careful to frame words which would have met the point exactly which my hon. Friend moved. I agree that as it stood it was far too wide, but it was well conceived in its intention. We are, however, not yet all lawyers in this Assembly. and it was, perhaps, defective in its construction. We then did, as a

    819
    matter of business, what we are quite accustomed to do in this House, that is to say, we arrived at an honourable understanding that those who were capable of drafting this Amendment should give effect to our intention—no less and no more—and that the Bill should go through amended in that way. I daresay that was the avowed intention of 99 per cent. of the Members of this House, on whichever side they sat. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that difficult times are ahead of us. We are going to quarrel about plenty of things. I am going to quarrel with hon. Members opposite over their economic views in regard to several matters, which I think are outrageous. Let us, however, try to narrow down the points of conflict. And here is a case on which we can arrive at an agreement which will make for good will on both sides, and which will eliminate one of those cases which the bad employer, who is only a very small percentage of the employers of the country, can take advantage of in some industrial dispute. I am going to ask the Government to reconsider this question, and see if this matter cannot be put right. I know the urgency of this Bill, but it is not quite as urgent as some hon. Members appear to think. A long time ago, when the matter first came up, I asked the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Addison) for an undertaking, which was very willingly given and widely circulated, that when the Bill went through, whatever the particular date was, it should be made retrospective, and should apply to every notice given since the March quarter day. It does not matter very much, therefore, whether this Bill receives the Royal Assent within the next five days or ten days. When it receives the Royal Assent all notices to quit given after 25th March last are going to be void, and people who receive such notices are going to be entitled to the protection which is accorded to them under this Act. Here we have a case where the general sense of the House of Commons was solidly in favour of the Amendment,
    and I ask the Government to consider before they come to a decision whether they cannot have this thing made right. and cannot postpone for a few days the final decision on this matter, so that the decision of the House may be made good.
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I entirely agree with the views which have been expressed by every speaker as to the undesirability of the course which has been taken in another place, but I do not think the remedy proposed by my hon. Friend is effective. There are other provisions in the Bill which make it necessary. I have been informed from the beginning that it should become law by 1st July at latest. I am glad, however, to say that I welcome the protest which has been made by the whole House, and I think it is a great mistake that this action has been taken. But I am informed, though it is not the formal opinion of the Law Officers, that no one would regard a strike as putting a man out of employment in a case of this kind, and that in fact it has never been done.
    Mr. SWAN:Yes, it has repeatedly.
    Mr. BONAR LAW:Hon. Members must take what I have said. It is not the formal opinion of the Law Officers but of an experienced draughtsman. At the same time I am assured that it would he a great mistake to endanger getting the Bill at the right time, and now that we have made our protest I hope the House will realise that it is better to go on.
    Mr. WILLIAMS:Will the Government give facilities for amending the Bill on this point? It can be done by a very short amending Bill brought in by the Government themselves.
    Mr. BONAR LAW:What I have said is itself a proof that if we find the evils which have been referred to happening, we should undertake to deal with it.
    Question put. "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
    The House divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 55.

    Division No. 170.]

    AYES.

    [11.30 p.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Billing, Noel Pemberton-

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Blair, Reginald

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Perring, William George

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Preston, W. R.

    Bruton, Sir James

    Haslam, Lewis

    Purchase, H. G.

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Raper, A. Baldwin

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford)

    Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

    Casey, T. W.

    Hood, Joseph

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Cope, Major Wm.

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Courthope, Major George L.

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Seddon, J. A.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

    Dawes, Commander

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Stevens, Marshall

    Edge, Captain William

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Sugden, W. H.

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

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

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Lorden, John William

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Whitla, Sir William

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Mitchell, William Lane

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

    Forrest, Walter

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Murchison, C. K.

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Neal, Arthur

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

    Gilmour,

    Lieut.-Colonel John

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr.

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Parker.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    NOES.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Sexton, James

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Briant, Frank

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornses)

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Bromfield, William

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Spencer, George A.

    Cape, Thomas

    Kiley, James D.

    Swan, J. E.

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Lawson, John J.

    Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Lunn, William

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Mills, John Edmund

    Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Finney, Samuel

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Glanville, Harold James

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough. E.)

    Gould, James C.

    Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Robertson, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Hogge and Mr. Tyson Wilson.

    Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Permitted increases in Rent.)
    (1)The amount by which the increased rent of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies may exceed the standard rent shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be as follows, that is to say:—
    (b)An amount not exceeding any increase in the amount for the time being payable by the landlord in respect of rates over the corresponding amount paid in respect of the yearly, half-yearly or other period which included the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, or in the case of a dwelling-
    822
    nouse for which no rates were payable in respect of any period which included the date, the period which included the date on which the rates first became payable;
    (d)In further addition to any such amounts as aforesaid—

    (i)where the landlord is responsible for the whole of repairs, an amount not exceeding twenty-five per cent. of the net rent; or

    (ii)where the landlord is responsible for part and not the whole of the repairs, such lesser amount as may be agreed, or as may, on the application of the landlord or the tenant, be deter-

    823
    mined by the county court to be fair and reasonable having regard to such liability.

    (2)At any time or times not being less than three months after the date of any increase permitted by paragraph (d) of the foregoing sub-section the tenant or the sanitary authority may apply to the county court for an order suspending such increase, and also any increase under paragraph (c) of that sub-section, on the ground that the house is not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation, or is otherwise not in a reasonable state of repair.
    The court on being satisfied by the production of a certificate of the sanitary authority or otherwise that any such ground as aforesaid is established, and on being further satisfied that the condition of the house is not due or not wholly due to the tenant's neglect or default or breach of express agreement, shall order that the increase be suspended until the court is satisfied, on the report of the sanitary authority or otherwise, that the necessary repairs (other than the repairs, if any, for which the tenant is liable) have been executed, and on the making of such order the increase shall cease to have effect until the court is so satisfied.
    (3)Any transfer to a tenant of any burden or liability previously borne by the landlord shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as an alteration of rent, and where, as the result of such a transfer, the terms on which a dwelling-house is held are on the whole less favourable to the tenant than the previous terms, the rent shall be deemed to be increased, whether or not the sum periodically payable by way of rent is increased, and any increase of rent in respect of any transfer to a landlord of any burden or liability previously borne by the tenant where, as the result of such transfer, the terms on which any dwelling-house is held are on the whole more favourable to the tenant than the previous terms, shall be deemed not to be an increase of rent for the purposes of this Act: Provided that for the purposes of this section the rent shall not be deemed to be increased where the liability for rates is transferred from the landlord to the tenant, if a corresponding reduction is made in the rent.
    (4)On any application to a sanitary authority for a certificate or report under this section a fee of one shilling shall be payable, but if the authority as the result of such application issues such a certificate as aforesaid, the tenant shall be entitled to deduct the fee from any subsequent payment of rent.
    (5)For the purposes of this section the expression "rates" includes water rents and charges, and any increase in rates payable by the landlord shall be deemed to be payable by him until the rate is next demanded.
    (6)Any question arising as to the amount of any increase of rent permissible under this section shall be determined on the application either of the landlord or the tenant by the county court, and the decision of the court shall be final and conclusive.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (1,b), after the word "payable." ["the rates first became payable"], insert the word "thereafter".
    Read a Second time.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Dr. ADDISON:It may perhaps be for the convenience of the House if, on this first Amendment, I explain the purport of the Amendments made in another place. Many of them are of the nature of drafting amendments, and many of them Amendments which I undertook to try to get inserted in another place, and, with the exception of the one just referred to, successfully. The first Amendment is just a drafting Amendment. There is a substantial one later with regard to railways, which, I am advised, is necessary to enable the agreement arrived at with reference to railwaymen's wages to be applied. Otherwise the operation of the Act would disturb the application of the agreement. At the bottom of page 1 there is a definition of repairs which I undertook to have inserted. Then they are for the most part drafting Amendments until we come to the long Amendment in page 8, line 21, Section 6, and that was inserted after discussion with the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor with reference to Section 17, subsection (3), of the Bill passed through this House relating to cases where an application has been made to the Court and there has been a concealment or misrepresentation of fact. This carries out our undertaking in a better form, without being open to the objection to which the Clause was open as it left this House. There are one or two substantial Amendments in the Clause relating to shops and business premises. The other place altered the Clause as it left this House by making a modification with regard to the increased rental which could be charged for shops and business premises. With regard to the houses brought into the Bill for the first time, as the House will remember it is possible, where the landlord undertakes the repairs to have an increase of rent up to 40 per cent. The Amendment of their Lordships raises that amount in the case of shops and business premises up to a possible 60 per cent. The case was ma de mainly out of the evidence submitted to Lord Salis-

    825
    bury's Committee, and it was correct to say, certainly, that the evidence went to show that an increase of this character would not be considered unreasonable, and of course the additional contention was made that the tenant of a shop is in a better position than the tenant of a ,dwelling-house to meet the increased rent because he puts it on to his customers. The other material alteration in the Clause was in Sub-section (3), providing that the Section shall continue in force till 24th June, 1921; that is to say, that the protection against evictions of tenants of business premises is limited to 24th June, 1921. The argument was that we are setting up a committee to inquire into the necessary changes in the law in respect of business premises, and it is presumed the Committee will have reported and that the House will have had ample time to legislate as a result of their recommendations by June next. Therefore, it was argued that the same time limit was not necessary. Other Amendments are not material, excepting one which relates to a place which may be required for a bonâfide scheme of reconstruction and improvement which is desirable in the public interest, and another Amendment which represents a real improvement in the protection of the sub-tenant. In regard to the alteration of a Clause to bring within its scope shops and business premises, the Government offered opposition in another place, but the Division was carried against us. A fair compromise might be possible, but I do not think it is worth while imperilling the Bill on that account.
    On the point of time, may I say that it is necessary that the Bill should become law to-morrow. The matter has been closely investigated by the Government's legal advisers, and the position is this: The existing Statute continues in force until 1st July. I am informed that the 1st July means midnight on 1st July, and not midnight on 30th June, and that in the event of the Act receiving the Royal Assent on 2nd July it becomes operative as from the commencement of that day: that is to say, as from a minute past midnight to-night. There will, therefore, be no hiatus. It is of the first necessity that we should obtain the Royal Assent to-morrow. I hope, therefore, that, notwithstanding the differences which arose in connection with the question we
    826
    have just discussed, nothing will be done to imperil the passage of the Bill. With regard to the first Amendment, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Lords.
    Mr. HAYDAY:Members are in a difficulty. It has been impossible to obtain copies of the Lords Amendments in the Vote Office. I am informed that a comparatively small number were supplied and that they ran out rapidly. A number of us cannot obtain them. Is there any way out of the difficulty? A small supply of 50 or 60 copies for a House composed of 700 Members is quite insufficient.
    Mr. SPEAKER:I am very sorry, but I understand that what happened was that the Lords Amendments did not come down until late yesterday. The printers were set to work as soon as possible, and turned out as many copies as they could in the time.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:I was one of the fortunate few who were able to get a copy of the Amendments, but we might as well not debate these Amendments as debate them without having the Amendments before us, because you have to go through the Amendments very carefully, and read them with the Bill, to see what they mean. What would happen if we did not pass this Bill to-night? Would the world so far as landlord and tenant are concerned come to an end? Should we have an immediate rush of evictions, or would it not be better to postpone the discussion of the Bill until we are able to see what we are discussing, so that we may discuss and vote more intelligently than we are likely to be able to do when we cannot know what we are talking about? The first Amendment is fairly easy to understand, but look at the next one! Above all, look at the Amendment dealing with "wholly or partly," and you will see that unless hon. Members have the words before them, and put them into the Clause, they will be wholly unable to see what the Amendment means. Then there is another Amendment, to leave out "more" and to insert "not less," which it is impossible to understand. In these circumstances we might risk the awful cataclysm of having a hiatus between a dying Act and a re-birth rather than stultify ourselves by debating words which we are utterly unable to understand.
    12 M.
    Mr. SPEAKER:The House has just decided that the Lords Amendments should be considered.
    Question put, "That this House doth
    Lords Amendment:
    At end of Sub-section (1, d) insert
    (e) In the case of dwelling-houses let by a railway company to persons in the employment of the company, such additional amount, if any, as is required in order to give effect to the agreement dated the first
    agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 42.

    Division No. 171.]

    AYES.

    [11.54 p.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Forrest, Walter

    Murray, John {Leeds, West)

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Neal, Arthur

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel John

    Perring, William George

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Gould, James C.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry

    Pratt, John William

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Purchase, H. G.

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

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Raper, A. Baldwin

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Blair, Reginald

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Hanna, George Boyle

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Haslam, Lewis

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Bruton, Sir James

    Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford)

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Hood, Joseph

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

    Casey, T. W.

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Stevens, Marshall

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Sugden, W. H.

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Cope, Major Wm.

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Courthope, Major George L.

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Whitla, Sir William

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

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

    Dawes, Commander

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

    Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

    Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

    Edge, Captain William

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Lorden, John William

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Wood, Sir H K. (Woolwich, West)

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    M'Lean Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Young, Lieut.-com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Fildes, Henry

    Mitchell, William Lane

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr.

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Parker.

    NOES.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Sexton, James

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hogge, James Myles

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Briant, Frank

    Kiley, James D.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bromfield, William

    Lawson, John J.

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Cape, Thomas

    Lunn, William

    Spencer, George A.

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Mills, John Edmund

    Swan, J. E.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O (Anglesey)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Thomas, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Glanville, Harold James

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Grundy, T. W.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Robertson, John

    Colonel Wedgwood and Mr. Hayday.

    day of March nineteen hundred and twenty, relating to rates of pay and conditions of employment of certain persons in employment of railway companies, or any agreement, whether made before or after the passing of this Act, extending or modifying that agreement.
    Read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Dr. ADDISON rose—
    HON. MEMBERS:Agreed!
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME:Is the right hon. Gentleman correct in saying that it is absolutely essential that we should deal with this Bill to-night?
    Mr. SPEAKER:The House has already decided that matter, and the hon. Member must give his attention to the question now before the House.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME:What is the effect if this Clause be not passed to-night. Clause 1 states that any notice given since 25th March last is ineffective in so far as it contravenes the provisions of this Bill. No matter at what date the Bill comes into operation, such a notice is ineffective, otherwise the whole of Clause 1 means nothing.
    Mr. SPEAKER:The hon. Member is not discussing the Amendment now before the House. That Amendment has no relevance to Clause 1, but deals with Clause 2.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME:On that point, may I submit that the whole of these Amendments refer to Clause 1. The Bill is governed by that Clause, and it is perfectly impossible to consider any Amendment or any Clause of this Bill unless we know what is the interpretation of Clause 1. If it be the fact that no notice or no action taken by virtue of or in default of this Bill is effective because of Clause 1, then it is immaterial on what date it is passed. I submit that this particular Section of the Act is equally effective if carried into force ten days hence, because—
    Mr. SPEAKER:The right hon. Gentleman is trying to get behind the decision of the House, which was clearly expressed a little while ago.
    Mr. BILLING:Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister in Charge of the Bill to proceed with the explanation which he was about to offer when a limited section of the House called out "Agreed"? Many hon. Members would like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman was about to say.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:Surely, Sir, in discussing this Amendment on Clause 1, we are entitled to ask the Minister how it is affected by the time limitation in the Bill? We are further entitled to ask for an explanation of the Clause dealing with the matter?
    Mr. SPEAKER:The Clause has nothing to do with this Amendment. The House has already decided that we shall go on with the Bill to-night. Therefore, I must ask the House to proceed. When the Minister rose to explain what was the particular Amendment he was received with cries of "Agreed" from all parts of the House. The Minister then sat down. If the House wish to have any explanation they can have it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:Very respectfully, Sir, the House has decided to go on with the Lords' Amendments, but we do not know how long it intends to sit. Surely it is a very material question as to whether or not we are going to discuss them till noon to-day?
    Mr. SPEAKER:We could have made some progress, at all events, in the time that has been taken up in discussing a point already decided. Therefore, I really must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to renew the controversy that was decided twenty minutes ago by a substantial majority of the House.
    Dr. ADDISON:This particular Amendment is necessary in order that the agreements made between the railway companies and their employés may be given effect to, and modified from time to time. Otherwise they would run counter to some of the other provisions of the Bill which are stereotyped and general. It is necessary to make this exception.
    Major BARNES:This Clause singles out one section of the community and places an additional burden upon those people in the form of an increase of rent which will not apply to the remainder of the community. This Amendment is intended to be inserted at the end of Section 2 which provides for certain increases to be allowed, first on account of the rates—an increase of 15 per cent.—secondly in the rent itself, and thirdly 25 per cent. on account of repairs. In the case of railwaymen a further increase is to be made. We are told that this is in order to give effect to a certain agreement. We have been given to under-

    831
    stand that in this particular railway agreement—as to which we certainly ought to have fuller information—there are conditions which provide for an addition to the rent of the houses occupied by railway employees. As far as this House knows, and as far as the general public understand, this agreement did not take into account additions on account of the rent, and therefore it comes as a surprise to us on this side of the House, at any rate, that there is this provision allowing additional rent to be charged to employees on account of advances in wages. Still, if we are assured that there is a provision of that sort in the agreement and it is necessary to give effect to it, that fact may well affect our decision to-day.
    Mr. BILLING:Is it not generally accepted that the reason for the increase of wages is the ever-increasing cost of living both as regards food and rent. I do not agree that wage increases are generally anticipatory; that labour when it sees a likelihood of an increase on food or rent anticipate it by demanding more wages. Increases generally follow from some form of direct action and in this way the vicious circle proceeds. It seems an extraordinary thing to me in this House presumably a democratic assembly as distinct from the autocratic body from which comes the Amendment now under consideration should have left it to that autocratic assembly to discover such a weakness as this in a legislative measure we have passed. It is very rarely that I find myself in agreement with the Government and still more that I find I can support anything done in another place. If the question of rent, or that of wages, is to be put on an economic basis if wages are increased then under this agreement a certain proportion of that increase is to be given in return for the habitation of railway property by the men. That seems to be quite reasonable. In this case I think the other place is not only right in making this Amendment but the Government are right in pressing it. I am very glad to have heard what has been said by the Minister, because they enable us to enter the Lobby on this occasion with a clear idea of what we are doing.
    Mr. HARTSHORN:The Clause in the agreement on which this Amendment is
    832
    based has evidently been under discussion in another place and it would be a convenience for this House to know the actual provisions involved.
    Dr. ADDISON:I cannot read to the House the Clause in the agreement to which this refers, because I have not a copy of it by me. But the wages agreement, in the case of the railway employés who live in houses owned by the railway companies, provides that a certain amount is to be assessed in respect of the value of the tenement they occupy and it is in order to make that operative that this Amendment is necessary and should be inserted.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM:I am exceedingly 10th to take up the time of the House, but I confess that this Clause leaves us in a position of considerable difficulty. I would venture to reinforce what has been said already by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Major Barnes) as to the series of increases authorised under this Bill, amounting in the agregate to 40 per cent. on the present rental. As I understand it, this Amendment will authorise a still further increase. Is that increase to be over and above the increases put into the Bill. I think we should be told what is the exact position.
    Dr ADDISON:If the hon Member will read the Amendment he will see the words are "such additional sum, if any, as is required in order to give effect to the agreement. If no additional sum be required, then there will be no increase.
    Mr. RAFFAN:But will it result in an increase on the rents stated in the Bill?
    Dr. ADDISON:Not unless the agreed amount which was not covered by the particular section mentioned in the Clause be part of the agreement. If it be part of the agreement it will apply, and only then.
    Mr. LUNN:There is, I know, a good deal of repetition on most points in this House. I well remember the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. During that it was said over and over again that no wage agreement had been come to in recent times which took into consideration anything with regard to rent. If the Board of Trade figures are taken with regard to the increased cost of living, there is nothing mentioned with regard to rent. Therefore, we ought to

    833
    have some further explanation of this agreement. I believe there is no other industry in the kingdom that has had any consideration given to rent in any application for an advance in wages. I wish to invite the right hon. Gentleman to give the House a full explanation of why this particular industry is singled out for special treatment without such an explanation, I think the House would be justified in rejecting this Amendment.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT:This is one of the worst examples of legislation by reference that I have ever seen. It is reference, not to a Statute, which we can look up in the Library, but to some document which the House has not before it, and which the Minister has not before him. Before we are asked to pass a Clause like this—as to the meaning of which, I venture to think, very few hon. Members have any idea—I think the Minister ought to have supplied himself with the document in question, so that he might be in a position to read it to the House. My objection, however, might be met if the right hon. gentleman could give me an assurance on one point. The onus here is against the railwaymen. It is provided that there is to be a special increase in their rents. If the right hon. Gentleman can assure me that the increase is assented to officially by the railwaymen's Union, it would help me in this matter. I should also like to ask whether this Amendment was put forward in the Lords by the Government, or whether it was put forward privately.
    Dr. ADDISON:It was put forward by the Government. As regards the agreement, both the railwaymen and the companies were parties to it. It was an agreement between them, and I can assure my hon. friend that no increase of rent could be applied under this to any railwaymen unless the railwaymen themselves had agreed to it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:Can we not have an explanation from the only man in this House who does understand this Amendment—that is to say, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, whom I am glad to see in his place? I think he ought to read the agreement and give us a concrete case, showing what would be the effect of this Amendment on the rent, say, of an ordinary signalman. We could then come to a conclusion at once. As it is,
    834
    we do not know in the least what the provenance of this Clause is. We are told that it is the Government, but the Government contains a number of estimable Gentlemen, and I want to know which of them it is. Does it come from the Ministry of Transport? If it is a well-thought-out policy of the Government, and if the hon. Gentleman will give us a concrete instance, showing that it does not make the case worse for the ordinary railwayman than it is at the present time, we naturally will accept it. But when an Amendment, passed in another place appears on the face of it to enable the rent of a railwayman's cottage to be raised, where the rent of another mans cottage is not raised, it is asking a little too much to expect us to vote on it at twelve o'clock at night.
    Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS:I have tried to follow this Amendment with what patience is possible to one who cannot have the opportunity of reading it, and I am still very vague as to who, exactly, is going to pay, whether all railwaymen can, under this Amendment, have an increase of rent placed upon them, and what is their exact position under this Bill. Again, sup-posing that the cost of living should go down considerably—in which case, I gather, the wages of the railwaymen, who have a sliding scale, would go down also—would the percentage by which. their rent had been increased go down correspondingly? These are perfectly relevant points, and, as I gather that the Minister thinks out all these things with great consideration, I am sure he will be able to answer them, particularly as he has the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport to assist him. It does seem, to those who take an interest in these matters, to need some clearing up.
    Mr. JOHNSTONE:I think this is a little simpler than it appears to be. If hon. Members will read Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 in connection with this Amendment, perhaps it will make matters clear to them. Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 says:
    "The amount by which the increased rent of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies may exceed the standard rent shall; subject to the provisions of this Act, be as follows, that is to say:— …"

    835
    and then the Amendment proceeds:
    "In the case of dwelling-houses let by a railway company to persons in the employment of the company, such additional amount, if any, as is required in order to give effect to the agreement. …"
    My impression is that an agreement has been entered into between the railway companies and their employés which is binding on both parties, and that the rent will be increased beyond the standard rent in accordance with that agreement, if any increase is required. In order to determine this question it is not really essential that we should know what the terms of the agreement are, though I should have preferred to see it or hear it read. The agreement is an agreed article between the two parties affected, and any increase of rent can only take effect if it is in accordance with that agreement. That is my impression of the Amendment, and I should be glad to know from the Minister if that is the right interpretation. If it is, it seems to me that the matter is perfectly clear, and that the interests of the railway employés are not in the slightest degree penalised by this Amendment, but are really protected to a certain extent, because they are only called upon to pay an increase of rent if that is required by the agreement.
    Mr. SPENCER:I should like to ask whether the officials of the Railwaymen's Union have been consulted with regard to this Amendment, and whether they themselves are agreed as to the effect it would have upon any agreement which has been entered into between the railwaymen and the company. I do not feel that it is quite so simple as my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew (Mr. Johnstone) has suggested. He omitted to read a good deal of important and relevant matter in the Clause, namely, paragraphs (a), b) and (c). Those paragraphs provide that a certain amount may be added for structural repairs and alterations, and in respect of rates, as well as 15 per cent. in respect of rent.
    Mr. SPEAKER:I would point out to the hon. Member that those paragraphs do not apply, because this is an alternative. If the hon. Member will look at the Amendment, he will see that it is a separate alternative paragraphs (e), and that, therefore, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) do not apply.
    Mr. SPENCER:I am coming to the one thing which is giving us a great deal of difficulty and perturbing our minds considerably. That is the expression "additional amount." That expression leads us to believe that it is an amount over and above the three or four amounts which I have already mentioned.
    Mr. SPEAKER:If the hon. Member will look at the first two lines of Clause 2, I think it will be quite clear to him that the additional amount is the difference between the increased rent and the standard rent.
    Captain W. BENN:On that point I suggest that it is extremely desirable that we should know from the representative of the Ministry of Transport whether, in fact, the agreement has provided for these increases in respect of repairs and rates which are mentioned in the earlier paragraphs. Of course, I accept your reading of the Clause, but I am not sure that it is quite clear in the Bill. I think it would be desirable that we should have from the representative of the Ministry of Transport information as to whether this amount due to increased rates and repairs is taken into account.
    Mr. SPENCER:We should also like to hear whether the interpretation which, Sir, you have put upon it coincides with the interpretation which the Minister would put upon it?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:On a point of order. Paragraph (d) begins: "In further addition to any such amounts as aforesaid." Obviously (a), (b), and (c) are not alternative but cumulative, and (e), when added to the Bill, will be not alternative but cumulative.
    Mr. SPEAKER:I think that is where the hon. Member is mistaken, Paragraph (e) stands by itself. If you want to read (e), you can read it without reading (d). None of the others necessarily forms part of (e). That is a separate heading altogether.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT:On the point of Order—
    Mr. SPEAKER:It is not a point of Order.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT:If it is not a point of Order, Sir, I venture to have a different opinion. I read the Bill as it

    837
    stands differently from what you do. The Minister is really responsible and I would like to have an assurance from him that this may not conceivably impose an additional charge to the ones in the other Sub-sections. I submit that (b) forms an additional increase to that of (a) and this further Sub-section may also in certain circumstances be an additional increase in the rent.
    Dr. ADDISON:I desire no discrimination between railway company employés and any other tenants of houses covered by the Bill. Houses owned by railway companies and occupied by railwaymen are assessed at so much. The amount varies in different districts and it may well be that there are cases which are not covered in accordance with the terms of the agreement by the hard and fast limitation which the Bill otherwise imposes. It is in order to have the agreements strictly carried out that this is necessary. I can assure my hon. Friend that a railwayman is in no worse position than anybody else. Tins is purely and simply in order to make the agreement operative. My hon. Friend opposite misses out the essential words "if any." No increases can be imposed on railwaymen unless such increases are provided for in the agreement.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT:The right hon. Gentleman has not really answered the question. This Sub-section proposes an increase. Supposing there be an increase, is that to be in addition to the increase in the previous Sub-section? That is the point. Does the Minister know the meaning of his own Bill? Will he please answer the question: If any increase fall due under this Sub-section, will it be an increase in addition to the increases in the other Sub-sections?
    Mr. SWAN:The more explanations we get, the less understandable this becomes. We have not yet got an explanation from the Minister of Transport as to what really is the agreement. But there is another department involved and that is the Board of Trade, who ought to be here to explain how much this will increase the cost of living to the railway men, and to what extent the community is involved by the railwaymen having increased wages. If this policy is to be pursued it looks like feeding a hungry dog with its own tail. I beg to move that
    838
    the words "additional amount" be left out of this Clause.
    Mr. HAYDAY:Does this really mean that under certain Clauses of the Bill railways are permitted to increase rents by a certain percentage? Does it mean that the wages of the tenant of a Railway Company would be increased by the amount by which his rent would be raised? That is how it appears to me.
    Mr. NEAL:I am always ready to give any explanation within my power, and I only hesitated to attempt to supplement anything which I think has been made clear by the Minister of Health. Lest my silence should be interpreted as discourtesy to hon. Members who appealed to me, may I say one or two words in further explanation. In the month of March last there were communications between the National Union of Railwaymen and other organisations representing railway servants and the railway companies as to the increased wages which were being sought by the railwaymen. One of the difficulties which arose, as I understand it, was that some of those men had, as part of their remuneration, houses or station accommodation found for them, while others had not. That was a factor which caused unequal treatment in the same classes of workmen on the lines. In order to get rid of that, all railwaymen were to be put upon exactly the same financial position. But that involved that those who had been occupying houses at less than the proper economic value should now pay an economic rent. In other words, there was an increase of rent, the nominal rent becoming a real rent. They got their quid pro quo by the increased remuneration given. That is the agreement which the National Union of Railwaymen and other organisations representing the railwaymen agreed to. It is an agreement which, without the sanction of this amendment, might be said to be outside the scope of the Bill.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:On a point of Order. An Amendment has been movedߞ
    Mr. SPEAKER:No Amendment is possible.
    The House divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 36.

    Division No. 172.]

    AYES.

    [12.40 a.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Fildes, Henry

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Neal, Arthur

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Forrest, Waiter

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

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Freece, Sir Walter de

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Purchase, H. G.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel John

    Raper, A. Baldwin

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

    Gould, James C.

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Billing, Noel Pemberton-

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Blair, Reginald

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Bruton, Sir James

    Haslam, Lewis

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Hood, Joseph

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Casey, T. W.

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Stevens, Marshall

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Sugden, W. H.

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton

    Cope, Major Wm.

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Whitla, Sir William

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

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

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

    Dawes, Commander

    Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Edge, Captain William

    Lorden, John William

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Lort-Williams, J.

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

    Elliot, Capt.

    Waiter E. (Lanark)

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Parker.

    NOES.

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Briant, Frank

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Bromfield, William

    Hogge, James Myles

    Spencer, George A.

    Cape, Thomas

    Lawson, John J.

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Lunn, William

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Griffiths, T.

    (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Robertson, John

    Grundy, T. W.

    Royce, William Stapleton

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Sexton, James

    Major Barnes and Mr. Swan.

    Hanna, George Boyle

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "due or not wholly" ["house is not due or wholly due "], and insert instead thereof the words "wholly or partly."
    Read a Second time.
    Dr. ADDISON:I beg to move "That this House doth agree with so much of the Lords Amendment as proposes to leave out the words "due or not wholly."
    As the Amendment is now printed, it would mean that where a case is brought to Court in which there has been some damage to a house on the part of a tenant, the whole of the increase of the
    840
    rent might be sanctioned, although a considerable part of the lack of repairs might be due to the landlord not having discharged his full responsibility. The landlord would therefore be exempted from the penalty of his neglect which would follow from the increase being suspended. So it is in the interest of the tenant that these words should not be inserted. Therefore, in order that the case may be decided on its merits before the Court, and to relieve the tenant of what may be a quite unfair burden, I move that we agree with the Amendment to omit "due or not wholly," and disagree with the Amendment to insert the words "wholly or partly."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:As I read this Amendment, it is wholly against the tenant. You have a Sub-section which reads:
    "At any time or times not being less than three months after the date of any increase permitted by paragraph (d) of the foregoing sub-section the tenant or the sanitary authority may apply to the county court for an order suspending such increase, and also any increase under paragraph (c) of that sub-section on the ground that the house is not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation or is otherwise not in a reasonable state of repair.
    The court on being satisfied by the production of a certificate of the sanitary authority or otherwise that any such ground as aforesaid is established and on being further satisfied that the condition of the house is not due or not wholly due to the tenant's neglect."
    This is how the Clause stood before it went to the House of Lords. That is to say, the landlord had to show that the disreputable state of the house was not due, or not wholly due, to the tenant. The alteration made in the House of Lords substitutes for those words that the condition of the house is not wholly or partly due to the tenant's neglect. In putting that Amendment in, I ask the House to observe that "wholly or partly" are alternative and, as it is easier to prove always the part than the whole, we may as well miss out the words "wholly or "entirely and leave the Clause that the condition of the house is not partly due to the tenant's neglect. That is exactly what the Amendment of the Lords means. It is almost impossible for any tenant to prove that some part of the condition of the house is not due to his neglect. A window-pane may have been broken. He may have leant against one of the partition walls. A child may have broken the handle of the door.
    Sir W. DAVISON:He may have fallen off his bicycle.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:Really if you are going to leave the words as the other House has done, that the landlord can clear himself from any penalty under this Sub-section by saying that the condition of the house is wholly or partly due to the tenant's fault, you might as well cancel the whole of Sub-section (2) at once, because it is absolutely useless to the tenant as a protection against insanitary houses. I know the right hon. Gentleman is very anxious to get the houses of this country into a sanitary state. This
    842
    Clause was put in originally in order to secure through the operation of this Bill some little improvement in the sanitation of the houses and people. It was an admirable idea to prevent the landlord getting an increase of rent if the house was in a state of neglect. It was a very useful lever to protect the tenant.
    Dr. ADDISON:That is the whole point. I argued that we should disagree with the second part of the Lords Amendment for the very reason which the hon. Member has just been advancing.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:I am very sorry I could not understand the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand it now he is willing to leave out the words "due or not" and leave the word "wholly" in.
    Dr. ADDISON:I propose we should leave out the words "due or not" and not have the words "wholly or partly" inserted for the reason the hon. and gallant Gentleman has explained to the House.
    Colonel WEDGEWOOD:In that case the Clause will read,
    "the condition of the house is not due to the tenant's neglect."
    That, I think, is absolutely satisfactory.
    Mr. HAYDAY:I take exactly the opposite view. I was going to appeal to the Minister to reject the Lords Amendment and adhere to the wording of the Clause as it stands in the Bill, because it is just as easy by a stretch of imagination to say, "Well, this part of the house, this neglect is due to the tenant." Yes, but with the words in as they stand now, "not due or wholly due" the Clause certainly strengthens the tenant's position and gives a much wider scope for the authorities who may have to determine the matter to discriminate perhaps rather more in the direction of protecting the tenant, as is really intended by the Bill. This being so, I really would urge that there is no point in rejecting this part of the Lords Amendment and I do not think they would feel very much aggrieved if we were to reject the whole and leave the Clause as it is. It would be very much appreciated, although it may not appear very much in the House at the moment, but it means very much to the tenants if the words as they are at present in the Bill are allowed to stand.
    Dr. ADDISON:As far as I am concerned the course which I have advised the House to take is solely directed in the interests of the tenant, and I am advised that the words "due or not wholly" would give rise to legal controversy. I propose that it would be necessary to show that the damage was due to the tenant's neglect, and therefore the whole onus of proof would be on the landlord as against the tenant. If you add the words "due or not wholly," it would give rise to considerable litigation. I move this in the interests of the tenant.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with so much of the Lords Amendment as proposes to leave out the words 'due or not wholly'" put, and agreed to.
    So much of the Lords Amendment as proposed to insert the words "wholly or partly," disagreed with.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (3), leave out the word "more" ["on the whole more favourable"] and insert instead thereof the words "not less."
    Dr. ADDISON:I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is not a great alteration. It corrects a mistake, and secures this provision to the tenant.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    At the end of Sub-section (4), insert the words "For the purposes of this section the expression 'repairs' means any repairs required for the purpose of keeping premises in good and tenantable repair, and any premises in such a state shall be deemed to be in a reasonable state of repair, and the landlord shall be deemed to be responsible for any repairs for which the tenant is under no express liability."
    Agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    Leave out Sub-section (5).
    Dr. ADDISON:I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is only transferring to a more suitable part of the Bill this portion, which is a definition of the expression "rates." It occurs again later on—on page 12 of the Bill.
    1.0 A.M.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:Does it alter the fact that the landlord should be deemed to pay the rates up to the next rate demanded?
    Dr. ADDISON:It does not alter it in any way at all.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (6), leave out the words "as to the amount of any increase of rent permissible"; after the word "under" ["under this section"] insert the words "Sub-section (1), (2), or (3) of"—
    Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Restriction on right to possession.)
    (1)No order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, shall be made or given unless—
    (b)the tenant or any person residing with him has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers, or has been convicted of using the premises for an immoral or illegal purpose, or the condition of the dwelling-house has in the opinion of the court deteriorated owing to acts of waste by or the neglect or default of the tenant or any such person; or
    The existence of alternative accommodation shall not be a condition of an order or judgment on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (d) of this sub-section—
    (ii)where the court is satisfied by a certificate of the county agricultural committee, or by the Ministry of Agriculture, that the dwelling-house is required by the landlord for the occupation of a person engaged on work necessary for the proper working of an agricultural holding; or
    (5)An order or judgment against a tenant for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house or ejectment therefrom under this section shall not affect the right of any subtenant to whom the premises or any part thereof have been lawfully sublet, before proceedings for recovery of possession were commenced, to retain possession under this section or be in any way operative against any such sub-tenant:
    Provided that any sub-tenant so retaining possession shall upon the making of such order, or the giving of such judgment against the tenant, be deemed to become the tenant of the landlord on the same terms as he would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had continued.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (1, b), after the word "premises" ["using the premises for"] insert the words "or allowing the premises to be used."
    Agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (1, ii), leave out the words "by the Ministry of Agriculture," and insert instead thereof the words "of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries pending the formation of such Committee."
    Dr. ADDISON:I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    It is made necessary by the fact that in some districts Agricultural Committees have not yet been formed.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (5), after the word "possession" ["recovery of possession"] insert the words "or ejectment."
    Agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (5), after the word "sub-tenant" [any such sub-tenant"], insert a new Sub-section:—
    "(6)Where a landlord has obtained an order or judgment for possession or ejectment under this section on the ground that he requires a dwelling-house for his own occupation and it is subsequently made to appear to the court that the order was obtained by misrepresentation or the concealment of material facts, the court may order the landlord to pay to the former tenant such sum as appears sufficient as compensation for damage or loss sustained by that tenant as the result of the order or judgment."
    Dr. ADDISON:I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    It takes the place of what was previously Sub-section (3) of Clause 17 of the Bill. It will be remembered by the House that it was agreed that where there had been concealment of facts under which an ejectment order or other order had been obtained it would be impossible to have the matter dealt with subsequently. It was pointed out by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice that this would mean an alteration of our usual procedure in the courts,
    846
    and that it would be necessary to put in the Amendment which we now have before us. This makes it clear that where there has been a misrepresentation or a concealment of material facts the court may order the landlord to pay to the former tenant such sums as appear sufficient as compensation for damage or loss sustained by the tenant as the result of the order which was mistakenly obtained, and it means that the party which has been damaged by the order will receive due compensation, whereas before he would have received none or would have been ejected. It is a matter of great importance, and carries out the intentions of the House.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (5), leave out the words
    "Provided that any sub-tenant so retaining possession shall upon the making of such order, or the giving of such judgment against the tenant, be deemed to become the tenant of the landlord on the same terms as he would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had continued."
    Dr. ADDISON:I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is only transferred to a late place in the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Restriction, on calling in of mortgages.)
    It shall not be lawful for any mortgagee under a mortgage to which this Act applies, so long as—
    Provided that—
    (ii) if, in the case of a mortgage of a leasehold interest the mortgagee satisfies the county court that his security is seriously diminishing in value or is otherwise in jeopardy, and that for that reason it is reasonable that the mortgage should be called in and enforced, the court may by order authorise him to call in and enforce the same, and thereupon this section shall not apply to such mortgage; but any such order may be made subject to a condition that it shall not take effect if the mortgagor within such time as the court directs pays to the mortgagee such sum as appears to the court to correspond to the diminution of the security.
    Lords Amendment:
    In paragraph (ii), leave out the word "sum" ["such sum as appears to the

    847
    Court"] and insert instead thereof the words "portion of the principal sum secured."
    Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Application and. Interpretation.)
    (1)For the purposes of this Act; except where the context otherwise requires:—
    (c)The expression "net rent" means, where the landlord at the time by reference to which the standard rent is calculated paid the rates chargeable on, or which but for the pro-visions of any Act would be chargeable on the occupier, the standard rent less the amount of such rates, and in any other case the standard rent;
    (f) The expression "landlord" also includes in relation to any dwelling-house any person, other than the tenant, who is or would but for this Act be entitled to possession of the dwelling-house, and the expressions "tenant and tenancy' include subtenant and sub-tenancy, and the expression "let" includes sub-let; and the expression "tenant" includes the widow of a tenant dying intestate who was living with him at the time of his death, or where a tenant intestate dies leaving no widow any member of his family so residing with him, any question as to which member of his family, in the case of more than one so residing, is to be the tenant to be decided in default of agreement by the county court;
    (g)The expression "mortgage" includes a land charge under the Land Transfer Acts, 1875 and 1897.
    (2) This Act shall apply to a house or a part of a house let as a separate dwelling, where either the annual amount of the standard rent or the rateable value does not exceed—
    Provided that—
    (iii) for the purposes of this Act any land or premises let together with a house shall, if the rateable value of the land or premises let separately would be less than one quarter of the rateable value of the house, be treated as part of the house, but subject to this provision this Act shall not apply to a house let together with land other than the site of the house.
    (4) Subject to the provisions of this Act, this Act shall apply to every mortgage where the mortgaged property consists of or comprises one or more dwelling-houses to which this Act applies, or any interest therein, except that it shall not apply—
    848
    (b) to an equitable charge by deposit of title deeds or otherwise.
    (5) When a mortgage comprises one or more dwelling-houses to which this Act applies and other land, and the rateable value of such dwelling-houses is more than one-tenth of the whole of the land comprised in the mortgage, the mortgagee may apportion the principal money secured by the mortgage between such dwelling-houses and such other land by giving one calendar month's notice in writing to the mortgagor, such notice to state the particulars of such apportionment, and at the expiration of the said calendar month's notice this Act shall not apply to such part of the said principal money as is apportioned to such other land, and for all purposes, including the mortgagor's right of redemption, the said mortgage shall operate as if it were a separate mortgage for the respective portions of the said principal money secured by the said dwelling-houses and such other land, respectively, to which such portions were apportioned:
    Provided that the mortgagor shall before the expiration of the said calendar month's notice be entitled to dispute the amounts so apportioned as aforesaid, and in default of agreement the matter shall be determined by a single arbitrator appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institute.
    (9) This Act shall not apply to a dwelling-house erected after or in course of erection on the second day of April nineteen hundred and nineteen, or to any dwelling-house which has been since that date or was at that date being bonâ fide reconstructed by way of conversion into two or more separate and self-contained flats or tenements; but for the purpose of any enactment relating to rating. the gross estimated rental or gross value of any such house to which this Act would have applied if it had been erected before the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, and let at that date, shall not exceed—
    Lords Amendment:
    At end of Sub-section (1, c), insert a new paragraph—
    "(d) The expression 'rates' includes water rents and charges, and any increase in rates payable by a landlord shall be deemed to be payable by him until the rate is next demanded."
    Agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (1, f), leave out the words "living with him at the time of his death, or where a tenant intestate dies leaving no widow any member of his family so residing with him, any question as to which member of his family, in the case of more than one so residing is to," and insert instead thereof the

    849
    words "residing with him at the time of his death, or where a tenant dying intestate leaves no widow or is a Woman, such member of the tenant's family so residing as aforesaid as may."
    Dr. ADDISON:I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    It was undertaken by me on the Report stage that in defining a tenant I would include the case where the tenant was a widow. The definition did not originally apply to a widow as being a tenant, and this carries the definition on so as to include such a tenant.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    At end of Sub-section (1, g), insert a new paragraph—
    "(h) The expressions 'statutory undertaking' and 'statutory duties or powers' include any undertaking, duties or powers, established, imposed or exercised under any order having the force of an Act of Parliament."
    Agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (2 (iii)), leave out the word "quarter" ["one quarter of the rateable value"], and insert instead thereof the word "eighth"
    Read a Second time.
    Dr. ADDISON:I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is the case where, for the purposes of the Act, any land or premises let together with a house shall, if the rateable value of the land or premises let separately would be less than one quarter of the rateable value of the house, be treated as part of the house. It is proposed by the Amendment that one-eighth shall be inserted instead of one quarter.
    Major BARNES:I think this Amendment requires a little more careful consideration before we pass it. As I understand it, the effect of this particular section is to remove from the operation of this Act certain properties and among them those where there is property other than the site of the house. When the Bill left the House it left it in this condition, that if you had a property in the country with a house rated at £20 and there was land attached to the house rated at £5 then that property would come within the
    850
    operation of the Act; but if it was rated at £6 it would be outside the Act. I under-stand the effect of the Amendment is that if there is in the case of a country property, land attached to a house of that kind of a rateable value of £20, if the rateable value of the land exceed £2 10s. Od. it will be taken outside the scope of this Act. That seems rather more serious in its effect than the right hon. Gentleman appears to think.
    Dr. ADDISON:The house will not be taken out of it but only the land. only the land in excess of one-eighth.
    Major BARNES:The last part of Sub section (3) says that, subject to this provision, this Act shall not apply to a house let together with land other than the site of the house. That, I understand, is really the operative part of that Subsection, that if the land which is attached to the house is more than a quarter of the rateable value then it comes within the scope of the Bill. It has been reduced by one half. The effect is to take out of the scope of the operation of this Act a number of houses which have a small piece of land attached. That is a serious matter. It is just as difficult to get houses in the country even if a little land is attached to them as it is in the town.
    Dr. ADDISON:I do not purpose to differ from their Lordships' Amendment. It is not one of great importance.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:It is because it is of importance to the landlord interest that this Amendment should be carried, that it was introduced into the Bill. The real point is this—
    Dr. ADDISON:I am perfectly content to meet the wish of the House.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Lords Amendments:
    At end of Sub-section (4, b) insert the words "or
    (c) to any mortgage which is created after the passing of this Act."
    In Sub-section (5), after the word "the" ["one-tenth of the whole"], insert the words "rateable value of the". Leave out the words "such part of the said principal money as is apportioned" and insert instead thereof the words "the mortgage so far as it relates". Leave out the word "Institute"

    851
    ["Surveyors' Institute"], and insert instead thereof the word "Institution."
    In Sub-section (9), after the word "erected" ["been erected before"], insert the words "or so reconstructed."
    Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Application to business premises.)
    This Act shall apply to any premises used for business trade or professional purposes as it applies to a dwelling-house, and as though references to "dwelling-house" and "dwelling" included references to any such premises, but this Act in its application to such premises shall have effect subject to the following modifications:—

    (a) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of section five:

    "(d)the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for business trade or professional purposes, and (except as otherwise provided by this sub-section) the court is satisfied that alternative accommodation, reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects, is available";

    (b) Paragraph (i) of the same sub-section shall not apply.

    (c) Sections nine and ten shall not apply.

    Lords Amendments:
    After the word "purposes" ["professional purposes as"] insert the words "or for the public service":
    After the word "dwelling-house" ["references to 'dwelling-house'"], insert the word "house."
    Agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    After the word "modifications" insert a new paragraph.
    "(a) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of section (2):—
    (c) In addition to any such amounts as aforesaid, an amount not exceeding thirty-five per centum of the net rent."
    Read a Second time.
    Dr. ADDISON:I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is the Amendment to which I referred in my opening remarks relating to business premises. There is a provision in the Clause that 25 per cent. increase of rent might be charged in respect of repairs, or, in respect of other matters
    852
    —mortgage interest, and so forth-15 per cent. In place of the 15 per cent. it is proposed that 35 per cent. should be substituted, making the total 60 per cent. in all. The effect of their lordships' Amendment in regard to business premises would therefore be that they should be subject to an increase of 60 per cent. in the first year, instead of an increase riot exceeding 40 per cent., which applies in the cases of houses brought under the Act for the first time. This provision was debated at considerable length, and, although the Government moved against it, it was carried by a large majority. For the reasons which I have mentioned —I would remind the House that the Clause was pressed on the Government— I need scarcely say that a controversy between the two Houses would delay the Bill. If the Bill be not passed to-morrow there is nothing otherwise to prevent eviction, although there is something to prevent increase of rent. It is the hardship arising from eviction that I am anxious to avoid. Although we regret that their Lordships took this course, I hope that hon. Members will not disagree with this Amendment.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM:I sincerely hope that hon. Members will press their objections to this change. We had considerable controversy upstairs on the proposed inclusion of business premises. After a great deal of effort we succeeded in getting minor protection for a comparatively limited class, but a very important class, the tenants of business premises in this country. I am entitled to say that the occupiers of business premises for which we got protection are a class which find it very hard, from many points of view, to make a living, because they consisted, in the main, of the smaller shopkeepers of the country. Under the Bill as it stood they would be entitled to protection, but now it is suggested that, in granting any increase afforded to him, it is suggested that 60 per cent., rather than 40 per cent., should be added in the case of their rental. Beyond all question the leading part of the Bill was the case based on the repairs. In the case of the overwhelming majority of shops very little in the way of repairs has been undertaken by proprietors, and what repairs have been effected have been executed by the tenants. I think that is unjust and imposes a financial burden upon them. On these grounds, and because

    853
    the present protection is already limited, I hope the House will divide in opposition to the Amendment which has been proposed in another place.
    Lieut.-Colonel HURST:I should like to support the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in protesting against this Amendment. This matter was thoroughly thrashed out, not only in Committee but also on the floor of this House. The House deliberately came to the conclusion that there should be no differentiation whatever between the case of business premises brought in under this Bill and the dwelling house. They came to the conclusion that 40 per cent. was the proper maximum addition to the standing rental of business premises, and no reason has been given to make this differentiation and to increase the permitted addition of rent from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. I read the Debate which took place in another place in, connection with this question, and the only argument adduced in support of increasing the rent of business premises was that the tenant could pass on this increase of rental to the consumer. In a very large number of cases he is quite unable to pass on the burden of the increased rent. Take the case of the small professional man—the barrister, the solicitor, the doctor—he has no opportunity of passing on this increased burden to the consumer. Even if he had, the community would be no better off. Take the case of the shopkeeper. His rent is increased 60 per cent. He is told he can pass it on to the consumer, but the country will suffer from any passing on of this particular burden. I am afraid that their Lordships are very remote from the actualities of social and economic life in our great cities to-day. There is no doubt that those sections of the middle classes most affected by the inclusion of business premises are men who at the present time cannot be regarded as prosperous. They have not shared in the rise in remuneration which has fallen to the lot of many other sections of the community. I know many cases where these small business men, including professional men and many ex-service men, are unable to meet the increased burden of life at the present time. These men by nature are the pillars of Society, and they are being driven into rebellion against the existing social order because of the hard economic
    854
    facts they have to face. If this Amendment is persisted in it means increasing the burden of life on men who expect it and deserve relief.
    Major HENDERSON:I know full well that the hon. Member opposite knows that feeling on this question in Scotland is very acute, and I see no reason why shops in Scotland or in England should be treated on a different basis to ordinary house property. One should not forget that shops put under this Bill are, comparatively speaking, only small shops. The very large shops in Regent Street, in London, in Princes Street, in Edinburgh, or in Sauchiehall Street, in Glasgow, do not come under the Bill These are the class of shops which have a large margin of profit. The shops brought under this Bill have not a large margin of profit, and they cannot be expected to meet a large increase of rent. I feel that we ought to register our protest against this Amendment by refusing to accept it. I realise that if another place to-morrow takes no notice of our protest we may have to look upon it from a different point of view; but as we have already objected to certain other Amendments, I see no reason why, when we get an Amendment of this kind, which is really the most important of any on the Paper, we should not register our protest and maintain the position which we formerly took up.
    Captain BAGLEY:It seems to me that this Amendment is introducing a differentiation between two sets of business premises. So far as I can gather, this Amendment deals only with business premises which are not part of a dwelling house. Where business premises are part of a dwelling house the rent can only be increased by 40 per cent., but business premises which happen to be lock-up shops can be increased by 75 per cent. The strongest argument in favour of the Amendment is that the tenant can pass on this extra charge to the consumer. If we are to accept that as the excuse for increasing rents over and above the 40 per cent. laid down in the Bill, it seems to me remarkable that members in another place overlooked the fact that railwaymen are on a sliding scale under which they are able to pass on increases in their rents to the consumers, because as soon as rents go up and increase the cost of living they will be able to get an

    855
    increase of their wages. Therefore, if we admit that the fact that a tenant can pass on an increase to the consumer is a reason for departing from the general lines of this Bill, we shall be in a hopeless muddle. I do not admit that the tenant can pass this on. You may have a number of small businesses, parts of dwelling houses where the rents are increased 40 per cent. On the other hand, you may have a number not parts of dwelling houses, which may have their rents increased 75 per cent. Do you suppose that if there are two shops in one street one can increase its charges? That is not a reasonable argument. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will be rejected. The difficulty I am in, however, is this. I realise that the shopkeepers do not object to a reasonable increase of rent. They want security of tenure, and the Minister has told us that if this Bill is not passed to-day evictions may take place. I know many cases in my own constituency where people are under notice to leave. Therefore, if I vote for the rejection of this Amendment I shall be voting for the delay of this Bill, with the possible result that some of those tenants may be ejected.
    Mr. LORDEN:I cannot understand the hon. Member who has just sat down suggesting that the rent of business premises can be increased by 75 per cent. At the most it can only be 60 per cent.
    Captain BAGLEY:I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I made a mistake.
    Mr. LORDEN:This Clause was put in Committee by a majority of two, and the Government at the time resisted the Amendment, but I am inclined to think it would be a dangerous thing to imperil the whole Bill for the sake of an Amendment upon which we were so evenly divided. The Lords have not cut it out; they have simply added an additional rent. As far as my experience goes the main question is not one of rent when dealing with business premises but it is more a question of eviction and loss of business. I think it will be a case of God save you from your friends if we are to disagree with this Amendment because the result will be that probably you will get it thrown back upon you again and some of the evictions will take place.
    Mr. A. SHORT:I wish to offer objection to the way we have been treated in connection with this matter. The right hon. Gentleman in speaking to this Amendment offered no argument whatsoever in favour of the action of the Lords. Rather he was against the proposal that has come from the other House and the only ground upon which he recommends the House to accept the Amendment is that if the Bill is not passed to-day evictions will take place. It is not the fault of members on this side of the House that such a thing should occur. The fault lies entirely with the Government. Why did they not bring in this Bill a considerable time ago? Why did they not make provision to cope with this difficulty? It is no use hon. Members getting up and saying if this Bill does not pass evictions will take place. That is a responsibility which must fall on the shoulders of the Government. And does any hon. Member assume that public opinion would tolerate anything in the nature of wholesale evictions if this Bill is not passed to-day? If there is anything in the nature of wholesale evictions there will be something like a counter revolution. The Government knows very well that that sort of thing is not likely to obtain. The time has arrived when this House of representatives, democratically elected, should assert its authority, and having in mind that it came to this decision after a long discussion it is not right that it should tolerate interference from another House. I hope the House will go to a Division and record its vote against the Lords Amendment.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT:I would like to emphasise the point raised by the hon. Member for Moss Side (Lieut.-Col. Hurst). This Amendment divides small business premises into two classes. First there is the class in which there is some dwelling accommodation, such as one room occupied as a bedroom, these being treated under the general provisions of the Bill as dwelling-houses and their rents may be increased by only forty per cent. Other small business premises are liable to have their rents increased by sixty per cent. although they may be premises of similar accommodation from a business point of view and the two may be competing with one another. That is an irrational position and introduces another element of unfairness into ordinary

    857
    business competition. On the question of possible delay if we reject this Amendment, I would like to point out that we have rejected other Amendments to-night, some of them on the motion of the Minister himself, and this Amendment, if rejected, would go with the other rejections which have been moved and carried. I have no doubt or hesitation about undertaking a struggle or a quarrel with another place on this question. It is a question on which the other House could not afford a contest with this House.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON:I hope this House will not imperil this measure by disagreeing with the Lords Amendments. The sooner we get back to freedom in dealing with all commodities including houses and land, the better for the country. Dwelling houses are in an exceptional position because people do require somewhere to house their families and to bring up young citizens of the future, but shops are on a different basis, and therefore the whole question of business premises has been referred to a Select Committee who are going into the matter at the present time. This, therefore is not a question of the same urgency as the main question dealt with in the Bill, the question of dwelling houses. This would be a very unfortunate case to choose for controversy with the other House, seeing that this subject did not form part of the Bill when it was introduced. Shops were only added to the Bill in Committee upstairs by a very small majority,—I think two or three,—and the proposal has throughout been opposed by the Government. My Friend opposite pointed out that what is really of importance to small shopkeepers is security and not the small increase of rent, and I hope the House will not disagree with the Amendment.
    Mr. SPENCER:I venture to suggest that this is a very unfortunate Amend-
    ment, for two reasons. I take it that one of the reasons for giving the owner the right to increase rent is that the returns from investments in property have been comparable with the returns from investments of another character. If that is one of the reasons for this Bill an Amendment of this character is going to draw a very invidious distinction between different classes of property. One man may have invested his money in cottage property and upon that he is going to get an increased return of fifteen per cent. as far as the rent is concerned and twenty-five per cent. on the repairs, but if his next door neighbour has invested his money in business premises the return in that case will be far greater. If this Amendment is passed there will be an agitation among the owners of cottage property to have their rents raised in an equal ratio to give them an equal return upon their investments, and the effect of this Amendment, in the minds of those investors, will be, instead of satisfying them with the provisions already made for an increased return, to start another agitation. As this point has been elaborated a very great deal I am not going to attempt to deal with it at any length, but it is very unfair to draw this invidious distinction. There are very small shopkeepers and some large shopkeepers whose rents are comparatively high, and if this Amendments is passed it means that an additional expense over and above what will be incurred in part dwelling houses part shops will be incurred by those which are wholly business premises. The Government and the House will be serving the best interests of all concerned by defeating this Amendment so that we may have uniformity all round.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 96 Noes, 48.

    Division No. 173.]

    AYES.

    [1.38 a.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Fildes, Henry

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Cope, Major Wm.

    Forrest, Walter

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Freece, Sir Walter de

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

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Ganzonl, Captain Francis John C.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Edge, Captain William

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Blair, Reginald

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Gould, James C

    Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry

    M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Stevens, Marshall

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Sugden, W. H.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Haslam, Lewis

    Neal, Arthur

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Hood, Joseph

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Raper, A. Baldwin

    Whitla, Sir William

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

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

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Young. Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Lorden, John William

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Loft-Williams, J.

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Parker.

    NOES.

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P

    Robertson, John

    Bonn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Billing, Noel Pemberton-

    Grundy, T. W.

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hall, F. (York, W. B., Normanton)

    Sexton, James

    Briant, Frank

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Bromfield, William

    Hayday, Arthur

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bruton, Sir James

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Cape, Thomas

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Spencer, George A.

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Casey, T. W.

    Lawson, John J.

    Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Lunn, William

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Mills, John Edmund

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Dawes, Commander

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Glanville, Harold James

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Major Barnes and Mr. Swan.

    Lords Amendment:
    In paragraph (a), after the word "purposes' ["professional purposes and"], insert the words "or for the public service."
    Agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    At end of paragraph (a), insert a new paragraph
    "(b)The following paragraph shall be added after paragraph (g) of the same subsection:
    (h)The premises are bonâ fide required for the purpose of scheme of reconstruction or improvement which appears to the Court to be desirable in the public interest."
    Read a Second time.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM:I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment to leave out the words "purpose of scheme of reconstruction or improvement which appears to the Court to be desirable in the public interest," and to add instead thereof the words "purposes of a public scheme of reconstruction or improvement."
    I desire, as I understand I am in order in doing so, that this Amendment be altered in a way which I believe will be ac-
    860
    ceptable to the majority of members of this House, namely to this effect, that instead of reading as it does on the order paper it should read "the premises bonâ fide required for the purposes of a public scheme of reconstruction or improvement," and that the rest be deleted. That would have the effect of altering the Amendment to one which afforded recovery of possession only in the case of a public scheme of reconstruction or improvement, and excluded the recovery of possession as we regard it on a mere pretext which might not be well founded and would probably involve hardship for the people we are seeking to protect by this Clause.
    Mr. SWAN:I beg to second the proposed Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON:I sympathise with the purpose of the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but I am quite certain the words he proposes to insert together with the words he proposes to omit will not help him towards his purpose, because if you hon. Members will look at the words as they are on paper
    "to provide for purposes of re-construction and improvement which appears to the court to be desirable in the public interest."

    861
    they will see that the Amendment ties it up to the public interest. This is decided by a case before the court. My hon. Friend would have it "a public scheme of reconstruction." What is a public scheme of reconstruction? That, I think, it would be very difficult to define. Does that mean a scheme of reconstruction solely undertaken by a public authority? Reconstruction in connection with, say, a gas company? Would that be reconstruction? Then he omitted the words as to who should decide. The whole of our Amendment as it stands, which I think is a fair one, is tied up to a reconstruction scheme which the court holds to be desirable in the public interest. It is not for the purpose of furthering some private purpose, but it is desirable in the public interest. It is tied up. I am sure the words in the Amendment are really much better than those proposed by my hon. Friend. I am sure that he will not serve any reasonable purpose by insisting on them.
    Mr. BILLING:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would inform us what constitutes the Court? I think that in itself is a deciding factor. The hon. Member who proposes the Amendment to the Amendment suggested that it should be a scheme introduced and advocated by municipal or other bodies. If a reconstruction scheme is taking place, or a public body recommends that the work should be done, I cannot see why the hon. Member takes exception to the Court. Does the hon. member suggest that the Court in question should not give its sanction, and what distinction does he make between the Court and a municipal body which makes a municipal scheme? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what Court has the authority to do it, and what is intended by the Amendment with reference to the question that it should be necessary to have the sanction of a Court.
    Lieut.-Colonel HURST:I view this Amendment with great apprehension. It opens up an avenue for driving a coach and four through the Act. In the City of Manchester, where this question is acute, protection would be withdrawn, if this Amendment is carried, from a great number of those very business tenants for whose benefit this portion of the Bill has been designed. In a very large proportion of these cases, where there are great
    862
    blocks at present occupied by small tenants, the proposal to give them notice to quit and eject them is due to the idea on the part of the owners of reconstructing these premises so as to bring in larger rentals or to provide accommodation for the extension of their businesses. Therefore, in most of these notices a case can be made out that they come within the Amendment as being notices given in pursuance of a scheme of reconstruction or improvement. Then comes in the question of public interest. In most of these cases a scheme of reconstruction or improvement carries with it proposals for so improving the premises that they will command a higher rateable value, and it might well be interpreted by a County Court that alterations which increase the rateable value of an urban centre are in the public interest. If that is the case it will follow that the tenants for whom this protection is designed will be deprived of their security. Let me give one illustration I know of a great block in Manchester where the tenants are under notice to quit given by a trade combine whose idea is to rebuild these premises in order to extend the premises of that combine. If this case went before the County Court the Court would undoubtedly take this as being a typical scheme for reconstruction or alteration. It might also very well say that it was in the public interest, because it would add to the rateable value of that portion of the city. The consequence is that the very people for whom these Clauses relating to business premises are framed will be deprived of that benefit.
    The real test in all these cases of ejectment is not so much the object of the property owner; it is really the need of the tenant. Take two tenants both owning tenancies under exactly the same circumstances, with a notice to quit served on both. The hardship would be equal to both. Why should one be turned into the street because his premises happen to be owned by some combine, or some other proprietors who wish to reconstruct the premises, and another man in the same circumstances, except that his landlord has different objects, be left in possession? The time test for dispossession is the need and hardship inflicted on the particular tenant and there is no reason for this differentiation at all. I view this Amendment with great

    863
    distrust, and hope it will be seriously considered by the Minister before he advises us to accept it.
    Major BARNES:I would ask the Minister if he could see his way to accept some words which would leave the court to balance the gain to the public interest with the amount of hardship that would be inflicted on the tenants. If the court same to the conclusion that the gain to the pubic interest would outweigh the other, would it not be possible to include some provision for compensating those who were dispossessed. I realise that it may not he at all a wise thing to hang up for three years great schemes of reconstruction. That might seriously affect development. On the other hand, I think this Clause may well have the effect of depriving large sections of the people of the benefits of the Bill. I daresay every member in this House knows a similar
    case to that of Manchester. I have one in mind in Newcastle-on-Tyne where the same results will follow. I am sure it is not the wish of the right hon. Gentleman to deprive anybody of the benefits which this Bill is designed to bring to them, and perhaps before we pass from the Amendment he would say whether it is not possible for him to accept some Amendment that would have the, effect, if not altogether of saving these people from being dispossessed, of giving them some compensation should that happen.
    2.0 A.M.
    Mr. T. WILSON:I would suggest that the right hon Gentleman disagrees with the Lords Amendment. I take it that there will be no hardship if the House disagrees with the Lords Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words pro-posed to be left out stand part of the said Lords Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 33.

    Division No. 174.]

    AYES.

    [1.59 a.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Fildes, Henry

    Neal, Arthur

    Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Forrest, Walter

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Raper, A. Baldwin

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

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

    Gould, James C.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Billing, Noel Pemberton-

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Scott, A. M.(Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Blades, Capt. Sir George

    Rowland Green, Albert (Derby)

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Blair, Reginald

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Bruton, Sir James

    Haslam, Lewis

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Sugden, W. H.

    Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Hood, Joseph

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Casey, T. W.

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Cope, Major Wm.

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Whitla, Sir William

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.)

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Lorden, John William

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Dawes, Commander

    Lort-Williams, J.

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

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Edge, Captain William

    M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    James Parker

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    NOES.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Graham W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Lawson, John J.

    Briant, Frank

    Grundy, T. W.

    Lunn, William

    Bromfield, William

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Mills, John Edmund

    Cape, Thomas

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

    Robertson, John

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Royce, William

    Stapleton

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Sexton, James

    Spencer, George A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Swan, J. E.

    Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Griffiths

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."— [Dr. Addison. ]
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT:I voted against the second Amendment because I thought it did not improve the Lords Amendment. But I want to offer some opposition to the original Amendment. This introduces another distinction between dwelling-houses and business premises, and the distinction is this, that. in the case of business premises there may be an eviction if they are required for the purpose of public improvement. If it is a desirable ground for eviction, why should it not apply to dwelling-houses as well as business premises. Why should a dwelling-house be allowed to stand in the way of a public improvement? If this Amendment were desirable at all it ought to have been applied all round, and I propose to vote against it.
    Mr. SPENCER:I should like to support the view of the last speaker. I have had, in my own constituency, my attention drawn to more than one case of business men who have had notice to quit on some pretext or another. While it is a very great hardship for working-men to have notice to quit their premises and to have no suitable premises to go to, it is undoubtedly more hard when it comes to the case of business men. In the particular cases to which I am referring the men devoted the greater part of their lives to building up the businesses. Their whole livelihood depends on the success and continuity of those businesses, and yet if at any time there was a desire to take over those premises for any kind of structural improvement which might be considered to be of a public character, those business people could be turned away from their businesses without any alternative accommodation. When there is a shortage of accommodation of the character of business premises we should be putting a very great hardship on a very large number of business people, small and great, if we passed this Amendment which the other House is seeking to impose.
    Major HENDERSON:My hon. Friend opposite pointed out that this Amendment seeks to differentiate between shop property and house property, but it goes further than that. Like the Amendment on the previous page in regard to the increase of rent, it differentiates between two different classes of shop property. For that reason it is absolutely illogical. It has been said that this Bill is illogical right through. Probably that is true, but there is no reason why we should make it more illogical. The Minister has given no reason why we should differentiate between two different classes of shops—it may be two people competing with each other in a similar type of business.
    Dr. ADDISON:I think my hon. Friends are a little mistaken with regard to this proposal. There is a vast difference between the shop and the dwelling-house. These are only cases where it is a lock-up shop and where the shop is not part of the man's dwelling. There is a great difference between such a shop being bonâ fide required in the public interest for a scheme of reconstruction. There is a difference because in one case the building is a man's dwelling and in the other it is merely a shop. I would really ask my hon. Friends to have regard to the major issue. The same principle is recognised in this Bill where a public authority requires houses for the same purpose. I am sure we all recognise that it would not be in the public interest that a single lock-up shop should be able to prevent a public improvement. Although we have the utmost sympathy with the man, and want to do everything that is reasonable to give him fair security, it is not reasonable that one in that position should be able to obstruct a scheme which is really required in the public interest. There are major interests and minor interests, and this only seeks to protect the public interest. I think this is quite a fair proposal, and I hope the House will support it.
    Mr. BILLING:The hon. Member who spoke before the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the whole of this Bill was illogical. I think the attitude that the

    867
    Labour party adopts is more illogical still. In everything they do and say in this House they are in favour of decentralization of administrative powers and in many cases of legislative powers. Here is a case where the Government are to give power to the courts to decide in small detailed cases whether or not particular premises are necessary in the public interest and yet the representatives of the Labour party suggest that this House should not give those powers to the local courts. Surely the whole claim of Labour in this country is based on the very principles which they desire to deprive the Government of to-night.
    Personally, I am in favour of giving the Government this power that the Lords Amendment seeks, and I am in favour of making a differentiation between the residential shop and the lockup shop. In 90 per cent. of the cases the residential shop is that of the small shopkeeper who is endeavouring to build up a business, often in competition with a multiple shop. The average lock-up shop is a multiple shop, which has no residential accommodation, and it is for that reason that I shall do everything in my power to encourage the development of the one-man business—the type of business which produces civility as distinct from servility which the multiple shop produces. Those are the people whose interests I am most anxious to protect. There may be some hon. Members who may be quite clear as to what the point at issue really is.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Edwin Cornwall):I should be glad if the hon. Member would be more clear himself.
    Mr BILLING:I appreciate the invitation from the Chair and I will endeavour, so far as I can, to make it clear. This is a question of whether this House shall give some alternative, and the only alternative that has been offered is that it shall be left within the power of the municipal authority as distinct from a court to decide whether or not certain evictions shall take place. I would ask the Labour Party to consider that the eviction from the lock-up shop as distinct from the residential shop is one which should be in the interests of the one-man business, and I would appeal to the Labour party to support the Government in this matter.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:We on these benches appreciate highly the valuable advice which has just been given to us by the hon. Gentleman. He is quite right in his premises. The Labour party always are in favour of decentralisation as far as possible, so that the actual administration of affairs in every locality should be in the hands of the people of the locality, but when he comes to apply these premises—
    Dr. ADDISON:Is this in order on this Amendment?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:He seems to think that this Amendment, if carried, puts it in the power of the local authority to decide whether reconstructions are advisable or not. That is not so. If it were in the hands of the local authority we should be in favour of it. That is exactly what we voted for when we voted about ten minutes ago, and when the hon. Member, unconscious of what he was voting for, went into the wrong lobby.
    Mr. BILLING:I supported the Government in that Amendment, with the desire of leaving it to the Courts to decide in all these cases, as distinct from having a definition in a somewhat innocuous Amendment which I did not altogether understand. The question before the House I understood, and I voted upon that, and left that which was incomprehensible.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:And that is exactly where the legal mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman led him astray. He is under the impression that a bench of magistrates is a local authority. Benches of magistrates have many good qualities, but they are not local authorities, and this Amendment of the House of Lords does leave it to the bench of magistrates to decide whether a reconstruction is or is not in the public interest. With all my experience of this House and of politics, I am not yet certain what is in the public interest and what is not. When I think of this unfortunate bench of magistrates trying to decide whether a reconstruction scheme is or is not in the public interest, I realise that you are laying upon their shoulders a burden too heavy to be borne.
    Dr. ADDISON:It is not a bench of magistrates at all. It is n County Court judge.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:It is a judge. You are asking a permanent official of the Government to decide what is in the public interest Now, what will guide him? [An HON. MEMBER: "Common sense!"] Common sense, which means £ s. d.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME:Is it in Order for the hon. Member to refer to one of His Majesty's judges in that form?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:I am trying to point out the difficulty in which one of His Majesty's judges will be put when asked to decide, not what is right or wrong, but whether a matter be in the public interest.
    Mr. BILLING:Is not that what the Government are deciding all day long?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:The Government may have to decide it; but a judge has to decide upon evidence and the law. If you ask him to say whether or not a reconstruction is in the public interest which involves increasing the rateable value of a town, I think the judge will be bound to hold that anything which would increase the rateable value would be in the public interest, because it did increase the rateable value. There he would have a tangible thing by which he could measure the value of the change. But that is not the standard by which an improvement or a reconstruction ought to be measured. It can only be measured by a local authority which has to consider the views of the electors as a whole, and not merely an abstract question of right or wrong: Will an increase in rateable value be to the advantage of the community or not? Do I make myself clear? A judge can only decide according to rules, whereas the local authority decides according to the general tenor of what their electorate wish. Therefore, we on these benches, while agreeing with the promises of the hon. Member that in every case of greater decentralisation a greater impress is made upon the mind of the locality by the legislature, we disagree with handing these matters over to some county court judge and taking them out of the hands of the elected members of any local authority. Therefore it seems to us that this Amendment, which was carried in the other place, where they represent the idea of the judge rather than of the local authority, we as an elected body, should oppose,
    870
    supporting the idea of real decentralisation against the bastard form of decentralisation supported by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Billing).
    Sir W. DAVISON:The proposition is that the unfortunate tenant should go before the local authority in order that they may decide whether an improvement should be carried out or not, instead of, as proposed by the Bill, the impartial authority of a County Court Judge.
    Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS:I think we are getting clear on this point, and I should like to congratulate the two hon. Members on the part they have taken; but we have now come to another very interesting detail, the question of rateable value and its effect, and I am delighted to see the Financial Secretary of the Treasury has come in at this opportune moment and I hope he will be able to express his opinion as to how this particular Clause will affect the prospective rateable value of the country. I would not venture to discuss that point myself with such a competent authority present. As regards the powers of the courts, I am perfectly happy at the present moment as regards the powers of the English courts. We have had eminent legal authorities giving their views as regards the English courts; but I should like to have heard the Scottish branch on this subject. As far as this Bill is concerned to-night, perhaps the most notable thing in the Debate has been the absence and the silence of that less hardy portion of the British people who come from the north of the Tweed. Perhaps if I ask them—
    Dr. ADDISON:I beg respectfully, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to call your attention to the fact that the hon. Member is discussing all manner of things which have nothing whatever to do with the Question.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:We are getting a little discursive.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT:Is it in order for a Minister to intervene and try to take the duties of the Chair out of the hands of the Chair?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:A Minister can rise to a point of order.
    Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS:I very much regret if I have offended the Minister in charge of the Bill. I know his interests are very much confined to this

    871
    part of the country and I would like to have an answer to the question as to whether Scottish Members can really assure the House that we can go into the Division lobby and vote for the Government Amendment and be quite certain that the position in the Scottish courts is secure.
    Captain COOTE:I do not intend to indulge in any badinage or hypothesis. What I want to know is this, and it is a simple point: The right hon. Gentleman said it was not unreasonable to draw a distinction between lock-up shops and ordinary dwelling-houses. If a man be turned out of his lock-up shop, will he not be unable to pay his rent and be deprived
    Lords Amendment:
    At the end of paragraph (c) add "() References to the sixteenth day of June
    872
    of his livelihood. What is the difference between turning him out of his lock-up shop and his dwelling house? There is a further difficulty. I would ask him to consider whether this Amendment is necessary at all. This part of the Bill to which the Amendment applies is governed by Clause 5 which says that the court shall make an order only when it considers it reasonable to make such an order, and surely such a case as is proposed in the Amendment will come within the jurisdiction of the court.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 35.

    Division No. 175.]

    AYES.

    [2.33 a.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Fildes, Henry

    Neal, Arthur

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Forrest, Walter

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Raper, A. Baldwin

    Barker Major Robert H.

    Freece Sir Walter de

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

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

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Billing, Noel Pemberton-

    Gould, James C.

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Blair, Reginald

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Bruton, Sir James

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Haslam, Lewis

    Sugden, W. H.

    Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)

    Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford)

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Hood, Joseph

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Casey, T. W.

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Cope, Major Wm.

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Whitla, Sir William

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Johnstone, Joseph

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

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Lewis, T. A. (Glam, Pontypridd)

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

    Dawes, Commander

    Lorden, John William

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Lort-Williams, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Edge, Captain William

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Parker.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    NOES.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Briant, Frank

    Lawson, John J.

    Spencer, George A.

    Bromfield, William

    Lunn, William

    Swan, J. E.

    Cape, Thomas

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Robertson, John

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grundy, T. W.

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Mr. Griffiths and Mr. Mills.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Sexton, James

    shall be substituted for references to the twenty-fifth day of March."
    Read a Second time.
    Dr. ADDISON:I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is to make the retrospective effect of the Bill with regard to business premises refer to the date when the Amendment was first inserted in the Bill.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME:I really hope the House will not pass this Amendment without some consideration. It demands that shops are to be on an absolutely different footing from dwelling houses. It is common knowledge, the whole community knew that when an Act of this kind was passed, it was going to be made retrospective to the last quarter day, 25th March. It was also common knowledge that business premises would be included, and that the restrictions would apply to shops as well as those business premises of a mixed character, where there was a house and a shop. People who want to give notice to determine tenancies are just as alert as—even more alert than—the unfortunate people against whom these rights are exercised. It is no question of simply going back to 16th June last. Ever since 25th March there have been hundreds of cases all over the country where the landlords of shops have been giving notice to their tenants to quit in order to be in time to anticipate this form of legislation. Let us be consistent in this matter. What did we decide when the House was in Committee on this Bill? It was that all premises were to come under the purview of this Act. If these premises are to come within the purview of this Act they ought to have the same rights under this Act, and ouglit to be protected as from 25th March last. If we agree to this Amendment we are really going to camouflage the whole position, and to deprive of their rights an enormous number of tenants who had notice to quit between 25th March and the present time.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT:This is an Amendment to deprive business premises of the three months' protection which is given in the case of dwelling houses. I agree that it was known that this question was being considered, but I do not think the distinction can be drawn which my right hon. Friend drew, or that houses of a rental value of from £75 to £105 are given the protection of three months. The landlord there had no notice that this change was being made. They are in
    874
    exactly the same position as the owners of business premises. There is a class of premises those in which there is some dwelling accommodation attached; they have been given the protection of these three months. Why should this Amendment not apply to them. The argument of my right hon. Friend was an argument for applying it to them. I do not think he has really made out a case for this new Amendment which has been sprung on the House to-day.
    Mr. SPENCER:If it was a hardship, and recognised as a hardship worthy of statutory protection on the 16th day of June, surely it was equally hard on the 15th June, or between the 15th June and the 25th March. The very fact that the Government is seeking to obtain power of protection for tenants of that character is an indication that they have recognised that the hardship amounted to an injustice, and that the injustice must be remedied, I sincerely hope that the Minister will not press this Amendment but will give the occupiers of business premises the same advantage as those who are occupying the dwelling-houses.
    Dr. ADDISON:May I say that I am willing to defer to what appears to be the desire of the House. I do not think it will delay the Bill, and therefore I do not wish to press the Motion to agree.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Lords Amendment:
    At the end of the Clause add new Sub-sections—
    "(2)The application of this Act to such premises as aforesaid shall not extend to a letting or tenancy in any market or fair where the rent or the conditions of tenancy are controlled or regulated by or in pursuance of any statute or charter"
    "(3)This Section shall continue in force until the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one."
    Read a Second time.
    Dr. ADDISON:I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in Sub-section (2) of the said Amendment."
    The first of these Amendments is necessary, because, otherwise, the Bill will apply to stalls, markets, and so on. The next one raises quite another point.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT:Was it a Government Amendment?
    Dr. ADDISON:Yes, it was.
    Major BARNES:With regard to this Amendment I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to shortening this discussion by disagreeing with this Amendment. What he has put to us is not the whole state of the case. In many cases there are markets in which there are people occupying nut-stalls and shops—
    Dr. ADDISON indicated dissent.
    Major BARNES:I have not the slightest desire to prolong this discussion, but this is a substantial Amendment, and it is going to have a serious effect in the city for which I am one of the Members. There are considerable markets there held under regulation—
    Dr. ADDISON:This will not affect them.
    Major BARNES:This Bill is brought in for the purpose of protecting shop-keepers from being evicted, and it protects shopkeepers who hold their shops from private owners. Shop people who hold their shops from public authorities should have the same sort of protection. You might have a scheme of public improvement carried through to dispossess the local shop-keepers. They would apply to the local authority for market stalls. The market rents would be put up and the people in the market turned out. If we are to protect the shop-keepers at all from the exactions of private landlords, I think we should protect them from the exactions of public authorities.
    Mr. BILLING:I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Addison) what is meant by "protection by charter." Are we, by supporting this, like to place any local authority in a position which would prevent their making a municipal improvement in a town planning scheme by some old and obsolete charter, which this House should consider in the public interest should be removed. There is an old charter in connection with a river which does not flow very far from this House, which has caused an immense amount of trouble. I think on one occasion King Charles granted a charter for purely domestic reasons, which has caused an immense amount of trouble since. There are many old and antiquated charters in this country. This is kow-towing to these old charters, and by having passed
    876
    through this House it may place some municipal authority in a position which may prevent it from carrying out a necessary and desirable scheme of town planning or public improvement, because in the middle of a market square some old charter may rule. I think it would be wrong, in the state of the development of our country for making it more '"fit for heroes to live in" and of making it a world cleansed and purged by the solemn tragedy of this War, if for the sake of some old charter we should stand between some municipal authority and the reconstruction of its city. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain whether we are committing ourselves if we support this.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the words in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT:On a point of Order. Is not the last Amendment in two parts?
    Dr. ADDISON:On a point of Order. I moved that the House doth agree with Sub-section (2).
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:The Amendment of the Lords is one Amendment, not two.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT:Surely it is two.
    Dr. ADDISON:On a point of Order. I suggest that there are two Amendments. There should be new Sub-sections (2) and (3), and I moved that we agree with Subsection (2).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT:On a point of Order. Is there not some misunderstanding here? I understand it is possible to move Amendments to the Lords' Amendments and that the right hon. Gentleman has not moved the adoption of the whole of this Amendment, but has specifically moved the adoption of a portion of the Lords Amendment. That is distinctly my recollection of what he actually moved.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:I do not think I want to deal with that point at all. If the hon. Member will look at the Paper, he will see "after line 12 insert new Sub-sections (2) and (3). That is the Amendment of the Lords. The only question I have to put is that we either agree to the Amendment of the Lords,

    877
    or that we disagree, or that we consider the Amendments to the Amendment of the Lords. The Clerk read the Amendment of the Lords, and the Minister moved that we agree. I cannot go back.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT:On a point of Order. I do not wish to dispute your ruling, Sir, in any way, but I want a clear understanding. The Minister has never moved that this Amendment by the Lords should be adopted. I heard distinctly what he said, and he did not move that. He may have mistaken the procedure, but he never used the words "I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." He did intend to move something of it, and I venture to submit this point for your consideration, whether it is possible for you to put to the House an Amendment which has not been moved by the Minister or by anyone in the House?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:The fact is that the Minister moved "That this House doth agree," but whether the Minister meant to move "That this House doth agree to the whole Amendment," or with part, is not a question for me. What was quite clear was that the Clerk read the whole, and that I from the Chair put the question. The House can only discuss a question put from the Chair. I do not want to be too particular, perhaps, or too severe on the point. I can permit an irregularity and go back, although I ought not to do so. If it be the wish of the House to go back, I am pleased to do so. Let the Amendment be divided, and let us take the second part. The question is, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Sub-section (3)."
    3.0 A.M.
    Dr. ADDISON:This part of the Amendment is that this Section shall continue in force until the 24th day of June, 1921. The effect of this Amendment is that the limitation otherwise provided in the Act in regard to premises other than these premises of three years was made inapplicable in this particular class of case, and the protection against eviction and the other safeguards which the Bill provides extend to the 24th June, 1921—that is one year. The grounds on which their Lordships moved this Amendment were practically that we were proposing, by the appointment of a Select Committee to frame special pro-
    878
    posals for this class of property, and it was considered proper not to tie the hands of the Government for three years. This proposal gives protection for twelve months, and if at the end of that time our other proposals be not sufficiently advanced, it would be quite a simple matter to prolong the statute. I therefore propose that we agree with the Lords Amendment.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT:The other part of the Act applies for three years, and this Amendment would mean that the application of the Act to business premises shall apply to one year only. It is suggested that the reason for this is that other measures are under contemplation with regard to business premises, and that it would be undesirable to tie ourselves up for a period of three years. I submit that in making the Act apply to these premises for three years we do not tie ourselves up. If other recommendations are approved by us, we can do it at any time by passing the necessary legislation. We do not tie our hands in any way. It is suggested that if the Act applied only for one year we can renew it when the year expires. I am very distrustful of that method. I am afraid time will not be found. We had an opportunity before of renewing the Acts with regard to rent restriction, and we have left it until the last minute. In fact they have actually expired now for three hours. The possibility of the Act being renewed is very uncertain, and I would prefer that it should apply to business premises in the same way as to dwelling-houses for the full period of three years.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:We ought to have some word from the right hon. Gentleman about this matter, because if we pass this Amendment for one year only, it will mean that shops will not have the same amount of protection as dwelling houses. Next Session it will be very difficult for the Government to introduce a fresh Bill. I am confident that if we agree to this Amendment, and accept the fact that shops are only to be protected for one year, it will mean that at the end of one year shops will drop out. I do not know if we want shops to drop out or not, but it appears to be quite certain that that will be the effect if we agree to the Amendment. Those of us who believe that tenants of shop property have as

    879
    much right to protection as tenants of any other kind of property would view that with dismay.
    Mr. SPENCER:I feel certain that the right hon. Gentleman is not aware how the minds of certain small tradesmen have been perturbed by the uncertainty of their occupancy. One year does not give them enough security. They want to look a little beyond a year. The hon. Member who has just sat down has made a point that this House is overcrowded with legislation, and if this thing be not definitely settled now, it will certainly mean that all reasonable security for tradesmen will vanish at the end of a year. I sincerely hope that it will be found possible to extend the period, even if only for another year. I understand, however, that we cannot amend a Lords Amendment, and that it must be one year or what the Bill originally prescribed. The right hon. Gentleman would be doing a good service to these people whose minds are so unsettled if he could give them to understand that the period would be at least for three years.
    Mr. BILLING:Would the right hon. Gentleman consider an Amendment which would read, "to give them such extension as appears to the court to be
    desirable in the public interest"? That I am sure would meet the view of the Government, because it would leave it to the same court to which we left the previous Amendment. That I am sure should also appeal to the Members of the Labour party, who are desirous of removing from this House any legislative measure which is possible. If the right hon. Gentleman would permit this matter, which is essentially a local matter, in which local interests are concerned to be a matter of local jurisdiction, it would only be in accordance with the previous Amendment.
    Major HENDERSON:I think it would be better for the Government to reject this Amendment. The Government are anxious to encourage trade and business in the country—to try and restore the position which existed before the War—and yet they are proposing to accept an Amendment which will result in keeping these unfortunate people engaged in trade "on the jump" all the time, not knowing whether at the end of 12 months they will be allowed to remain or not. If they think that is the right way to encourage business, I do not.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in so much of the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 86; Noes, 42.

    Division No. 176.]

    AYES.

    [3.9 a.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Fildes, Henry

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Forrest, Walter

    Neal, Arthur

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Freece, Sir Walter de

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Raper, A. Baldwin

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Gould, James C.

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

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

    Greame, Major Sir P. Lloyd-

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

    Blair, Reginald

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Bruton, Sir James

    Haslam, Lewis

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford)

    Sugden, W. H.

    Casey, T. W.

    Hood, Joseph

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Cope, Major Wm.

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Whitla, Sir William

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

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

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Dewhurst, Lleut.-Commander Harry

    Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Edge, Captain William

    Lorden, John William

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

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr.

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Parker.

    NOES.

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Billing Noel Pemberton-

    Bromfield, William

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Burn, Col. C.R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lawson, John J.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Lunn, William

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Mills, John Edmund

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Spencer, George A.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Swan, J. E.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Robertson, John

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Sexton, James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Mr. MacCallum Scott and Mr. Cape.

    Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments to the Bill reported, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Conditions of Statutory Tenancy.)
    (1)A tenant who by virtue of the provisions of this Act retains possession of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies shall, so long as he retains possession, observe and be entitled to the benefit of all the terms and conditions of the original contract of tenancy, so far as the same are consistent with the provisions of this Act, and shall be entitled to give up possession of the dwelling-house only on giving such notice as would have been required under the original contract of tenancy.
    (2) Any tenant retaining possession as aforesaid shall not as a condition of giving up possession ask or receive the payment of any sum, or the giving of any other consideration, by any person other than the landlord, and any person acting in contravention of this provision shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and the court by which he was convicted may order any such payment or the value of any such consideration to be paid to the person by whom the same was made or given, but any such order shall be in lieu of any other method of recovery prescribed by this Act.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (1), after the word "tenancy" ["under the original contract of tenancy"], insert the words "or if no notice would have been so required on giving not less than three months' notice."
    Agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    At end of Sub-section (2), insert a new Sub-section:—
    "(3) Where the interest of a tenant of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies is determined, either as the result of an order or judgment for possession or ejectment or for any other reason, any sub-tenant to whom the premises or any part thereof have been lawfully sub-let shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to become the tenant of the landlord on the same terms as he would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had continued."
    Read a Second time.
    Dr. ADDISON:I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is to protect a sub-tenant. There was some objection to the form of words originally used, and I promised to put it into proper form in another place. It will be seen that this puts the sub-tenant in the place of the principal tenant, and therefore he is protected in the same way as the principal tenant.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Minor Amendments of Law.)
    (3) Where the landlord of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies has served a notice to quit on the tenant, the acceptance of rent by the landlord for a period not exceeding three months from the expiration of the notice to quit shall not be deemed to prejudice any right to possession of such premises.
    Lords Amendment:
    At end of Sub-section (3) insert the words "and if any order for possession is made any payment of rent so accepted shall be treated as mesne profits."
    Read a Second time.
    Dr. ADDISON:I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is not to invalidate any payment that may have been made in respect of rent after an application has been made to the Court.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:Is it a Government Amendment?
    Dr. ADDISON:Yes.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Rules as to procedure.)
    (2)A County Court shall have jurisdiction to deal with any claim or other proceedings arising out of this Act or any of the provisions thereof, notwithstanding that by reason of the amount of claim or otherwise the case would not but for this provision be

    883
    within the jurisdiction of a County Court. and if a person takes proceedings under this Act in the High Court which he could have taken in the County Court he shall only recover the same costs as he would have recovered in the County Court.
    (3)Rules made under this Section may provide for enabling a court to revoke or vary any former decision of the court if it appears just to do so in view of subsequent circumstances or of material facts having been concealed from or misrepresented to the court, notwithstanding anything in this Act providing that the decision of a court is to be final and conclusive.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "only recover the same costs as he would have recovered in the County Court," and insert instead thereof the words "not be entitled to recover any costs."
    Read a Second time.
    Dr. ADDISON:I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is another Government Amendment to secure that costs will not be incurred by taking cases to the High Court. It provides that a person taking the case to the High Court shall not be entitled to recover costs.
    Lords Amendment:
    Leave out Sub-section (3).
    Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 18.—(Application to Scotland and Ireland.)
    (1)This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:—

    (a)"Mortgage" and "incumbrance" means a heritable security including a security constituted by absolute disposition qualified by back bond or letter; "mortgagor" and "mortgagee" mean respectively the debtor and the creditor in a heritable security; "covenant" means obligation; "mortgaged property" means the heritable subject or subjects included in a heritable security; "rateable value" means yearly value according to the valuation roll; "rate-able value on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen" means yearly value according to the valuation roll for the year ending fifteenth day of May nineteen hundred and fifteen; "assessed" means entered in the valuation roll; "land" means lands and heritages; "rates" means assessments as defined in the House Letting and Rating (Scotland)
    884
    Act, 1911; "Lord Chancellor" and "High Court" mean the Court of Session; "rules" means act of sederunt; "County Court" means the sheriff court; "sanitary authority" means the local authority under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897; "mesne profits" means profits; the Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for the Ministry of Agriculture; the twenty-eighth day of May shall be substituted for the twenty-fifth day of June; the reference to the county agricultural committee shall be construed as a reference to the body of persons constituted with respect to any area by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland under Subsection (2) of Section eleven of the Corn Production Act, 1917; references to levying distress shall be construed as references to doing diligence; a reference to Section five of the Housing, Town Planning, &c. (Scotland) Act, 1919, shall be substituted for a reference to Section seven of the Housing, Town Planning, &c., Act, 1919; and a reference to Section one of the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911, shall be substituted for a reference to Section three of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869:

    (c) Sub-section (5) of the Section of this Act relating to permitted increases in rent shall not apply:

    (d) Nothing in the law relating to tacit relocation shall prevent the landlord of a dwelling-house to which the Acts repealed by this Act applied from obtaining any increase of rent to which he would otherwise be entitled under the provisions of this Act.

    (2) This Act shall apply to Ireland subject to the following modifications:—

    (a) A reference to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland shall be substituted for the reference to the Lord Chancellor:

    (b) A reference to Section fifteen of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1851, shall be substituted for the reference to Section one of the small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838; and a reference to the Agricultural Wages Board for Ireland shall be substituted for the reference to the county agricultural committee:

    (c) The expression "mortgage" includes a charge by registered disposition under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891:

    (d) The expression "rateable value" means the annual rateable value under the Irish Valuation Acts: Provided that where part of a house let as a separate dwelling is not separately valued under those Acts, the Commissioner of Valuation and Boundary Surveyor may on the application of the landlord or tenant make such apportionment of the

    885
    rateable value of the whole house as seems just, and his decision as to the amount to be apportioned to the part of the house shall be final and conclusive, and that amount shall be taken to be the rateable value of the part of the house for the purposes of this Act but not further or otherwise:

    (c) The medical officer of health of a dispensary district shall be substituted for the sanitary authority under Section two of this Act and the issue of certificates and the payment of fees in connection with applications by tenants under the said Section shall be subject to regulations to be made by the Local Government Board for Ireland:

    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (1, a), leave out th
    e words "Ministry of Agriculture" ["shall be substituted for the Ministry of Agriculture"], and insert instead thereof the words "Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries."
    Leave out the word "twenty-fifth" ["twenty-fifth day of June"], and insert instead thereof the word "twenty-fourth."
    After the word "diligence" ["as reference to doing diligence"] insert the words" the reference to the President of the Surveyors' Institution shall be construed as a reference to the Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Surveyors' Institution."
    Agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (1) leave out paragraph (c), and insert instead thereof a new paragraph—
    "(c) Paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of the Section of this Act relating to application and interpretation shall not apply."
    Read a Second time.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Morison):I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:What does this mean? Can we have an explanation of the Amendment?
    Mr. MORISON:It is a purely formal alteration that arises from altering the Sections of that Statute.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (1) leave out paragraph, (d), and insert instead thereof a new paragraph—
    "(d) Where any dwelling-house, to which the Acts repealed by this Act applied, is subject to a right of tenancy arising from a yearly contract or from tacit relocation, and ending at Whit Sunday, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, the year ending at the said term of Whit Sunday shall be deemed to be a period during which, but for this Act, the landlord would be entitled to obtain possession of such dwelling-house."
    Read a Second time.
    Mr. MORISON:I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Perhaps I should say a word of explanation about this Amendment. Though put in the Bill in another place, it is really carrying out an Amendment which ought to have been inserted in the House of Commons. The words in this Amendment, were those which were originally in an Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, which we intended to accept.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:Which Member for Glasgow?
    Mr. MORISON:The Member for Tradeston (Major Henderson). The sense of the Amendment is simply to put landlords who have made a bargain with their tenant in, say, February of last year, in the same position that they would have been put in if the bargain had not been made. A bargain made in February could only have been made under the Acts of Parliament in existence then, and as this Bill repeals those Acts it is only fair the landlord should be placed in a similar position.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (2, (b) leave out the words "and a reference to the Agricultural Wages Board for Ireland shall be substituted for the reference to the County Agricultural Committee."
    Agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (2, c), after "1891," insert the words
    "and any notice of the apportionment of the principal money secured by a mortgage, if and when the notice becomes operative under this Act, and the award of any arbitrator with reference to any such apportionment may be registered under the enact-

    887
    ments relative to the registration of deeds or titles as the case requires."
    Read a Second time.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. D. M. Wilson):I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is according to Clause 12, which deals with cases where a mortgage covers premises which includes dwelling-houses and which amounts to a tenth of the value. This deals with an award made by an arbitrator appointed by the chairman of the Surveyors' Institution. It will be necessary to register the award.
    Lords Amendments:
    At end of Sub-section (2, d) insert new paragraphs.
    "(e)The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (ii)of Subsection (1)of Section five of this Act:
    (ii)Where the court is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required by the landlord for the occupation of a person engaged on work necessary for the proper working of an agricultural holding; or
    "(f)The following Sub-section shall be substituted for Sub-section (9)of Section twelve of this Act:
    "() This Act shall not apply to a dwelling-house erected after, or in course of erection on, the second day of April, nineteen hundred and nineteen, or to any dwelling-house which has been since that date or was at that date being bonâ fide reconstructed by way of conversion into two or more separate and self-contained flats or tenements; but the rateable value of any such dwelling-house to which this Act would have applied if it had been erected or so reconstructed before the said date shall be ascertained as though the rent for the purposes of Section eleven of the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, were the rent for which a similar dwelling-house might have been reasonably expected to let on the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, the probable average annual cost of repairs, insurance, and other expenses (if any) necessary to maintain the dwelling-house in its actual state and all rates, taxes, and public charges, if any (except tithe rent-charge) being paid by the tenant."
    In Sub-section (2, e), leave out the words "under Section two of this Act," and insert instead thereof the words "in Section two of this Act and in the First Schedule thereto."
    Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 19.— (Short title, duration and repeal.)
    (2)This Act shall continue in force until the twenty-fourth day of June nineteen hundred and twenty-three:
    Provided that the expiration of this Act shall not render recoverable by a landlord any rent, interest or other sum which during the continuance thereof was irrevocable, or affect the right of a tenant to recover any sum which during the continuance thereof was under this Act recoverable by him.
    Lords Admendments:
    At the beginning of Sub-section (2) insert the words "except as otherwise provided."
    After the word "Act" [expiration of this Act"], insert the words "or any part thereof."
    Agreed to.

    FIRST SCHEDULE.
    FORM OF NOTICE BY LANDLORD.
    INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) ACT, 1920.
    Date
    To
    Address of premises to which this notice refers … …
    Take notice that I intend to increase the rent of l. s. d. per at present payable by you as tenant of the above-named premises by the amount of l. s. d. per
    The increase is made up as follows:—
    (d) l. s. d. under paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Act, in respect of repairs, for which I am wholly [partly] responsible being per cent. on the net rent of the premises. The net rent is l. s. d. The standard rent is 1. s. d.
    The increase under head (b) will date from , being one clear week from the date of this notice, and the remaining increases from, being four clear weeks from the date of this notice.
    Lords Amendment:
    In paragraph (d,) leave out the words "in respect of repairs, for which I am wholly [partly] responsible".
    Read a Second time.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir E. Pollock):I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:What is this?
    Sir E. POLLOCK:If hon. Members will turn to the Schedule on page 22, they will find under paragraph (d), line 26, this scheme under which notice is to be given in respect of repairs for which the landlord is wholly or partly responsible. This might not meet all cases, because the houses might be in repair, and therefore we leave out those words in order that then a note can be put in the Schedule, that the increase "is on account of my responsibility for repairs, for no part of which you are under an express liability." It is in order to meet the case in which a house is in repair, and in which there is a liability to repair, where repairs may have been done on the responsibility of the landlord, and still leave a liability which must be brought into the account in serving with the notice.
    Lords Amendments:
    In paragraph (d), after the word "notice" ["four clear weeks from the date of this notice"], insert:
    "‡The increase under head (d) is on account of my responsibility for repairs, for no part [part only] of which you are under an express liability."
    At end of footnotes add
    "‡Where the tenant is under an express liability for part of the repairs, the increase under head (d) is to be settled in default of agreement by the County Court."
    Agreed to.
    Dr. ADDISON:I beg to move, "That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill."
    Mr. SPENCER:Can I ask the Minister in charge if, when he reports this Bill to the House, and the House is not able to agree with the Lords' Amendments, whether it will be still possible for him to press for the Amendment giving safety to the occupiers in cases of strikes and lock-outs?
    Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.
    Committee nominated of, Dr. Addison, the Lord Advocate, Mr. A. MacCallum Scott, Mr. William Graham, and Major Barnes.
    Three to be the quorum.
    To withdraw immediately. —[Dr. Addison.]
    To be communicated to the Lords.—[Dr. Addison.]
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes after Three o'clock a.m

BILL PRESENTED.
LEGITIMATION BILL,
"to provide for the legitimation of illegitimate persons by the marriage of their parents," presented by Mr. WIGNALL; supported by Mr. Clynes, Mr. Tyson Wilson, Mr. Thomas Shaw, and Mr. Griffiths; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 12th July, and to be printed. [Bill 158.]

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP E).
Sir WILLIAM HOWELL DAVIESreported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Twelve of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP F).
Sir EDWARD NICHOLLreported from the Committee on Group F of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday, 12th July, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

WOMEN, YOUNG PERSONS, AND CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 135.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 135.]
Bill, as amended (in Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSONreported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Mount to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Ministry of Mines Bill), and Mr. Nicholson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Overseas Trade (Credits and Insurance) Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

BILLS REPORTED.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Brighton and Hove Gas Bill,
Southend-on-Sea Gas Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table.
Yeovil Corporation Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Torpoint Ferry Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Official Secrets Act, 1911." [Official Secrets Bill [Lords. ]

INDEMNITY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Select Committee, with Special Report and Minutes of Evidence.
Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 136.]
Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTSreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from
  662
  Standing Committee A: Mr. George Thorne and Major Wheler; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Kiley and Sir Frederick Young.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTSfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee A: Lord Robert Cecil.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTSfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (during the consideration of the Nauru Island Agreement Bill): Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Ormsby-Gore.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTSfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Ministry of Mines Bill): the Lord Advocate, Mr. Bridgeman, Mr. Hartshorn, Brigadier-General Hickman, Sir Robert Horne, Sir Evan Jones, Mr. Kidd, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Munro, Sir Allan Smith, Sir Robert Thomas, Mr. Frederick Thomson, Mr. Stephen Walsh, Mr. James Walton, and Mr. Charles White.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTSfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B (during the consideration of the Ministry of Mines Bill): Sir Philip Magnus and Sir Charles Oman; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Thomas Royden and Colonel Sir Alexander Sprot.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTSfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (during the consideration of the Ministry of Mines Bill): Sir Richard Winfrey; and had appointed in substitution: Major Waring.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTSfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member (added to Standing Committee C in respect of the Nauru Island Agreement Bill): Mr. Alexander Shaw; and had appointed in substitution to Standing Committee A (in respect of the same Bill): Mr. Joseph Johnstone.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTSfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added the following 15 Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Overseas Trade (Credits and Insurance) Bill: Mr. Bridgeman, Lieut.-Colonel Buckley, Mr. William Graham, Mr. Haslam, Lieut. Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare, Sir Robert Horne, Mr. Kellaway, Mr. Kiley, Mr. Rodger, Mr. Royce, Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel, Mr. Alfred Short, Mr. Waddington, Lieut.-Colonel Willey, and Mr. Hilton Young.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  MESOPOTAMIA (CIVIL ADMINISTRATION).
  MESOPOTAMIA (CIVIL ADMINISTRATION).
  BRITISH AMBASSADOR, GERMANY.
  BRITISH AMBASSADOR, GERMANY.
  AALAND ISLANDS.
  AALAND ISLANDS.
  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
AGRICULTURE.
  BAD FARMING.
  BAD FARMING.
  RABIES.
  RABIES.
  POWER OF DISPOSSESSION.
  POWER OF DISPOSSESSION.
  VILLAGE INDUSTRY PRODUCTS (SHOWS).
  VILLAGE INDUSTRY PRODUCTS (SHOWS).
  SMALLHOLDERS (INSURANCE SCHEMES).
  SMALLHOLDERS (INSURANCE SCHEMES).
  FORESTRY (REPLANTING).
  FORESTRY (REPLANTING).
SCOTLAND.
  SMALL-POX, GLASGOW.
  SMALL-POX, GLASGOW.
  FIARS PRICES.
  FIARS PRICES.
  AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEES (COST).
  AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEES (COST).
  TRADE BOARDS (JEWELLERY AND WATCHMAKING).
  TRADE BOARDS (JEWELLERY AND WATCHMAKING).
INDIA.
  LABOUR (HOURS AND AGE LIMIT).
  LABOUR (HOURS AND AGE LIMIT).
  FLYING OFFICERS (PAY).
  FLYING OFFICERS (PAY).
  COAL MINES (CAPITAL).
  COAL MINES (CAPITAL).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  BUSINES (PASSAGES IN BRITISH WARSHIPS).
  BUSINES (PASSAGES IN BRITISH WARSHIPS).
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (GERMANY).
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (GERMANY).
  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
  TIN MINES, CORNWALL.
  TIN MINES, CORNWALL.
  SHIPPING ACT, UNITED STATES.
  SHIPPING ACT, UNITED STATES.
COAL PRODUCTION.
  BUNKER COAL, POOLE HARBOUR.
  BUNKER COAL, POOLE HARBOUR.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  WHALE HUNTING (ALIENS).
  WHALE HUNTING (ALIENS).
  GOVERNMENT TIMBER PURCHASES (MR. MEYER).
  GOVERNMENT TIMBER PURCHASES (MR. MEYER).
SURPLUS GOVERNMENT STORES (DISPOSAL).
  SLOUGH DEPOT (FENCING).
  SLOUGH DEPOT (FENCING).
  BARGES (RICHBOROUGH).
  BARGES (RICHBOROUGH).
  BICYCLES.
  BICYCLES.
FINANCE BILL.
  COMMITTEE STAGE.
  COMMITTEE STAGE.
  WAR WEALTH (FRANCE).
  WAR WEALTH (FRANCE).
  GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS (COMPANIES).
  GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS (COMPANIES).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (COST-ACCOUNTING).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (COST-ACCOUNTING).
  ENFIELD COTTAGE HOSPITAL.
  ENFIELD COTTAGE HOSPITAL.
  H.R.H. PRINCE OF WALES (JOURNEY TO AUSTRALIA).
  H.R.H. PRINCE OF WALES (JOURNEY TO AUSTRALIA).
IRELAND.
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  ILLEGAL COURTS.
  ILLEGAL COURTS.
  EDUCATION BILL.
  EDUCATION BILL.
  SEARCH PARTIES.
  SEARCH PARTIES.
  LABOURERS' COTTAGES.
  LABOURERS' COTTAGES.
TRANSPORT.
  RAILWAY FARES (INCREASE).
  RAILWAY FARES (INCREASE).
  METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS.
  METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS.
  FREE RAILWAY PASSES.
  FREE RAILWAY PASSES.
  RAILWAYMEN (SUPERANNUATION).
  RAILWAYMEN (SUPERANNUATION).
  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY COMPANY.
  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY COMPANY.
  LEA CONSERVANCY BOARD (CHARGES).
  LEA CONSERVANCY BOARD (CHARGES).
  MILITARY LORRIES (RICHBOROUGH).
  MILITARY LORRIES (RICHBOROUGH).
  EXCURSION TRAINS.
  EXCURSION TRAINS.
  PUBLIC VEHICLES (DIMENSIONS).
  PUBLIC VEHICLES (DIMENSIONS).
  RAILWAY HOTELS.
  RAILWAY HOTELS.
  COASTWISE TRAFFIC (SUBSIDY).
  COASTWISE TRAFFIC (SUBSIDY).
  HOP PICKERS (CHEAP FARES).
  HOP PICKERS (CHEAP FARES).
  MOTOR WAGONS (TRAILERS).
  MOTOR WAGONS (TRAILERS).
BRITISH ARMY.
  DISCHARGE BY PURCHASE (YOUTHS).
  DISCHARGE BY PURCHASE (YOUTHS).
  TROOPS IN TURKEY (ALLOWANCE).
  TROOPS IN TURKEY (ALLOWANCE).
  SOLDIERS' GRAVES, PALESTINE.
  SOLDIERS' GRAVES, PALESTINE.
  LABOUR BUREAUX (FRANCE, BELGIUM, AND GERMANY).
  LABOUR BUREAUX (FRANCE, BELGIUM, AND GERMANY).
  SERVICE PENSIONS.
  SERVICE PENSIONS.
  TERRITORIAL ARMY.
  TERRITORIAL ARMY.
  GENERAL DYER.
  GENERAL DYER.
  LORDS LIEUTENANT (UNIFORM).
  LORDS LIEUTENANT (UNIFORM).
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  LAND SETTLEMENT.
  LAND SETTLEMENT.
  GRETNA (SMALLHOLDERS).
  GRETNA (SMALLHOLDERS).
  CIVIL LIABILITIES DEPARTMENT.
  CIVIL LIABILITIES DEPARTMENT.
  GUNWHARF, DEVONPORT (DISCHARGES).
  GUNWHARF, DEVONPORT (DISCHARGES).
RUSSIA.
  S.S. "MAGGIE" (J. F. FRASER).
  S.S. "MAGGIE" (J. F. FRASER).
  FOREIGN INTERESTS.
  FOREIGN INTERESTS.
  TANGIERS.
  TANGIERS.
  MONTENEGRO (PASSPORTS).
  MONTENEGRO (PASSPORTS).
TURKEY.
  SEIZURE OF SHIPS.
  SEIZURE OF SHIPS.
  POISON GAS.
  POISON GAS.
PEACE TREATIES.
  GERMAN SHIPS.
  GERMAN SHIPS.
GOVERNMENT OFFICES (STAFFS AND ACCOMMODATION).
  ROYAL PARKS (HUTS).
  ROYAL PARKS (HUTS).
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (PRINCE'S ROAD, LAMBETH).
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (PRINCE'S ROAD, LAMBETH).
  HOUSING DEPARTMENT (TEMPORARY OFFICIALS).
  HOUSING DEPARTMENT (TEMPORARY OFFICIALS).
  BOARD OF TRADE.
  BOARD OF TRADE.
HOUSING.
  GOVERNMENT GRANT (EXTENSION).
  GOVERNMENT GRANT (EXTENSION).
  FLOODING, TOOTING.
  FLOODING, TOOTING.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  IMPORTED MEAT.
  IMPORTED MEAT.
  MILK.
  MILK.
  AMERICAN BACON.
  AMERICAN BACON.
EDUCATION.
  SCHOOLS (NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE).
  SCHOOLS (NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE).
  TECHNICAL TEACHERS (SALARIES).
  TECHNICAL TEACHERS (SALARIES).
POST OFFICE.
  BICYCLES.
  BICYCLES.
  PARCELS (STEVENAGE).
  PARCELS (STEVENAGE).
  WAR PENSIONS (UNITED STATES).
  WAR PENSIONS (UNITED STATES).
  GRENADA.
  GRENADA.
  COUNTY COURTS OFFICERS (SALARIES).
  COUNTY COURTS OFFICERS (SALARIES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL.

  LOWESTOFT CORPORATION BILL.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL or DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, there are adequate public reasons in this case which make the suspension of the Sessional Order desirable, and which I will explain if your Lordships desire.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 29th day of April last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 17th of June next" be dispensed with in respect of these Bills; and that the Bills be now read 2a.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bills read 2a, and committed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 29th day of April la t, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 17th of June next" he dispensed with in respect of this Bill; and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a, and committed.

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: There are adequate public reasons, which I shall be glad to give if required, why the Order should he dispensed with on this occasion.
Moved, That the Order made on the 29th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 17th of June next" be dispensed with in respect of these Bills; and that the Bills be now read 2a.—(Lord Somerleylon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bills read 2a, and committed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NEW WINDSOR EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTII PROVISIONAL ORDER CHESTERFIELD EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments proposed by the Committee made.

DOMINION OF IRELAND BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON: My Lords, I trust that I need make no apology to the House for introducing this Bill to your consideration, except in so far as my own inadequacy as its advocate. But before explaining its provisions, which I shall do as briefly as I can, I must say a word regarding the reason for choosing this time and this place. I fear that I must ask the indulgence of the House for rather longer time than I could wish, because there seems to be a disposition in some quarters to belittle this Bill, or at any rate to treat it rather as an inconvenient disturbance of the tranquillity of this House. I quite recognise that this is very natural as regards its parent. I have for many years past taken very little part in the proceedings of this House or in politics, and I have been practically what Lord Newton calls a "backwoodsman," but I beg the House to believe that nothing but an overwhelming sense of duty has induced me, greatly daring, to attempt such a mighty task.
The magnitude of this task demands that I should show that I at any rate have approached it in no spirit of levity, that I appreciate its gravity, and that it was not with a light heart, although with a firm faith in the cause of Irish peace, that I took up this matter. First as to the place, I venture to think that this House has distinct advantages for discussing the-Irish question. Almost all Parties are represented iii this House. We have even two or three Peers representing the Labour Party, and perhaps we may hope that my noble friend Lord Haldane also may express the views of that Party on this occasion. It is true that in this House
1114
there is no one representing the Sinn Fein Party, but that is a defect which your Lordships' House shares with the other House of Parliament. On the other hand, the Southern Unionists are very fully represented here, whereas in the House of Commons the Ulster Unionists are the only Party at all adequately represented. Again, we have more control of our time in regard to debates, and it is possible for us to debate here matters for which time cannot be found in the other House of Parliament, especially at the instance of an independent Member. Last, but not least—and I do not say this to propitiate your Lordships—I think it is generally recognised that for independent thought and for ability and breadth of view in debate this Assembly is very remarkable.
As to time, there may perhaps be some doubt as to whether this is a proper time for introducing a Bill of this character, but I plead, though I bring it forward in no opportunist spirit, that it cannot be dismissed as inopportune. Indeed, the only misgiving of which I feel at all conscious is whether it ought not to have been brought on before now. I may be a fool to have attempted such a task, but I cannot charge myself with precipitancy. I do not think I can be said to have rushed in, and perhaps the fear to tread is not always a proof of angelic wisdom. Indeed, if I have moved too soon, that is surely a fault that may be forgiven to an Irishman approaching the question of Irish government. It is not a fault that has often been committed. Yet I cannot but be aware that many people, especially amongst my friends the Southern Unionists, are saying, "Why cannot you leave it alone?" Surely that question hardly requires an answer? The Irish question will not leave you alone. You cannot with dignity or safety let ill alone. I know that the British public, and even among British members in this House, are some who are apt to be sick of the subject, but surely British apathy and ignorance are a conclusive argument for Irish self-government.
Again, I am aware that many of my Southern Unionist friends almost depair of any solution of the Irish question on self-governing lines. They cannot but recognise the breakdown of Pitt's legislative union, but I would appeal to them to face the realities of the present position. What

1115
would the position of Southern Ireland be under the Government Bill? I am not going to discuss the Government Bill, but it is a matter of common knowledge that the majority of the Irish people would refuse to work it. What then is the alternative? We are face to face with a continuance of the present militarist régime which completely fails even to give security to life and property, and which can lead to no sort of settlement. I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, does not contemplate a policy of drift. But I ask him "What is his alternative?" We cannot allow things to go on as they are. Some form of self-government is a necessary prelude to the restoration of law and order, and to my mind nothing short of complete control over Irish affairs, including all taxation, can have a chance of being accepted by the Irish people.
May I say a word as to my motive, if only to avoid misunderstanding? This Bill is brought forward for no Party object. It is not intended as an attack on the Government. I have no desire whatever even to put them into difficulties, rather I offer them a bridge, I believe the only way out of the present impasse, at any rate the best way out of it. I desire above all things a settlement. The dearest wish of my heart is to keep Ireland as a willing member within what General Smuts called "the British Commonwealth of Free Nations." I believe that this is possible on a Dominion basis, but on nothing short of it.
Again, I desire most studiously to avoid all recrimination. I remember it used to be said in 1886—I heard the saying attributed to a distinguished statesman when Home Rule was first being brought forward—that his formula was "Home Rule, Anarchy, Re-Conquest." We have reached the second stage without passing through the first, and with very little prospect apparently of the third stage being reached. But I will not stop to inquire who is responsible for this deplorable situation in which we find ourselves. Perhaps the dishonours in that matter are divided. But neither shall I inquire who began the vicious circle, which we all deplore, of political crime and coercion mutually reproducing each other. I deplore—no man more than I—the political murders, especially those of the unfortunate Royal Irish Constabulary who are suffering for the faults and errors and mistakes of
1116
others, and I deeply regret that the Sinn Fein leaders have not denounced those murders, as O'Connell did in his day. But I do not believe that the Sinn Fein leaders are responsible for them, especially when I remember that the noble Earl who leads the House expressed a similar opinion in this House a few months ago, I think in the debate on the Address. Those leaders must know that these murders are now the chief obstacle to their cause winning the sympathy and support of the British public.
I must apologise for the length of my preliminary remarks, but, coming now to the main principles of the Bill, broadly speaking my, object has been to give to Ireland the largest measure of self-government compatible with the strategic unity of these Islands on the one hand, and the safeguarding of minorities, including the Unionists of North-East Ulster, on the other—in a word, what is commonly called Dominion Home Rule, with defence reserved. This policy has been recently laid down several times in abstract resolutions by leaders of different parties. For instance, the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition laid down three conditions in the opening debate on the Address this Session, and similar propositions were laid down by Mr. Asquith in the other House of Parliament on the Second Reading of the Government Bill, and by Mr. Clynes on the same occasion. But it has, I think, been indicated, not obscurely, also by the Prime Minister himself on several occasions, beginning with the famous letter which he wrote to the Chairman of the Irish Convention on February 25, 1918, in which he laid down the principles that must govern any settlement. He has repeated these general statements on various occasions as lately as his reply to the deputation of railwaymen about ten days ago, and even later than that in the House of Commons last Monday night. Last, but not least, it was clearly laid down in the speech made by the Lord Lieutenant, Lord French, at Belfast last Saturday, when, after laying it down that the Government would never under any circumstances listen to any proposals for the establishment of an Irish Republic, or for the coercion of Ulster, he went on to say—
"We desire now, above all things, to give the country the utmost measure of political freedom, and we hope, sometimes against hope, that a peaceable reconciliation may eventually be effected."

1117
I submit that my Bill conforms pretty closely to those conditions. It proposes neither to establish an Irish Republic, nor to coerce Ulster. I am not going to discuss the Government Bill now before Parliament but, to use the Home Secretary's happy phrase, no man, woman, or child in Ireland could detect much resemblance in the Government Bill to Lord French's desires and hopes, as expressed at Belfast the other day. The Prime Minister also in his speech in the House of Commons renewed and emphasised what he had said to the railwaymen's deputation, and conveyed an invitation to Ireland to come in as a partner in the British Empire. And he went on to recognise that it would be good business for England, even from the financial point of view, to treat Ireland magnanimously.
I believe that such a policy of conciliation is still possible, but only on one condition, and that is that the Government give up the rival and incompatible policy of militarism and coercion to which they still apparently cling. I notice that in his speech at Belfast Lord French concluded by threatening further drastic measures. As Lord Robert Cecil pointed out lately in the House of Commons, you must choose between conciliation and coercion. You cannot hope for success if you try a little coercion for a bit, and then a little conciliation. Surely everyone must admit that coercion, to have any chance of success in Ireland—or anywhere else where you are governing a white people—must be absolutely Prussian in its ruthlessness. But even if you carry it out to its logical extent, even if British public opinion would endorse and enforce it, how far would it carry you towards the restoration of order and the respect for British-made law. At the most what could you hope for? At the mast it might achieve a military occupation, it might stop the besieging of police barracks, it might prevent kidnapping of generals. but it will never restore the prestige of the King's Courts or enable the King's Writ to run.
Your Lordships are possibly aware—it has only lately begun to dawn on the public of this country—that the King's Courts are now absolutely deserted and boycotted in Ireland, and that the King's Writ hardly runs. But at the same time there is being set up all over the South and West of Ireland a system of Sinn Fein Courts, which are operating, and which are
1118
spreading every day, and becoming more and more efficient. This is a new fact which has to be taken into account. To my mind it is a much more serious blow to the authority and prestige of the British Government than spectacular attacks on police barracks or matters of that kind. But it has another side. Surely it is a remarkable and astonishing thing that these Courts should be operating effectively and really giving some proof of constructive restoration of order which the Sinn Fein Party are showing their ability to carry out. The Government claim for their Bill that they alone have faced the facts of the situation. This decay of the King's Courts in Ireland and the rise of Sinn Fein's Courts seems to me a totally new fact which is a serious one, and has seriously to be taken into account.
To give effect to such a policy of conciliation I have sought to this Bill to concentrate attention, firstly, on the essential requirements of Ireland and Great Britain respectively in regard to the relations between the two islands; and, secondly, to concentrate attention upon Ireland's constitutional problem, assuming a self-governing basis. Now, the essential requirement of Ireland, as regards her relation with Great Britain, is financial and fiscal independence, including all taxing powers—Income tax, Customs and Excise. These are essential to give financial autonomy and to preserve the fundamental principle that those who spend the public money should be responsible for the raising of it; and nothing less than financial autonomy will now meet the demand of any section of Nationalists in Ireland. It is the vital matter for all Nationalists including Sinn Feins. On the other hand I am convinced that—apart from the Ulster crux, to which I will come in a moment—the vast majority of the British electorate would tomorrow concede financial autonomy and let Ireland stand on her own bottom, paying her own way, and neither receiving subsidies from England nor paying any contribution to the British Exchequer except towards the cost of defence. Coming to the other side of the question—the British side—the essential requirement for Great Britain, as regards her relations with Ireland, the one vital condition which makes it impossible for England to consent to an Irish Republic, is admittedly, I suppose, the strategic unity of the two islands. And here, looking at the Irish side of that question, I myself am convinced that Ireland's

1119
true interest lies also in strategic unity; and I believe that even now, in their calmer moments, Sinn Feiners recognise that British apprehensions on this matter are not unnatural, and that, if Dominion self-government in other respects were freely given, little opposition would arise to defence being reserved to Great Britain. I therefore contend, in these two vital matters which mainly determine the relations between the two islands, that they can be settled at Westminster without more ado by the gift of Dominion status and the reservation of defence.
Turning now to the problem of Ireland's internal constitution, including the Northeast Ulster crux, I maintain that those essentially Irish matters can only be settled in Ireland by Irishmen. The Imperial Parliament has been trying in vain for a generation past—for 34 years—to settle those internal questions, and the net result has been the expenditure—I may say the waste—of weeks and months of public time in debate which has only generated apathy and disgust over here both within the walls of Parliament and outside. I invite Parliament now frankly to refer those matters bodily to an Irish Constitutional Assembly elected on proportional representation. I should, perhaps, be told that this would only be the Irish Convention over again, and that the Convention failed. I was not a member of the Convention and have no right to speak for it, but it certainly achieved a great measure of agreement, largely owing to the patriotic efforts of my noble friend Lord Midleton and his colleagues, and although it was handicapped by its non-representative character and by the absence of Shin Fein. And only for the complications introduced by the war and by the Conscription controversy, I believe that it might have led to a settlement; but, of course, the main cause of its failure was the reluctance of the Ulster Unionists seriously to negotiate with Southern Ireland at the Convention and their clinging to the hope that, by a threat of partition, they could wreck Home Rule altogether. That hope they can surely no longer cherish if Dominion self-government were given to Ireland as a whole; and they must surely realise that if they are guaranteed at the end of the proceedings of the Constitutional Assembly the option of contracting out in the last resort—which I give in Clause 13 of this Bill—it will be their interest, as well as their duty, to negotiate frankly and freely with their
1120
fellow-countrymen. But this clause, which I have put forward after some hesitation and after anxious consideration, is frankly tentative, and I should welcome any suggestions by way of alternative if the Bill is permitted to proceed to a further stage. One such suggestion has already reached me—that, in place of giving the representatives of the six counties in the Constitutional Assembly a claim to appeal to a plébiscite, they should state their case to the Imperial Conference, and that the Imperial Conference should be empowered to refer the matter to a plébiscite.
I am often asked, "What support have you got?" A very natural question, of course. I stand up here and I have not, unfortunately, very much support, perhaps, from Ireland in this House; but I am asked that question. I am asked also, "What about the professional classes and the business community in Ireland? What about Sinn Fein?" As regards professional and business men, I have received many letters from individuals and I will quote extracts from one or two. A leading business man wrote to me a few days ago—
"We had a meeting at the Harbour Board today, and when it was over I asked the members to remain and talk this matter over, which they did for a considerable time; and I can assure you everyone, even those supposed to be on the Sinn Fein side, expressed the view that the Government could settle the question even now by a Dominion settlement if put forward generously."
Here is another, and the only other quotation with which I shall trouble the House—
"The opinion amongst nearly all business and professional men, outside Sinn Fein and, of course, outside Ulster, is that the remedy lies in Dominion Home Rule, with some contribution towards Imperial Services, and with every reasonable safeguard for Ulster. It is almost certain that if the Government were to make a prompt announcement on these lines with a guarantee of generous financial treatment, it would lead to a speedy settlement, but the decision should he immediate, for every day that passes makes solution more difficult."
But it may be said that there is not much use producing the opinions of isolated individuals, and that I ought to be able to produce evidence of some concerted action. I may, perhaps, plead that, my Bill having been introduced only ten days ago and printed only about a week ago, there has hardly been time for any such concerted action; but I am confident that if it be accorded a Second Reading, and if it be debated not only in this House

1121
but out-of-doors, a large measure of support will be forthcoming.
At any rate, I would make this offer to the Government. I would cheerfully submit to Irish Chambers of Commerce and such other public bodies in Ireland, representing professional and commercial classes, my Bill and their Bill, to choose which they like the better. The Government claim that their Bill is the only constructive proposal before the country or before Parliament, and I recognise the audacity of an humble individual like myself coming forward. Here, at all events, is a constructive alternative which I challenge them to submit to the public verdict. Last, but not least, I come to Sinn Fein, and I admit at once that it is a very fair challenge. People say that Sinn Fein is pledged to accept nothing less than a Republic. Will they accept a Dominion? Will they even come in and act on the Constituent Assembly? I wish to be perfectly frank with the House in this matter. I know some of the Sinn Fein leaders, but I am in no way in their confidence. I have, however, many friends who are in touch with those leaders and what they tell me is this. First, Sinn Fein will not negotiate except on the basis of a Republic; secondly, they will not accept a Dominion as a discharge of their claim; thirdly, they would work a measure of self-government which gave Ireland full financial control; fourthly, they would take part in a Constituent Assembly if Dominion status was not merely promised but actually given. I hope it will be admitted that that is about as much as could be expected in the circumstances for me to put forward in answer to that very pertinent question.
The Prime Minister still seems to hanker after negotiations, and it is only natural that he should do so. Of course, he is a past-master at bargaining. But if there is one thing more than another upon which my friends to whom I have referred insist, it is to have done with promises and offers and, above all, not to trust to unofficial secret negotiations which every one in Ireland mistrusts; and let the Government state plainly what they mean by Lord French's "utmost measure of political freedom short of a Republic," and the Prime Minister's proferred partnership in the British Empire with the other nations. If they would recognise that my Bill satisfies those conditions and would accord it a
1122
Second Reading, they would initiate, I believe, a policy of genuine conciliation before it is too late. I apologise for the length of my remarks, but I have done. I am deeply conscious that my Bill is but a skeleton, and my speech, notwithstanding its inordinate length, a mere sketch, but I beg the House and the Government not to measure its value by my poor efforts. One word more. This is Dominion Day. May I not hope that this auspicious anniversary may bring an invitation to Ireland to take her place, in the Prime Minister's words, as a partner in the Empire with the other Dominions? I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(Lord Monteagle of Brandon.)
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENhad given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move that the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that I, at least, have no intention whatever of belittling his Bill. On the contrary, the step that I have taken in regard to it proves, I think, that I look upon it as a very serious measure. I can assure him also that I undertake the step of moving its rejection with considerable reluctance, because I sympathise so very deeply with him in his desire to put an end to an almost intolerable condition of things in Ireland. I think I agree with him up to a certain point in what I take it are the underlying motives of his Bill. He desires to see Ireland under one Government and under one Parliament. So do I. But I do not see how that is going to be achieved under the provisions of this Bill. He desires to give Ireland practically full autonomy. I do not go so far as that, but I am perfectly certain that the only means of appeasement in Ireland, the only chances of settlement, are to give the people of Ireland the largest possible powers and full responsibility.
I have a little difficulty, or rather some reluctance, in discussing this measure at all, for many reasons, perhaps, among others, that I have not opened my lips in your Lordships' House since pre-war times, and I am rather reluctant to break a silence pleasant to myself and I have no doubt much more pleasant to your Lordships. But this question of Dominion Home Rule was prominently before the Convention. It has been brought very prominently and constantly before the attention of the

1123
Irish people. I opposed it at the Convention. I have opposed it to the best of my ability ever since, and I feel myself bound to oppose it in your Lordships' House lest it should appear that I had in any way changed my mind regarding it.
I am not going into the question of the condition of Ireland. I want to confine myself almost entirely to the provisions of the Bill, and to giving my reasons, as clearly and as shortly as I can, why I oppose the Bill. I think, in the first place, that the operative machinery will prove inefficient; it will break down. The principal provisions of the Bill are that Parliament is to be asked to make a declaration that Ireland is a Dominion, and then, having made that declaration, Parliament is invited to put limitations and restrictions on the Irish Dominion that do not apply to any other Dominion, thereby differentiating in a manner which I am perfectly certain would be very repugnant to Ireland. Having settled that Ireland is a Dominion within the Empire, the Constituent Assembly is then to be convoked.
The Convention was not, of course, a Constituent Assembly, but it was not very far short from one. It was not an elected body,. but it was fairly representative of various modes of political thought and parties in Ireland, with one great and notable exception—the organisation that unquestionably voices the opinions of the great majority of the people would not take any part in the Convention. And why? Because it objected to the terms of reference, which practically were, "devise any Constitution yon like provided it be within the Empire." I think Sinn Fein acted honourably, honestly, and in a straightforward manner. They could not accept the reference, and they would not take any part in the discussions. My noble friend has alluded to this, but he gave me no reason for supposing that Sinn Fein has in the meantime changed its mind. Sinn Fein refused to take part in the Convention because it objected to the reference, and it will refuse to take part in the Constituent Assembly obviously on account of the fact that the Assembly will be bound in precisely the same objectionable way as the Convention was. Unless my noble friend can give us any guarantee—he has not up to the present—that the Sinn Fein authorities would attend an Assembly bound by the fact that Ireland must remain
1124
within the British Empire, I feel sure that they would be straightforward and honest again and refuse to do so.
There is another body of opinion to which my noble friend alluded—the North-East of Ulster, who sent representatives to the Convention, although I am bound to say I think their powers were pretty well limited to keeping a sort of "watching brief." But is there any earthly reason to suppose that they would attend this Constituent Assembly? It is beyond the bounds of possibility to imagine that North-East Ulster is going to accept this Bill, and, if not, why should they trouble themselves to attend an Assembly and begin to draft a Constitution which they have no intention of applying to themselves? They will not accept the Bill they will avail themselves of the provisions in the Bill to contract themselves out. I think the operative machinery will break down, and it looks to me as if the Constituent Assembly is likely to be composed of my noble friend and his friends and followers—a very large and influential body, but still not representative of all Ireland.
But if I am wrong, if the Constituent Assembly did set to work, what position shall we be in? It is perfectly certain that some of the counties in Ireland would contract themselves out and we should be back again in precisely the same impasse in which we were six or seven years ago—right up against absolute partition, which. is obnoxious to all Irishmen and intolerable to me. You would have certain counties in Ireland legislated for and administered by Great Britain, for all practical purposes a part of Great Britain, and the rest of Ireland would be a Dominion. A Dominion of two-thirds or three-quarters of Ireland and the rest of Ireland in Great Britain is not a proposition that appeals to me. My noble friend has spoken about the Army and Navy. There seems to be a curious provision in the Bill. The Army, Navy, and Air Force are reserved; they do not go to the Dominion. The Army, which will be under the War Office, I presume, under a Commander-in-Chief, is only to operate in Ireland for the defence of that country from foreign Powers. Then there is another Army which the Dominion is to have power to raise, which also could be employed for precisely the same reason—the defence of the country. I am not a military expert, but to have two Armies, one under one Government and the other under another

1125
Government, one under one Commander-in-Chief and the other under another Commander-in-Chief, operating for one purpose in the same country, does not appeal to me to be likely to be a very successful method of defensive warfare.
That, however, is a detail, and I do not want to go into the details of the Bill. I want to look at this question from the purely practical point of view. I want something done. I want one Parliament. I admit that to get one Parliament at present is impossible. It cannot be done. I accept without argument two limitations, whether they be right or wrong. The first is that complete independence is impossible; the other is that the forcible coercion of the minority in the North is not permissible. I accept them, and that being so it is perfectly clear that the only possible way to arrive ultimately at unity, which is what I want, is to begin by duality. You must first of all set up two Parliaments in Ireland. That is no way offensive to me on account of my Federal ideas. The existence of two Parliaments in Ireland does not detract one iota from Ireland's integrity. It does not affect it in the least. The idea of Dominions in Ireland, one in the North and the other in the South, is to break Ireland up into two pieces. It is unthinkable; in fact, almost grotesque. Of course, I hold to my Federal ideals. To my mind where there are two communities so totally distinct and different as are Great Britain and Ireland, too distinct to be by any possibility fused into one whole, and at the same time with interests so closely intermingled as they must be by geographical proximity as to make union of some sort desirable and necessary, then I believe the application of the Federal principle is the only way in which you can obtain a really satisfactory and lasting union, at the same time without violating in the least national aspirations and national pride. Of course, the proposal in the Bill of Dominion Home-Rule cuts right across my Federal path, and for that, if for no other, reason I am bound to reject it.
The Dominion that is proposed is different from any Dominion at present existing. I cannot for a moment imagine that it would be satisfactory to Ireland. What sort of Dominion is it going to be? It will be a Dominion in so far as Ireland will have no representation in the House of Commons. I believe that where, through natural causes, interests are so much mixed
1126
up and inter-mingled it would be very detrimental to Ireland not to have representation in the Imperial Parliament. It will be a Dominion, I suppose, in so far as it would be eligible for the League of Nations, and, I suppose, capable of signing Treaties in which the Crown was concurrent. At the same time, according to the Bill, the Dominion is to have no power over Treaties of any kind other than commercial Treaties. The Army and the Navy and Air Force are absolutely reserved. Thus the Dominion of Ireland will not have the same powers as other Dominions. Ireland would not be a Peer among her Peers, but in an inferior and galling, and to my mind ignominious, position, which would never be satisfactory to her, and which, far from effecting a settlement, would invite discord and agitation. Ireland would never be content until she was placed upon the same level absolutely as other Dominions. She would say, "Australia can have an Army and a Navy, and why should not Ireland? Canada is allowed to send a representative to Washington; why should not Ireland send an Ambassador to the Soviet Government in Russia, if she likes?"
It seems to me that this Bill, so far from effecting a settlement, simply invites difficulties by placing Ireland in a position which is not natural to her. After all, the Dominion status has been arrived at by natural development from the position of small Colonies. Ireland never was a Colony, is not a Colony, and never can be a Colony. Ireland was a kingdom, ought to have remained a kingdom, and to my mind should be a kingdom. I do not think that putting Ireland into this unnatural position is likely to satisfy her aspirations. It would not, my Lords, even if all the powers that are implied in the Dominion status were given in this Bill. But they are not, and we all know they cannot be, and in the Bill the very fact that they cannot be is conceded, because these powers are reserved. What my noble friend is offering Ireland is not Dominion status but Dominion status minus a great deal, because he knows that we cannot deliver the real goods. He is not offering Ireland a genuine article but a sort of shoddy Dominion status, and it will not satisfy her. These are my principal reasons for asking your Lordships not to give a Second Reading to the Bill. It would put Ireland in a false position, and I think it might endanger the Empire. The fabric of the Empire is

1127
very fragile and delicately poised, and it would be introducing a new element into it, because your Lordships know very well that the Dominion Parliament in this Bill is different from that of any other Dominion. I hold to the Federal ideal, to which this Bill is opposed. It is a measure which is incomplete, and from its incompleteness is bound to be a source of agitation rather than of satisfaction and settlement. Those are the reasons why I ask your Lordships not to give a second reading to the Bill.
I have been tempted to go, and perhaps might have dealt with the subject better if I had gone, into the whole question of the condition of affairs in Ireland, but I have resisted that temptation. I would only like to say that to my mind no solution of the Irish question will ever be arrived at until it is fully recognised that the root of Irish discontent is planted in sentiment—in an unquenchable, undying yearning for political recognition of Irish nationality, or, if anybody objects to nationality, I will say. Irish individuality. When that fact is recognised and takes form in some kind of Government, then to that Government, whatever it may be, I think the very fullest possible measures that are consistent with the safety and security of Ireland and Great Britain and the solidarity of the Empire ought to be given, and full responsibility. My Lords, I have expressed my regret to my noble friend for having taken this action towards his Bill. I only hope that if his Bill is not accepted by your Lordships' House he will give his energies and intellect and intimate knowledge of Ireland to trying to broaden and strengthen the Government's Bill when it comes up to your Lordships' House.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and insert at the end of the Motion ("this day six months").—(The Earl of Danraven.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I confess that I am very glad that my noble friend on the Cross Benches has invited discussion on this Bill this afternoon. We shall have, of course, a long and close discussion of the Government's Bill on Irish Government when it comes here, but the time of its arrival must be uncertain. When it comes it will invite debate on many matters of detail, and we have no means of knowing what time will be placed at our disposition for the purpose of discussing it. It may, therefore, easily
1128
happen that when that Bill arrives there is not the same opportunity of considering general principles as is afforded by the Bill of my noble friend.
I shall not hesitate to say—and your Lordships will not be surprised that I do say—that I find myself in general agreement with many of the proposals made by my noble friend. He was good enough to mention the three points which, when the House met on February 10 last, I put forward as being, in my opinion, necessary for any measure which there was a chance of Ireland accepting. The first of those three points was that there should be only one Parliament in Ireland; but, I added, as matters are, it is not less necessary that there should be two provincial Assemblies provided with definite powers of their own. In the second place, I said that there must be what has been described as fiscal freedom for Ireland, which, in my judgment, would involve there being no enforced contribution even for the purposes of Imperial defence. In the third place, I laid emphasis on the necessity of there being no Irish representation in Parliament here. My noble friend's Bill satisfies all those conditions in general, though there are some points of detail upon which I shall have to say a word in a moment, and in which I do not think he has altogether met the case. He has reserved certain matters to the Imperial Parliament, to sonic of which my noble friend Lord Dunraven alluded.
There is one point on which I am sure the whole House will he in full agreement with my noble friend, and also with Lord Dunraven—namely, that there can be no question of considering in any circumstances the establishment of a Republic in Ireland. The movement for the establishment of such a Republic has sometimes been spoken of as though it were a novel aspiration. We all know that is not so. The secret society which was best known by the name of the Fenian Society had for its proper title the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and every man who took the Fenian oath took the oath for the establishment of an Irish Republic. I think I have said in your Lordships' House before that when I was Viceroy in Ireland it was estimated by the Police that there were some 60,000 men in the country who at one time or another had taken that Republican oath—not by any means a negligible number. A very large proportion of those 60,000

1129
were, of course, in no sense active Republicans. They were anti-Government, and probably anti-British, but they had no theories on the subject of government, and no doubt in many cases they had joined this society because others had done so. But let it be remembered that the Sinn Fein movement, now so prominent and so formidable, is simply the recrudescence of the old Fenian Society joined with a different type of agitation—that which is founded on the historical and literary associations of Ireland, which have been brought into play for the purposes of this new political organisation. That being so, I think, in spite of what Lord Dunraven just stated, it is absolutely necessary that Imperial defence should be one of the matters reserved for the Imperial Government, and that foreign relations should even more be so reserved. We have to dismiss altogether the idea that constitutional upheavals, involving a change in form of government, can conceivably occur except through the agency of successful rebellion amid such gusts of passion as have constituted the atmosphere of Ireland during the past five or six years.
Lord Dunraven stated that to profess to confer Dominion status upon Ireland was almost a farce if defence were withheld. But he forgot, I think, that it is only within a very few years that the self-governing Dominions have desired to be responsible for their own defence or have possessed the means of doing so. For all I know, my noble friend Lord Dunraven himself, when he was in the Brigade of Guards, may have been quartered in Canada—certainly many of his contemporaries have been—and it is only within the last very few years that troops have been withdrawn from all the self-governing Dominions. Again, Lord Dunraven is, I think, in error, in supposing that there is something which can be called a general Dominion status which, if Ireland does not possess it in all respects, means that the offer that is being made by my noble friend's Bill is nugatory and would be valueless to them.
There are marked differences between the powers possessed by different self-governing Dominions in respect of the native races which would naturally be within their borders. The relations of the South African Union to Basutoland are totally different front those powers which the Government of Canada exercises with regard to Indians in the Reservations
1130
within the Dominion. And it does not seem to me, I confess, sensible to argue (supposing there is any question of a Dominion being accepted by Ireland at all) that certain differences of treatment consequent upon the fact that Ireland is, so to speak, within a stone's throw of Great Britain whereas the other self-governing Dominions happen to be thousands of miles away, would prevent her acceptance because she would not be exactly like Canada or New Zealand in ail respects.
Then, as regards the absence of the Irish Members from the House of Commons, with regard to which 1 again differ from my noble friend Lord Dunraven, I think that, while we all recognise the remarkable contributions of wit and eloquence which those. Members have given in the past, it cannot be disputed that during the lifetime of everybody here, and for some time before that, they have been present principally as outsiders, and most often as anything but helpful outsiders. And I cannot think that, if it is possible to arrive at some solution for the satisfactory government of Ireland, in Ireland, their withdrawal will be lamented either by themselves or by their fellows in England, Scotland and Wales, who all recognise that one of the main difficulties and obstacles in the consideration of any Home Rule measure has been this question of the Irish Members in the House of Commons and of the number that should be there.
Now I want to say a word about Ulster, and particularly the North-East corner which, of course, plays a prominent, although in a sense concealed, part in the Bill of my noble friend. It is not, I think, categorically mentioned there except in the Schedule, but in considering the. establishment of any form of Home Rule, self-government, or Dominion government in Ireland the question of Ulster must always be before us. I think it cannot be disputed that the existence of the particular temper and outlook which has been prominent in North-East Ulster since the Union, and, indeed, to some extent before the Union, has been the main obstacle to the pacification of Ireland, in spite of all the qualities of Ulster which have produced such signal material success in that province; but we have to bear in mind that it has been the accepted policy of all those responsible for Irish government, both Unionists and Home Rulers, that Ulster should not be coerced in the

1131
political sense. That term has been somewhat misunderstood, and perhaps sometimes misrepresented. What we all meant when we said that there was to be no coercion of Ulster was that we did not propose to apply any (what would now be called) German or Prussian methods to enforce political changes; that is to say, that the people of Ulster, if they took exception to provisions such as are found in the Home Rule Act now on the Statute Book, would not be dragooned into submission by a military occupation. That did not mean, as I think some people were inclined to take it to mean, that free leave was to be given to Ulster to break the law in any way she chose. And I take it that my interpretation of the statement is one which most people would now be prepared to accept.
I remember a conversation which I had with Lord Randolph Churchill in Ireland on the subject of Irish government in the last year of his life, when we discussed the whole question of the future of parties in relation to Ireland. The then Government was obviously drawing near to its close, and Lord Randolph, with whom I was on terms of intimate friendship, pointed out to me how completely we Liberals had condemned ourselves to political extinction for what must be a long period owing to our having tied ourselves up so closely with the Irish Nationalists, and how that fact would prevent our coming into power again—as, indeed, we did not for ten years—and would prevent our doing anything for Ireland or for anybody else. I remember that I replied that he and his friends would never be able to do anything for Ireland, because they were bound hand and foot to Ulster, and I well remember the tone in which he replied that "We shall tell Ulster to go"—well, to the quarter to which the baser sort of Orangemen has been accustomed to consign the Pope. What would have happened if Lord Randolph had lived none of us can say. It is possible, I think, with his broad mind and his indifference to precedent that he might have been as good as his word. But, at any rate, his Party has not, and the Irish policy of the Unionist Party since that time has, in the main, been controlled and directed from Ulster.
But we must never forget—and I do not think any of us have forgotten—that there is a problem that has to be dealt with, and that the fears (if that is the proper
1132
word) that Ulster may in some circumstances become the victim of religious rancour which would lead to unfair treatment in matters altogether unconnected with faiths and creeds, have been real and genuine apprehensions. And the question must always be how those fears are to be encountered and satisfied in any measure of Irish government that may be brought forward by any Party. Apparently my noble friend Lord Monteagle anticipates that the Constitutional Assembly when it is formed will provide a solution for this amazingly difficult question. He, by Clause 13 of his Bill, gives powers to the six counties—the four definitely Protestant counties and the two nearly divided but probably by a majority Protestant counties—to withdraw altogether from the Bill, although he does not say what is to happen to them when they withdraw. In my view it is necessary, if this part of the difficulty is to be met, to dot the i's more distinctly than my noble friend has done in his Bill. In my view, the representatives either of the whole of Ulster or of the six counties ought to be empowered to demand the creation of a Provincial Assembly of their own. My noble friend merely gives powers for the creation of such an Assembly, but I think they ought to be able to demand the creation of such an Assembly, and also to demand that it should be endowed with certain powers which would enable them to be free from interference with certain matters—that is to say, with religious affairs, with education, and also would protect them, if they are afraid of it, from any differential taxation directed against the particular industries with which they are concerned.
I do not say that this by any means exhausts the list, but in my opinion they ought to be entitled to demand the creation of an Assembly endowed with such powers. If the powers were not agreed they ought, in my judgment, as my noble friend proposes, to have the option of withdrawing from the scheme altogether. But I differ from him. and I believe I differ from a good many of my friends, in thinking that a referendum is the worst way of arriving at a solution of that kind. I should leave it entirely to the representatives of those districts—whether elected by proportional representation or elected by scrutin de liste—to decide whether or no the powers to be conferred on this subordinate Assembly were in their view sufficient. It is quite true that in 1916 the Government

1133
to which I belonged, when the present Prime Minister made his conciliatory expedition to Ireland, which so nearly met with success, then proposed that six counties should have the option of withdrawing—yes, but withdrawing for the period of the war and for twelve months afterwards. That was a fixed term. The whole matter would then have to come up for consideration, and it was to be done by referendum. But now I venture to think that if there is a withdrawal the procedure should be this. Ulster—or that part of Ulster which chooses not to take part in the Government under my noble friend's Bill—should have the option of withdrawing, and should he, I think, placed very much in the position of the Isle of Man. It would have its own Assembly, and a Governor from Great Britain, with a final reference to some Department here—presumably the Home Office. But I would treat it like the rest of Ireland in that I would ask for no taxes from it, and therefore I would give it no representation in the British House of Commons. It is impossible, of course, to enter now into details as to how If think the thing could be worked, but I believe it could be done, although there are some questions, like the question of Customs, which would no doubt create no little difficulty.
But leaving Ulster altogether for the time being, one has to consider what the position would be, under the proposals of my noble friend, of my noble friend Lord Dunraven and the other Unionists in the South of Ireland. I do not believe that they would have anything to dread from the settlement of a Government of this kind in that part of Ireland which desires to become self-governing within the Empire. I cannot help feeling that if there is a risk of the exercise of intolerance or bigotry, or anything like persecution such as is feared by Ulster—if that were possible, it could he and would be only directed against aggregations of persons, such, for instance, as the City of Belfast, and not against individuals, most of whom are personally popular. As everyone knows, Protestants in the South of Ireland have never had reason to complain of maltreatment from their Roman Catholic neighbours, and therefore they could look forward to the future without dismay, at any rate without any more dismay than they could look forward under the Bill—which I do not, of course, propose to discuss—that is going to reach
1134
us shortly from another place. The position of such Unionist landowners and others in the South of Ireland can be no better under the Government Bill than it would be under the Bill of my noble friend. I think the experience which some of them, at any rate, gained during the progress of the Convention will have caused them to take a somewhat more hopeful view of the future, so far as they and their personal interests are concerned, than some of their friends have been recently taking on their behalf.
I do not know whether there is any possibility of your Lordships giving a Second Reading to my noble friend's Bill, although I confess I should have been very glad if that could be done, because further discussion of this matter in detail is, I am sure, all to the good. but knowing the general views of your Lordships' House I can hardly suppose that such is the case. On the other hand, I think it would be a misfortune if to-day my noble friend's proposals, which, as he himself admits, are in the form of a sketch rather than a finished picture, were altogether refused any further hearing by your Lordships, as would be the case if the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Dunraven were carried.
I wonder, therefore, especially in view of the fact that the Government Bill will be arriving, I suppose not before we adjourn, but soon after we meet again in the autumn, whether it would be possible to adjourn this discussion, so to speak, without prejudice to taking it up again if and when the House feels inclined to pursue it, possibly before or possibly after the concrete proposals of His Majesty's Government have reached us. I think that if your Lordships were wiling to take that course it would have many advantages. The positive action of rejecting after a short discussion, a measure of this kind, of which my noble friend Lord Dunraven has himself admitted the good intention, would, I think, be a misfortune and would be misunderstood, not by extremists. in Ireland, because probably their opinion does not much matter, but by many people of moderate views in Ireland who may not have made up their minds either in favour of such a proposal or against it. At any rate my suggestion would leave it as a possible subject of discussion later on, and if my noble friend was disposed to agree to that course I think it would be a definite advantage.

1135
My noble friend Lord Dunraven seemed until the very close of his speech to have nothing to offer but counsels of despair. He advanced the view that it was impossible to bring together the different Parties who would have to meet as suggested by my noble friend, because the Sinn Feiners would not attend, and even if a Dominion Parliament were constituted I understand it is his belief that they would altogether refuse to take part. I have no doubt that a good many individuals would, but I think it cannot be taken to be entirely proved that all people who would frankly declare themselves to be Sinn Feiners would take so extreme a course as that. After all, Sinn Feiners, like all other Parties, shade off into varying tints from black down to light grey, and it seems to me to be worth trying whether there may not be a sufficient weight of, at any rate, comparatively reasonable opinion in that Party which would cause it to pause before rejecting altogether the offer of a Dominion status—although I confess I do not like the phrase because so many meanings can be attached to it, and I wish some substitute could be found.
Then my noble friend thought that the more rigid type of Ulstermen would also decline to have part or lot in the matter. I said something about that just now, but I cannot help thinking that if some such proposal as I have indicated, which would be in fact a preliminary safeguard to them, were included in the measure, they also would think twice before boycotting an Assembly of this kind. At any rate, I venture to think that the proposal can do no harm. In the intensely difficult situation in which we are it might do a great deal of good. Therefore I, for one, should be very glad if later on, after discussing their own Bill, His Majesty's Government find it possible to revert to some such proposal.
I know, of course, that my noble friend Lord Dunraven, devoted as he is to the Federal idea, considers that this proposal is altogether incompatible with that. In a sense no doubt it is, although if the despondent view of Irish convictions is the correct one I do not see Ireland as a contented, or as a possible, member of a Federal union of these Islands. I do not know whether my noble friend's view is that there should be a series of Federal Assemblies—perhaps two in Scotland, four or five in England, I do not
1136
know whether there would have to be one or two in Wales, and two also in Ireland. All that is a long way off if the project is to come to anything, and I do not think Ireland can wait. And how it is possible, by separating the two parts of Ireland now in a manner which at any rate some of Ulster's representatives believe will be permanent, to assist the ultimate Federal solution, with no idea as to how the South of Ireland is to be dealt with under it, I confess I do not quite see. I still, in spite of my noble friend's eloquent, speech, prefer the proposals of Lord Monteagle. If I may repeat myself once more, if we can postpone any further decision, although I certainly hope not rule out further discussion, upon it, I think it will be to the general advantage
LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, with reference to the speech of my noble friend who introduced the Bill and the policy it embodies, I should be inclined to dwell on the little support that his policy has in Ireland only for the fact that in the eyes. of the Government a "Bill for the Better Government of Ireland" is suitable, and that it is not a disqualification that that. Bill has not a single supporter in the House of Commons or anywhere in Ireland. The Bill in another place is based, or I believe professes to be based, on self-determination—the self-determination of two parts of Ireland. I have never seen a very good or very satisfactory definition of "self-determination," but it surprises me to see in the case of Ireland that a Bill conies under that. head which has no support in the country to which it is to be applied.
In comparison with that I beg to congratulate my noble friend on the fact that he has really got a few supporters in Ireland for his Bill. He will admit, in spite of the letters he read to us, that they are few, and that notwithstanding all the able and earnest advocacy of himself and other distinguished Irishmen the fact remains that in Ireland this solution of the Irish question—Dominion Home Rule—has not been taken up in the least, though it has been propagated there for some time past. The English Labour Party did seem to favour this solution of the Irish question, but they were immediately fiercely denounced by the Irish Labour Party for making such a proposition. As regards Sinn Fein the noble Lord admitted that he could not look for any

1137
support there, although they compose three-quarters of Ireland. I go further and say—I read it in a Sinn Fein paper the other day—that not alone would they not accept Dominion Home Rule but that it was an insult to propose it for Ireland because it implied that Ireland had once been a Colony. They say, "Ireland is not a Colony; it is not a Dominion. England is not Ireland's mother country." "On the contrary Ireland," they say, "was a nation hundreds of years before England."
The Bill now brought forward seems to me to deal with the matter on rather too theoretical a basis. The Irish question is not a theoretical thing. You can put forward schemes and systems which read well in theory, logic, and reason, but it does not follow that they will go down in Ireland. The Irish question is a practical problem, and whatever proposition you make you must relate it to the facts in Ireland. I will endeavour to point out what I consider are two probable developments, I might even. say two certain results, if this Bill becomes an Act and also comes into operation. Your Lordships roust remember that there are three stages in regard to legislation in Ireland. We have Bills, Acts, and we have Acts that come into operation. On the assumption that this Bill comes into operation I say that the following results will take place. It will be used by the Sinn Fein Party for the purposes of establishing their principle—I should rather say, for the purpose of strengthening the establishment of an Independent Sovereign Republic. in Ireland. The powers of this Bill will he used exclusively for that purpose. I say that the Bill will lead to the partition of Ireland. It is impossible to conceive that Ulster will come into Dominion Home Rule or into a Republic, and the net result will be civil war generally in Ireland.
In drawing attention to these probable results I am not expressing simply my own views. I am not prophesying; am not so foolish as to prophesy. But perhaps I am going to do even a more foolish thing than prophesy. I am going to rely on, and take at their word, the politicans. The Sinn Fein Party in Ireland, to do them justice, have been perfectly frank in their policy. They have made no attempt to deceive you; no attempt to disguise their views. I remember in past years when Home Rule was the policy it was really rather difficult to know what Home Rule
1138
meant. There was a very mild form and an extreme form of Home Rule. The Nationalist Members spoke often with different voices, with one voice in this. country and with another voice in another country, and it was extremely easy to be misled as to what Home Rule meant. But it is not possible to be misled as to what is the policy of Sinn Fein, because they have announced it as clearly and distinctly as possible. It is for an Independent Sovereign Republic in Ireland. Repeatedly Sinn Fein have put forward the fact that, in their opinion there are only two possible policies in Ireland—union or separation. They do not take the slightest interest in all the intermediate stuff of this Bill, or the Bill in the other place, except for the purpose of using such powers as will be given under these Bills in order to press forward and attain their own particular policy. I do not want to misrepresent. Sinn Fein, and really it is almost impossible to do so because they are so avowed in their views.
Here I should like to say a word or two to my own fellow-countrymen on this policy. I ask my own fellow-countrymen, leaving aside all question of the rights and wrongs, of loyalty to the Constitution as it exists, leaving aside whether the policy is really feasible and the effects of their policy in Ireland, I would like to ask them, Are they really prepared, do they really mean, to cut themselves adrift not only from the United Kingdom but from the Empire? I ask them, Are they really prepared to be aliens not only in this country but throughout the Empire? Are they prepared to be aliens in Liverpool and Glasgow and also in Melbourne and Montreal? Are they prepared to be deprived of, and excluded from, all the advantages of life and services, civil arid military, of the Empire. I ask them again, Are they really prepared to give up their share in this Empire to which their sons have contributed so much? Are they willing now to retire and give up their share in the greatest. Commonwealth the human race has ever seen? Are we going to have England, Scotland, Wales, Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand, India, all nations, combined together in one body, but not Ireland. It would be in my opinion a deplorable abdication and isolation for Ireland to take up such a position. It would be a denial and a desertion of her share and part in the great and noble inheritance of the Empire.

1139
I have endeavoured to show that in the first place the policy of my noble friend would lead to the establishment of an independent Republic. The second result which in my opinion would eventuate, would be partition, because it is impossible to conceive that Ulster would come into such a Dominion, much less into a Republic. There is not a single man in Ireland who is not opposed to partition. The essential principal of the Nationalist Party, and indeed of every other Party, is that Ireland must be one and undivided. The view which they hold of partition is such that it has been described as "blasphemy" and "abomination," and "that it would make a monstrosity of Ireland" and "would be the final and irretrievable ruin of Ireland." That is felt so strongly in Ireland that many Nationalists have said that if partition is inevitable in settling the Irish question, then it would be better to go on as we are. Cardinal Logue said 50 years of British Rule would be better than partition. Every public body, and every person in Ireland, denounces it in every shape and form. Even the Limerick and Cork Butchers' Association say they must have the whole hog, or nothing.
I have endeavoured to show briefly why, in my opinion, this Bill would result in the establishment of a Republic, in partition, and in civil war; and as I am not in favour of any one of those things, I am not going to support my noble friend. I should be sorry to sit down without making one suggestion as to what I think should be done. I have said that the great mass of the Irish people propose now to leave not only the United Kingdom but the whole Empire. I therefore submit to your Lordships that the Irish demand affects, now, not only the unity and welfare of the United Kingdom but the unity and welfare of the whole Empire. The minute that Ireland put forward claims not merely for reform in her own Government, not merely for this or that form of Devolution, or this or that measure of Home Rule, but claims for an Independent Sovereign Republic, I submit, my Lords, that the Irish question ceased to be a domestic question and one of home policy, and became an Imperial issue of the utmost gravity, involving Imperial interests and responsibilities.
Surely it is an Imperial issue now that at the very moment when all parts of the Empire are coining together and seeking
1140
more intimate knowledge of their mutual interests, the centre of the Empire should be broken up. That is the question before your Lordships, and I submit to the Government that the Empire, the various Dominions, should be definitely consulted in this matter. Their views would be of the utmost value, both in fact and on the merits of the question, and also in prestige and influence. My noble friend suggests an Assembly of Irishmen to settle the Irish question. I should have thought he had seen enough of that in the ease of the Convention, where they came to no conclusion on anything of any importance. They were assembled to see whether Ulster and the South of Ireland could come together, and all I saw was that the Nationalists and Unionists in the South of Ireland broke up amongst themselves. Therefore an Irish Constituent Assembly I look upon as of no use. It would merely aggravate the question like the Convention, which came to no conclusion on the main thing and differed on small things which I really thought Irishmen might have agreed upon.
Then, is it possible to have a Conference between this country and Ireland? I submit that it is not. The Irish people consider that British statesmen are prejudiced, that they cannot trust them, and that they have been betrayed by them; but they have always prided themselves upon, and rejoiced in, and boasted of, the sympathy of the Dominions. Therefore I believe that the Irish people would give great weight to any decision come to by a Conference composed of Dominion representatives and this country, and I believe would give unquestioned adherence to it. Then the Dominions say that they are actually suffering more than this country from the evil effects of the non-settlement of the Irish question. If that is so, would they not be willing to take their part in such a Conference? Dominion statesmen have immense experience of all the constitutional problems, and have had immense experience of those differences in religion and race which trouble us in Ireland. Those differences are far greater in the case of the British and the Boer in South Africa, or the Catholic from Ottawa and the Protestant from Toronto. Therefore I believe it would be a great advantage to invite them to come to the assistance of our own countrymen on what I submit is an Imperial issue.

1141
I venture, therefore, to suggest to the Government that an Imperial Conference should be summoned, composed of representatives of the Dominions and of the United Kingdom, to examine and report upon this great question of Ireland. It is said, my Lords, that the Bill in another place has been brought in very largely to satisfy public opinion in the Dominions. If that is so, it. means that the Government fully recognise that this is not only a British but an Imperial issue. If it is an Imperial issue my suggestion is that the Government should consult the whole Empire, and invite the Empire to assist them in an earnest and frank attempt to examine and settle this great old Irish question, and this new and extremely grave Imperial issue.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I want warmly to support. the suggestion of the noble Marquess as to an arrangement whereby this discussion should be adjourned. I can hardly think it would be regarded as an adequate procedure that, after a comparatively short discussion, this matter, whatever may be thought of the Bill itself, should be relegated to extinction. As to the speech of my noble friend who has just sat down, nothing would please me better than that a Conference should be called of the Dominions of the British Empire. Most of them have already given their opinion upon the subject—namely, that the largest possible measure of self-government should be extended to Ireland. But meanwhile something ought to be Clone, and whatever may be the immediate prospect of this Bill, every one who has studied the subject and who has convictions regarding it will naturally feel bound to express an opinion for or against the measure.
We have had some very interesting speeches, and for my part I should like first to allude to the source from which this Bill has emanated. My noble friend Lord Monteagle characteristically made no allusion to his own experience, but most of us know that he is one of those who have earned and deserved the title of model landlord. For many years he has been foremost in anything that concerns the welfare of Ireland. He also has been until lately a recognised member of the Unionist Party. Why, then, does he come forward with a measure of this sort? Because of the logic of events. He will not contradict
1142
me when I say that when he found that the measures for enabling land purchase to be made did not alter the attitude and convictions of the people of Ireland as a whole he felt that something else must be done in order to pacify the country.
At present, as we all know, the condition of Ireland must largely be described as chaotic. When I left Ireland officially a little more than five years ago the country was quiet. I lay no stress upon the circumstance that I had been nine years in office then, but it was quiet, and for some time previous to that the Sinn Fein movement had, so far as outward manifestations go, shown signs of diminishing in force. For example, the recognised organ of the movement, Sinn Fein, sank from being a daily to a weekly publication. No doubt the leaders of the movement, not so very numerous but very able and astute persons, were watching. For what were they watching? To see if the golden opportunity which had arisen for wide pacification and conciliaiton would be utilised. I am alluding to the fact that early in the war Mr. Redmond announced that the volunteers of the South would join with their brethren in the North and go to the war in defence of the cause of Britain. That utterance was welcomed with a great deal of enthusiasm. But there was a pause. I remember that I implored the Prime Minister of that day to send at least a telegram of appreciation of this offer, and he did so. But the matter was in the hands of the military authorities, and there was a good deal reserved. Then the Sinn Fein leaders saw their opportunity. They began to go round and say, "Look, they hesitate. The British Government won't trust you. Come with us and we will do you good."
Nevertheless recruiting went on. I will give your Lordships one illustrative example of recruiting. This occurred in the County of Clare, of all counties the one which is supposed to be the reverse of placid. In the district of Ennis, from a population of 5,000, no fewer than 800 young men enlisted. At this time the fact that the Home Rule measure had been put on the Statute Book was the main inducement. But difficulties were allowed to occur in regard to the recruiting in the Southern and Western districts. I do not wish to say anything polemical, or which would cause an uncomfortable feeling, but I am afraid it must be admitted that a distinction was made between the recruiting

1143
arrangements in the North and those in other parts of the country—for instance, in the use of emblems and in the recognition of distinctive divisions. That was very much desired by the Irish in general, but was not often granted. Then there was the event which certainly created a great impression in parts of Ireland of which I am thinking—namely, the appointment of Sir Edward Carson as Attorney-General in the Coalition Government. I am not going to dwell upon why that appointment was looked upon with great surprise, but it is a fact that recruiting in the month after that appointment fell from 6,000 to 3,000. I will not go further into this, for I am merely referring to these matters by way of explaining why, in my opinion, some measure such as that which has been put before us by my noble friend is necessary.
We all know of the lamentable event which came soon after the time of which I am speaking—the Easter-week rising. That was disapproved of, undoubtedly, by the vast majority of Irish people—probably by about 90 per cent.—but I am afraid the handling of that matter was not what would have been desired in the way of discretion. It was also announced that the Castle system was a failure. Yet in a few months it was in full force again. These are some of the causes which seem to me to make it imperative that there should be a new departure in the direction of this Bill. As to confidence in its safety, we have a strong analogy in Canada. Canada is a long way off, and Ireland is very near. Still, in the essentials of the arrangement, we have to remember that Canada was not always the loyal country which it has been for many years. The parting of the ways had been arrived at, and historians will agree that had it not been for the generous treatment extended under Lord Durham to Canada the history of that country might have been very different. We all know how it has been distinguished by loyalty ever since. Then we have South Africa. There, again, there was the parting of the ways, and some very eminent statesmen said, I believe, that they would wash their hands of any proposal to give full self-government to South Africa. But owing to the far-seeing statesmanship of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, as we all know, confidence was extended to that country to the inestimable advantage of the Empire.
1144
We all come, sooner or later, to the crux of this matter—namely, the question of Ulster. I confess that North-East Ulster has not been qui fairly treated by successive Governments. I am using the expression "fairly treated" in a sense which is perhaps not that which is ordinarily given to it. So far as I know British Governments have not done anything to allay the apprehensions and alarms which have been expressed on the part of Ulster as to what would result on giving self-government to Ireland. On the contrary, all the anxious enquiries as to what Ulster could expect in the matter of guarantee and so forth have always had the effect of confirming those apprehensions and forebodings which, I am convinced, are largely unfounded. We have the example which has been alluded to already of how in the South and West of Ireland, where Roman Catholics are in the vast majority, there are no complaints of attempts to impose disability or oppression upon the Protestants. Protestant clergy and ministers are ready to stand up, and do stand up in public, and say that they have got on perfectly well with their neighbours, the Catholics, in those districts. There is one thing that the Irish Catholics cannot endure, and that is anything like proselytising. If proselytising is abstained from, there is no fear as to harmonious relations-continuing.
There is one other attempt which I think might have been made, or might yet, be made, to convince the people of North-East Ulster. It is this, that they should, as it were, perform—it might mean a great deal—an act of trust. After all, they are in the country. They do not approve of partition, I suppose, any more than any one else does. They are in the country for better or worse, and if they could by an act of confidence trust the people of the rest of Ireland instead of looking down upon them, as they often do, it would not only be a noble deed but would be good business. Although we are accustomed to speak of that section of the country as a thing apart there are business relations, of course, with the rest of Ireland, and the establishment of better relations would be, as I say, to the benefit of all concerned in a material sense as well as otherwise.
The annual celebration of the 12th of July is coming near. There is naturally a good deal of anxiety about that event. One can easily understand that His

1145
Majesty's Government would feel a difficulty in intervening. The Ulster leaders might have a difficulty, perhaps, in inducing the main body of the Orange lodges to acquiesce, but if, even now, the Orange community could undertake to forego the procession on this particular occasion in the name of law and order, to avoid this risk of disturbance, they would receive the admiration, not only of this country and the vast number of people in Ireland, but of the civilised world. It would be an act of self-abnegation, and would do untold good. My noble friend has made an eloquent appeal to Sinn Fein; I think that all men of good will would be ready to join in an appeal to the Orange lodges, if possible even now, to abstain from the celebration this year. After all, everybody knows that the Battle of the Boyne was a very important battle, but so also was the Battle of Waterloo, but we do not have a Waterloo celebration, largely because it would not be agreeable to the sensibilities of our French Allies. And therefore, as an act of grace, the stoppage of this procedure would be of enormous significance and benefit.
I wish to add that I am aware that the leaders of the Orange Party and the Ulster Members are anxious to secure, if possible that the provocative element should be, as far as possible, absent. I am not a member of an Orange lodge myself, and therefore I do not know exactly what the emblems are that are prominent on those occasions. I am afraid it would be rather difficult to have an Orange procession without some indication, of a definite sort, of so-called religious opinion. But still it is right to mention that I believe that the word has been passed round to avoid everything provocative, and we shall all devoutly hope that, if the processions are to be held, they should be got over without any serious disturbances.
As to Lord Dunraven's opposition he began by saying he was very anxious that he should not appear to be changing his mind. I am sure there are worse things than a change of mind. A general in the field does not hesitate to change his plans if he finds that the circumstances are different from what they were when he made his dispositions, and we all admit that the condition of Ireland is now so absolutely different from what it was, and so alarmingly serious, that any honest attempt to suggest a solution ought to
1146
receive very serious consideration. Though the noble Lord who spoke last said that only a few people were in favour of this measure the few include some very important people, and I would venture to read a few words from a letter by one whose name is a household word to most of us for his interest in Ireland—Sir Horace Plunkett. I had hoped that perhaps among the many desirable additions to the members of this House Sir Horace Plunkett would have been included. I suppose that may be something in store for us, and it would be very welcome. He says—
"The great thing to get is the principle admitted that the Irish question can now only be settled by an assembly of Irishmen, democratically elected, sitting in Ireland, and empowered to adopt any Constitution within the Empire consistent with the military safety——"
and so forth. It is the principle on which wish to lay stress. We have been told that the Sinn Feiners are irreconcilable, but if my noble friend thought them so irreconcilable one would not have thought it worth his while to make that appeal to them, but lie shows that he does not think they are impervious to a fresh reconsideration by his utterance of that appeal.
My noble friend Lord Monteagle stated—what he had gained on good authority—four heads under which Sinn Fein would, or would not, agree to any consideration of such a measure. It seems to me that the last two did not quite tally with the fist, because the last two declarations were that they would enter into the discussion of a measure giving self-government. The last head was also in the direction of concession, although they began by saying that nothing but a Republic would do. The point is that there are various degrees of Sinn Fein, and, whatever the leaders may think to be the one thing essential, if there was a definite offer made by His Majesty's Government either before, or in connection with, or subsequent to the Bill which we know is coming, that would be used, I believe, as a ground for reconsideration. What they lay stress on is "We want something definite; until then we are bound to hold the fort in our own way, and not consider any alternative." But if there was a firm offer in the direction of such a Bill as this there is really good reason to believe that, owing to the large number of people who are longing for peace

1147
and quietness in Ireland, the leaders would be sufficiently honest seriously to take up the consideration of the question.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I rise to make a practical suggestion to your Lordships. I was much impressed, as were others, with what was said by my noble friend who sits by me (Lord Crewe) about the desirability of neither slamming the door in the face of this Bill nor opening the door wide to it. It is a Bill that, if it is ever to go further, wants a great deal of consideration. One point which has not been made I will merely mention. In all previous attempts to prepare a Dominion Constitution the practice has been to convene an assembly of distinguished representatives of the Dominion which desires the Constitution, and then let them prepare a Report on which the Imperial Parliament, guided by skilled draftsmen, prepares the Constitution. But under this Bill, if it were to pass, that would not happen which happened at Quebec in October, 1864, when the Quebec Resolutions were passed on which the Dominion of Canada Act of 1867 was subsequently passed; nor would that happen which happened in Australia, when the Convention made a Report on which the Commonwealth of Australia Act of 1900 was passed.
The National Convention fashions a Constitution directly. It is a body of over 300, which is unskilled, as were the Conventions in Canada and Australia. The drafting resolutions which they produced were bad enough, but I wonder what the drafting resolutions of this Convention would be like, considering that the Convention's resolutions have at once to assume the form of an Act and to receive statutory validity. It is the Convention which makes the Constitution with its own hands. As the Bill is drawn, every county council in Ireland could raise the question of constitutionality in every respect. You would have these questions all over again. It is for that reason that I think I should not like to open the door to this Bill as it stands. But, on the other hand, to the principle of this Bill I extend a welcome, so far as the consideration is concerned. We have made up our minds, I think, that we have to drive one horse or the other in regard to Ireland, and our main complaint against the Government is that it tries to ride two at once. Either you rule Ireland, you maintain law and order by force, or you take responsibility where power is and
1148
putting upon the people of Ireland the duty of maintaining, law and order. If you are in earnest with the principle of democracy, that is what you have to do; because the people in this country will not allow you to persist in the other way of attempting to govern. I remember listening to Mr. Parnell, in a speech he made in 1887, when he said there were two ways and two ways only by which you could govern Ireland, and that you could take either of them but you must take the one or the othe—reither a Dictator or a Home Rule Parliament. What some of us feel, being driven to the second of these alternatives by the very force of Constitutional necessity, is that we should like to consider very fully and carefully the form of any legislative proposal that is brought forward for the purpose.
We have a proposal from my noble friend Lord Monteagle of Brandon which certainly is very well worth considering. In its substance it goes to the root of the matter in proposing to put the responsibility in the largest form upon the persons whom you wish to bring back to a sense of the necessity of using their power in such a way as to produce good government. Then there is the Government Bill. My mind is perfectly open on that measure. I have always thought that there was a great deal to be said for starting with two Parliaments if you could get to one Parliament in the end. I do not know in what form that Bill will come before us, and I wish to keep nix mind quite open on the form on which the principle that in common is accepted by the two kinds of Bill. If that is so, a debate of this kind to-day cannot be sufficient; and I venture to suggest that we should adjourn this debate so that the Bill, and Lord Dunraven's Amendment to reject it, will be both kept alive; and then my noble friend Lord Monteagle may put down his debate to come on at the same time as the Government Bill when it comes up to us in the autumn, so that we can discuss then the whole question of principle. For that purpose, and simply to give form to the situation, I will move that the debate be adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Viscount Haldane.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should have been very glad if His Majesty's Government could have indicated the course which they thought

1149
ought to have been pursued in reference to this Bill; but I frankly admit that, in the absence of guidance from His Majesty's Government, I cannot favour the suggestion made by the noble and learned Viscount that this discussion should be adjourned. If, of course, the noble and learned Viscount had made the suggestion because he thought there were a great number of your Lordships who desired to address the House on the Second Reading, that would have been a different matter; but he seemed to think that the adjournment ought to be granted because your Lordships should keep an open mind in reference to this Bill. It is always right to keep an open mind in some sense. None of us is infallible, even the youngest of us; and in that sense, I suppose, no one ought to say his mind is absolutely closed.
But, as far as I am able to make a judgment, I think, and I believe the majority of your Lordships think, that this Bill is entirely unacceptable. I have heard no real defence of it throughout the debate, and personally I take, on grounds with which your Lordships are familiar, an adverse view of it. Even those noble Lords who supported the introducer of the Bill criticised the measure extremely severely. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition evidently thought it required vital alteration, so did the noble and. learned Viscount who has just sat down—his view was that the Constitutional Assembly ought to decide the fate of Ireland. As a matter of fact, the Bill decides the fate of Ireland before the Constitutional Assembly is even called into being, because it is decreed to be a Dominion before anything else is to happen. Those are reasons which seem to me to indicate that the Bill is entirely unacceptable. I believe that is the view of the majority of your Lordships.
I see no reason, therefore, why, unless there were a desire on the part of other noble Lords to address the House, your Lordships should not come to a decision this evening. It is hardly right, perhaps, to speak at large on the merits on this Motion, but for my part I agree in the main with nearly all that fell from my noble friend Lord Killanin. He spoke from a great knowledge of Ireland; and I do not think that any of your Lordships could have listened to him without seeing how impossible was the proposal which was put before us. I do not agree with him, of
1150
course, in thinking that it would be a good thing to refer these matters to a great. Imperial body. Another committee! Perhaps it would not be out of keeping with what His Majesty's Government generally do in moments of difficulty to refer it to another Committee; but really no amount of Committees could get rid of the difficulties of the case. The difficulties of the case are inherent. My noble friend said very truly that the choice lay between the Union and separation. I, my Lords, am for the Union.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, the noble Marquess who has just sat down commented on the fact that no statement had been made on behalf of the Government. I have watched carefully every time a speaker resumed his seat and one of your Lordships has immediately risen. It certainly was my intention to take as early an opportunity as offered of explaining the position of the Government. I cannot, of course, do that on this limited Motion, but I will make a few observations on the proposal of the noble and learned Viscount.
Had it been merely a proposal made on behalf of those who support this Bill that, for their own convenience or for the convenience of the House, its further discussion should be postponed, I should have thought that was a matter which did not deeply concern the Government, and if they took that view I should not have any opposition to it. But when the noble and learned Viscount says it might be a convenient course to consider this Bill in the autumn when the Government Bill comes up to us, I want to enter a strong protest. We are bringing forward, with a deep sense of responsibility, proposals of our own. The noble Marquess has emphatically and effectively said what is his opinion. Many of those who have made themselves responsible for the proposals which we shall shortly attempt, to recommend in this House have all our long lives called ourselves Unionists. We have not lightly, or, we believe, recklessly, undertaken to recommend our Bill to your Lordships; we have done so with the sincere belief that we should be able to recommend it to the House when it reaches us. We do it in the hope that your Lordships May strengthen and improve a measure which will change the situation. For these reasons the idea to me that this Bill should be postponed and take its

1151
chance with the Government Bill is not acceptable. As the proposal put forward has come in that spirit and with that intention, I cannot see my way to agree to it.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I want to say a word before this discussion comes to an end. Lord Dunraven said some very important and true things. When he stated, for instance, that Ireland would never be satisfied with a position which did not recognise her nationality, he said what was true. The very Title of this Bill raises a delicate situation, but at the same time the measure is a genuine attempt to deal with the position.
I myself am not in any sense a politician. If there is one subject in this wide world which annoys me it is politics. I have been so worried with politics, especially in my own country, that I have gone as far away from them as I possibly could for the last few years. I have been engaged chiefly on metaphysics and things of that sort. Suddenly in the midst of my dream my noble friend Lord Monteagle comes along, and I have to come over to discuss the situation again. While I was away and dreaming I had a most horrible nightmare, and in this nightmare there was a dog fight going on. There was a big Imperial dog and there was a small National dog, and the dogs were whirling round and round and rolling down hill towards a precipice, and I feared what was going to happen. The one thing that comforted me, as an Irishman, was that I thought possibly the smallest, lightest, most compact dog, the National dog, would survive, whatever happened to the other.
Suddenly Lord Monteagle comes along with this suggestion. Well, I do not say that it is beyond criticism. That is not now the question. What we have to deal with is the Second Reading and the recognition of the principle. He comes along with this, and what I want to emphasise, before your Lordships come to a decision, is that we have to face the Sinn Fein situation in Ireland. That means not necessarily that Ireland is entirely Sinn Fein, but that the great majority of Irishmen are following Sinn Fein and therefore that this Bill, if it is adopted, must be put as coming from your Lordships' House, as coming authoritatively from this country, as a proposition of peace to put an end to
1152
the trouble. It must be quite clear that it is not a proposition coming from any body of Irishmen, and there you will all recognise the advantage of the situation, when, as Lord Monteagle told us, the Bill does not, as it stands, represent any body of public men in Ireland but is simply an attempt to deal with the situation and to make a suggestion to your Lordships as to how your Lordships should act.
But we have a proverb in Ireland which seems to me to have a very definite bearing on the situation, Tir gan teanga tir gan anam. Ta an teanga sabhailte anois agus beidh Eire beo tamall maith go foill. I believe you would, in this country, say, "A country without a language is without a soul." But we also have this—Beidh si ag eiridhe nios laidire gach aon la. Acht ar feadh an t-am sin beidh rudai eile i gcontabhairt. The meaning of that is this, "Ireland can afford to wait." I am perfectly sure, from my knowledge of human nature, that if the proposition is made authoritatively from this country and representing the Empire, it is common sense that the proposition will be considered by my fellow-countrymen. I make that statement, not in the name of any one whom I represent, but in the name of common-sense. I am perfectly sure of that, but one thing is certain, and that is that Ireland can afford to wait, as the principle of Irish nationality is assured, as the Irish spirit can only change by becoming stronger and stronger. It is in the interests of the Empire that the question should be faced as soon as possible. There is always the danger that we may wish to let things slide. It is also almost a proverb in my country. I do not know what things are like here. I would remind you that there was once a king who, in the face of a difficult position, concluded that he would like to let things slide and the phrase he used was, Aprèes moi le déluge. That phrase has gone down to history.
LORD WEARDALE: My Lords, before the Motion is put I think the House will recognise that we have just listened to a very moving appeal from Ireland itself, and one which carries with it a weight perhaps out of proportion to the length of his observations, or, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, the position he occupies in this House. It amounts to this—that he, and he is amply qualified for an estimate of the situation in Ireland, is of opinion that a proposal based on these

1153
lines is one which might excite friendly sentiments in Ireland and might lead to a favourable consideration by the more extreme section in Ireland of proposals for Home Rule.
It may be all very well for the noble Lord on the Woolsack to express his confidence that the proposals of the Government are going to be conspicuously successful. Is there a single man in this House—I am certain there is no one outside of it—who has the smallest confidence that the Home Rule proposals of the Government are going to settle the Irish question? And is it not a pure waste of time, and is it not surely a rather shameful reflection, that the House of Lords, conscious of that fact, should allow proposals of this kind, in, skeleton form it may be true, and quite possibly open to various objections, but at all events conveying a distinct proposition of Dominion Home Hule, which, in my judgment, offers about the only prospect of any possibility of success in the settlement of the Irish question, to be turned down in this abrupt manner and not left to future examination and consideration?
I heard with great satisfaction the speech of the noble Viscount in which he counselled this House to adjourn the debate. Coming from him it appeared to me to have considerable weight, because he belongs to a section of the Liberal Party with which I have been in dire conflict for a very long period. He belongs to that section of the Liberal Party which, in my judgment, has done more to injure the cause of Home Rule than anybody else in these Islands. They arrested the proper development of Mr. Gladstone's proposals. They prevented tire Parliament and the Government of which Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was the head, from dealing satisfactorily, as they might have done with their great majority, with the Home Rule question. Therefore, when I hear him suggest that this is a hopeful proposal in principle and that it would be desirable to adjourn it for future examination, all I can say is that I hope that you will now give your verdict that it shall be adjourned and left open for future consideration. In so doing the House of Lords will maintain the reputation it has gradually acquired of being, certainly at this moment, the most Liberal of the two Houses of Assembly in this country.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I hesitate very much at this time of the evening to enter into a discussion of the merits of the Bill which is now before
1154
you. I think it is plain that a Bill with such consequences could not be discussed in a manner worthy of your Lordships' consideration excepting under great pressure and at the cost of curtailing or preventing what is essential—that is, adequate argument in answer and reply. On the other hand, I find it impossible merely to let this Bill go to a Division without attempting to say a few words upon its main provisions, and I desire also to ascertain a little more exactly what was meant by the Lord Chancellor's refusal to permit this Bill to go on with the Government measure in the autumn.
I understand, of course, that the Government would be extremely reluctant to permit this Bill and their own Bill to run in what I may call double harness. The two Bills are no doubt quite distinct, and any attempt to show even a lenient consideration for this Bill might reasonably be feared by the Government as capable of being construed into some hesitation and doubt as to the merits of their own measure. I understand that, and I do not wish to say anything at the moment in criticism of the Government's measure or anything that might suggest that it is inadequate and needs to be strengthened by some such proposal as that now before your Lordships' House. But I ask the Lord Chancellor,as representing the Government, seeing where we have reached in the course of this debate and how much further it will be necessary to go before the measure has been thoroughly discussed, seeing also that no man can foretell from hour to hour what may happen in Ireland or what the people might be anxious to discuss in a few months' time, whether the Government would not be prepared to allow this measure to be adjourned in order that it may he kept open for consideration and not concluded and finally dealt with under the conditions in which we are to-night.
I, speaking for myself, should not misunderstand the Lord Chancellor if he assented to that proposition. I should not regard him as having thought that this Bill could be, linked with the Government Bill. I should not use it for the purpose of saying that the Government had weakened in their own purpose. I should regard it as recognising this position, that when you are considering a question like Ireland you cannot keep open too many subjects for discussion, for you never can tell what may be the one upon which ultimately the right decision will depend,

1155
I appeal once more to the Lord Chancellor to say whether he cannot consent to the measure being kept alive and not require it to be disposed of to-night.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is not a question of my consent; it is a question for your Lordships' House as a whole. I, however, gladly embrace the opportunity of making myself more clear. The reason I expressed myself so plainly was that I was a little disconcerted by the reference of the noble and learned Viscount to the Government's measure side by side with this Bill. It was a little disconcerting, because after all this is a Bill brought forward by a private member, and it is one which I say plainly is wholly impracticable. Had I spoken on the main Motion it was my intention to call attention to a number of points which, I think, would have enabled me to satisfy your Lordships that my criticism was not too strong. But the moment it is put forward that the friends of this Bill treat it as purely a private matter, and it is made perfectly plain that the Government has nothing whatever to do with it and is adhering entirely to their own scheme—so long as that is made perfectly plain—then I, as a member of the Government, am entirely disinterested in the proposal to adjourn it, and the Government Whips shall not be put on. Every noble Lord will be able to vote exactly as he likes on the merits of the proposal.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I think I first made the suggestion that the fact of dealing with this Bill summarily now Wright he greatly misunderstood by many people in Ireland whose opinions it is not desired to flout or ignore. I confess I hold that opinion strongly, and I cannot see what harm can be done by leaving the question of a possible solution, on the general lines of the Bill, open for further consideration if at any future time His Majesty's Government desires to proceed on these lines rather than on the lines of the Bill the ultimate form of which we cannot
foresee. In what shape the Government Bill will become law is on the knees of the gods. I appeal to your Lordships not to kill this particular proposition dead at this moment, but rather to leave it in a state of suspended animation, from which it may so happen it may never be roused but from which it could be roused if public opinion, and the Government, should tend rather in that direction than in the direction on which progress is at present being made. I hope, therefore, entirely without prejudice, that it may be possible to adjourn this debate rather than take a Division upon the merits of the proposal which, at any rate, cannot be said to have received anything like adequate discussion.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the House is placed in a position of great difficulty by the course which has been taken this afternoon. I sympathise with the remark of the noble and learned Viscount that we ought to take care that we do not either slam the door altogether or open it too widely. The issue before us now is what course in the undoubtedly difficult situation will do the least harm. The Lord Chancellor has said that the Bill is a wholly impracticable proposal. I agree with him. I think it is a proposal which is fraught with imminent danger to the Empire if ever considered seriously, and I shall fight against it to the very utmost of my power. Therefore I think it is giving quite a false impression of what this House thinks if we adjourn a discussion of this kind until the autumn. If an adjournment had been desired for a few days for further consideration and discussion, I should have thought a little more of that proposal, but for the fear of giving a false impression outside and of people being led to think that this House could not for a moment entertain such a proposal, I am opposed to an adjournment until the autumn.
On Question, whether the debate shall be now adjourned—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Buckmaster, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Crewe, M.

Charnwood, L.

Parmoor, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (Lord Great Chamberlain.)

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Pentland, L.

Denman, L.

Rotherham, L.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Sinha, L.

Craven, E.

Glenconner, L.

Southborough, L.

Lytton, E.

Hemphill, L.

Strachie, L.

Haldane, V. [Teller.]

Islington, L.

Strachie, L.

Knollys, V.

MacDonnell, L.

Treowen, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L. [Teller.]

Weardale, L.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Birkenhead,L. (L. Chancellor.)

Astor, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Harris, L.

Bath, M.

Falkland, V.

Hylton, L.

Salisbury, M. [Teller.]

Goschen, V.

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

Peel, V.

Bradford, E.

Lovelace, E.

Killanin, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Monson, L.

Mayo, E.

Balfour, L. [Teller.]

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Midleton, E.

Barrymore, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Onslow, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Somerleyton, L.

Pembroke, and Montgomery, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Selborne, E.

Dynevor, L.

Sumner, L.

Strafford, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Sydenham, L.

Faringdon, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Farnham, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion to adjourn the debate disagreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: May I put a question, for convenience, as to the further treatment of this Bill? Viscount Baldane's Motion, which you have just rejected, was that the debate be now adjourned. That Motion was defeated by the majority of your Lordships on the ground that Lord Haldane's Motion meant an adjournment till the autumn, and that ouch an adjournment might have a connotation as to our view about the merits or de-merits of the Bill. On the other hand Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who I think actually told against. Lord Haldane's Motion, expressed himself quite in favour of an adjournment to next week or the week after next to meet the convenience of Peers who might desire to speak, and I believe there are several who do desire to do so. I think it is probably quite within the bound of propriety, should your Lordships so desire it, to suggest, after having defeated what is in effect an adjournment to the autumn, that we should adjourn the debate to next week or the week after in order to meet the wishes of Peers who desire to speak.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not think I said exactly what the noble Earl suggests. I spoke strongly against the merits, and did not make any proposal for an adjournment for two or three days. If that had been the proposal I do not think I should have spoken so strongly against it, but I think there would be considerable awkwardness, and it might be misconceived if, having rejected the Motion to adjourn the debate, we then proceeded to adjourn it for two or three days.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Bill has been examined with so much care, both by Lord Dunraven and by other speakers, that the observations which I have to make upon it may be indicated very shortly. The first idea which must have occurred to everybody's mind was that this was not a matter which could possibly be carried through on the introduction and responsibility of a private member. Every one is indebted, I think, to the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading for the extremely interesting speech that he made, for the evident care which he had given to the subject, and for his conscientious and anxious desire, which every sentence of his speech showed, that he might be able to contribute something to the solution of this question. But these things are far too grave and far too difficult to be dealt with by the resources which are open to any private member of this House.
The scheme of the noble Lord contains many grave and most objectionable proposals. It expressly abrogates the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament, especially in relation to foreign affairs. It empowers the Irish Government to enter into independent commercial Treaties with foreign countries, and makes provision for the representation of Ireland on Imperial Councils and in the League of Nations. We have only to cast our eyes round Ireland to-day and see what is going on there, and ask whether anybody can come forward who retains any reputation for responsibility and say that powers such as these shall be given at this time of all others to an Ireland constituted as we know Ireland to-day.
I know that I am in some quarters inviting the retort, "Are you not doing something very like that in the proposals which are being brought forward in another

1159
place?" When I come to examine and explain those proposals I entertain no doubt but that I can satisfy your Lordships that we are doing nothing of the kind. We have made proposals for the immediate suspension, should it become necessary, of the operation of the powers given to the South of Ireland, and unless the South of Ireland is at the time in a state in which a sane man could reasonably hope that the powers which are contained in our proposals could be allowed to become effective, they will be suspended. It may be, or it may not be, that we shall see a Parliament sitting in the North of Ireland at a moment when the South of Ireland is not prepared to give sufficient evidence of loyalty and goodwill to admit of a Parliament being set up there. I do not think it is too much to say that opinion in the North of Ireland is crystallising overwhelmingly in the direction of saying, "We will try it and make it work, and prove to the whole world and to our countrymen that Irishmen in the North of Ireland are not incapable of managing their own affairs,"
This Bill gives enormous powers and takes enormous risks, as I have already pointed out. And what are we to say of the proposals in relation to naval and military matters? All the military forces are summarily to be withdrawn from Ireland. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill gave no indication in his remarks that he had observed that there was a state of affairs existing in Ireland at this moment which would make it absolutely impossible to withdraw the military forces. Indeed, I was rather amused, if I maw say so, at the statements that fell from the noble Lord when he said, "The Government must give up their policy of coercion and militarism." Our policy may be ineffective, but the only possible retort is, "Let the assassins begin." The noble Lord cannot really suggest that we should leave all those who are without protection to their fate. We may not be affording thorough protection; in fact, there is a good deal to be said for the view that we are not doing it effectively; but it is our duty to try, and we are trying to afford protection to those who need it. The noble Lord rather suggested that we should undertake the responsibility of leaving all th se persons in the South of Ireland to be the helpless victims of murder and outrage. He did not supply
1160
one argument that would lead one to suppose that this kind of thing was going on in Ireland.
I was a little astonished at the considerable degree of approval which the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, gave to the proposals of this Bill. The anecdote which the noble Marquess told us added a new terror to death. He said that he had pointed out to Lord Randolph Churchill that the Unionist Party were confronted and would be confronted by the Ulster difficulty. I think that Lord Randolph Churchill might possibly have replied that the noble Marquess and his friends were equally likely to be confronted by a difficulty such as, in fact, the noble Marquess and the noble Viscount who sits beside him were at one period of our history confronted with. They then decided in the most solemn manner that that which they had attempted to do could not be done and ought not to be done. I have the words that were used by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, in 1914. He said—
"I say, speaking again on behalf of the Government, that in our view, under the conditions which now exist—we must all recognise the atmosphere which this great patriotic spirit of union has created in the country—the employment of force, any kind of force, for what you call the coercion of Ulster, is an absolutely unthinkable thing. So far as I am concerned, and so far as my colleagues are concerned—I speak for them, for I know their unanimous feeling—that is a thing which we would never countenance or consent to."
The implication there is clear. I tried to avoid any reference to this, but it has been introduced, and I am entitled to point out that Mr. Asquith and his colleagues recognised that which they had tried to do could not be done and ought never to have been attempted.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: If the noble and learned Lord would allow me for one moment, I would say that we never tried political coercion in Ulster.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess has not grasped my meaning, which I did my best to make clear. The noble Marquess realises, as plainly as I do, that the controversy stated and re-stated in this House and in another place between the Government of which he was then a member and the Party to which I belonged was whether—it being allowed that Ulster would never consent to the Home Rule

1161
Bill of 1914—Ulster should be forced to accept it by coercion. The noble Marquess surely remembers the long and bitter discussion that ranged round that subject, and he must remember the very plain statements made by some of his colleagues as to what would be right to do and what they would be willing to do. The observation I make is that rather late in the controversy, but very fully, Mr. Asquith recognised that the course which had been recommended was one that could not be carried out, and he made the utmost possible reparation which was in his power to make.
This Bill gives no real assistance of any kind in the solution of this question. I do not propose to deal with the points of the Bill in detail. I will take one point which is fundamental. At this moment we have a singular object lesson bearing upon the noble Lord's Bill. Quite recently elections took place to all local and borough councils. Those elections were held in constituencies identical with that. proposed by the noble Lord in this Bill, and held by that method of election which the noble Lord recommends in this Bill. What was the result? The whole country was intimidated. Violence was everywhere rife. There was, in addition, genuine and almost complete unanimity of opinion among those who voted, and the result is that to-day the whole of these councils are completely under the control and dominated by men whose first act after the election was to take the oath of allegiance to the Irish Republic. Has the noble Lord the slightest ground for believing that the same electorate, after appeals which excite them much more, will not do exactly the same thing?
Whatever other measure can be recommended at this time I am sure that that for which the noble Lord has asked a Second Reading cannot be so recommended. It will not, and it ought not to be supposed that we exclude from our consideration any proposals, or any suggestions that come from any well-disposed quarter in dealing with this problem. For our present proposals, be they good or be they bad (and I was myself a member of the sub-committee which drafted the Bill), we read most carefully every proposal that was before the Convention, every various form in which the proposal in the direction of Colonial government had been made. We
1162
may have been right or we may have been wrong—your Lordships will pronounce upon that in the autumn—but we rejected no source of information; and I feel sure that, of all the proposals which, in an anxious time, we considered, there were very few which contained so many elements of possible danger as the one in the Bill for which the noble Lord asks us to give a Second Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to, and Bill to be read 2a this day six months.

COUNTY COUNCILS ASSOCIATION EXPENSES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, this is a Bill which was promoted by the County Councils Association, and passed all its stages in the House of Commons as an unopposed Bill, so that I think I may appeal to your Lordships to treat it as an agreed Bill. Its object is to amend the Act of 1890, which enabled county councils to subscribe, according to their population, up to a maximum of thirty guineas a year. The object of this Bill is to allow county councils to subscribe up to a maximum of forty guineas a year. It will only be necessary for five county councils to adopt the higher scale, and the reason why the County Councils Association is asking for this power to be given to county councils is that the cost of salaries, printing, and other office expenses has increased very largely, as is the case in other businesses. I can assure the House as to the economic way in which the county councils have hitherto administered this great organisation when I say that up to now the expenditure has only been £750, and we are now only asking for an additional £400 a year.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

JUVENILE COURTS (METROPOLIS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, at this hour, on a subject which has caused so much interest, I should not think it wise to ask your Lordships to go into Committee. I will therefore put this Bill down for another day.

REVISED PRAYER BOOK COPYRIGHT.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in advising the Crown in respect of the income to be derived from the copyright of the revised Prayer Book, which has been prepared by the Convocations by the labours and at the expense of Churchmen, will wait until the National Assembly of the Church of England has had an opportunity of considering the matter, and of expressing an opinion upon it.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Prayer Book is printed by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and by the King's Printers under Royal Letters Patent. No profit is derived by the Crown from this arrangement. The Government see no reason at the present moment for making any alterations in the present arrangement, but they will, of course, be prepared to consider any representations which the National Assembly of the Church of England may wish to make on the matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
  LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn until tomorrow at 12 o'clock noon.
  Moved, That the House do adjourn till to-morrow at 12 o'clock.—(Lord Hylton.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I desire to call your Lordships' attention to the state of the ease. I understood last night that when the Government induced your Lordships to agree to suspend the Standing Order so as to pass the Third Reading of the Rent Restriction Bill what they were anxious to avoid was what they called a hiatus. The second Act of 1919 expires to-day; therefore there is going to be a hiatus. If I am right, apparently your Lordships were induced to agree to the suspension of the Standing Order upon a ground which has turned out to be fictitious. If there is going to be a hiatus until July 2, why should not the hiatus have been one, or two, or three days longer? After a very friendly discussion in which we had supported the Government right through, we made only one request which was really antagonistic to the view of the Government, and they treated with indifference our protest, and the Government
  1164
  induced your Lordships to do it on what turns out to be an incorrect ground.
  It does not rest there. There is going to be a hiatus. Last night an opportunity was offered of putting in words which would have prevented the hiatus from having any possible evil consequences. I do not dwell upon this point too much, because I never believed that there were any evil consequences, but, at any rate, the Government have put it out of their power to introduce any such clause because, the matter not having been dealt with in either House of Parliament, it is now beyond remedy. Of course, this treatment was done by inadvertence. I do not imagine that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, for whom I have a great regard, did these things on purpose, but, having induced your Lordships to adopt this extremely silly position, the Government now suggest that we should meet at 12 o'clock to-morrow. Very few of your. Lordships will be here. I do not think that is treating your Lordships fairly.
  I do not know what the House of Commons will do with the Amendments; they may agree to them, or they may differ from them. There ought to be some opportunity for us to consider them. Supposing they do not agree, then there will be no real opportunity. If you meet at 12 o'clock to-morrow there will be nobody here who is capable of expressing in any true sense the real verdict of your Lordships' House. I suggest that the Government, having made a mistake, should place themselves frankly in the hands of the House, and allow us to meet on Monday in order to consider whatever action the House of Commons should see fit in their wisdom to take in reference to the Lords Amendments. I make that suggestion to His Majesty's Government.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OE THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (VISCOUNT ASTOR): My Lords, I did not know that the noble Marquess was going to raise this point, or I should have fortified myself more fully than I have been able to do in order to deal with it. I understand that his main objection to the course which has been recommended—namely, that your Lordships should meet to-morrow at 12—is that there is already in fact a hiatus, and therefore there is no substantial difference between a hiatus of one day and a hiatus of two or three days. I understand that

  1165
  there is not, in fact, a hiatus, and there will not be one if you meet to-morrow and the Bill is passed through its final stage. That is to say, the Act of 1919, which lapses on July 1, in fact lapses at midnight to-night. I understand that there are various Acts which end on December 31. Now it is obvious that those Acts terminate at the end of the thirty-first day of December and not at the opening hours; and it is because of this I say on the advice of the legal authorities I have consulted, that July I does not in fact mean this morning.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It means to-night.
  VISCOUNT ASTOR: Yes. Then the question arises as to whether there will be a hiatus if the Royal Assent is received to-morrow. I understand that there will not he one, as the Royal Assent dates from the beginning of the day on which it is granted. That is to say, the Act of 1919, which lapses at midnight to-night, will be met by the Royal Assent which comes into operation as soon as to-morrow begins if we get the Royal Assent tomorrow. Therefore, in fact, there will not be a hiatus. I am sorry I have not been able to quote the precedents about December 31, but I understand they exist. That being the case, I submit to your Lordships that the main reason which induced the noble Marquess to ask us not to meet to-morrow no longer exists.
  As regards the attendance to-morrow, and as regards the possibility of Amendments coming from another place, I understand that your Lordships have been notified and that ample warning has been given that this House would probably have to sit to-morrow, or that, anyway, the Government hoped to take all the stages of this Bill this week. Notice of that was given ten days or two weeks ago. It was suggested at one moment that the final stage should be taken to-day. It was always understood that, if possible, we should get the Royal Assent this week. I wish very respectfully to suggest that we should take the final stage to-morrow. I do not want to exaggerate the difficulties which will arise if there is a hiatus, but undoubtedly there may be real hardships in a certain number of cases. I made that point, yesterday, and therefore will not repeat it now; but I sincerely trust that you will consent to meet to-morrow in
  1166
  order to deal with the final stage of this Bill.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: His Majesty's Government treat this House in a way which they would not dare for a moment to treat the House of Commons. They make proposals here which they would not dare to make to the majority, or even to the minority, in the House of Commons. I congratulate the Lower House on the extraordinary ingenuity with which they have enabled my noble friend to explain that a hiatus is not a hiatus.
  But that is not the main ground on which my noble friend objected to the Motion to take this matter to-morrow. He pointed out that the case has not turned out as the Government said it would turn out; and yesterday the House was led to suppose that undoubtedly, if they acceded to the wish of the Government to suspend the Standing Order, this business would be taken to-day. Our main objection is that if this Bill is taken to-morrow there is no opportunity, notice or no notice, for dealing with any Amendments which the House of Commons may make to any Amendments made in this place. As the Government had planned this matter—although I think their haste was indecent and unjustified—the Bill could have been considered to-day. If the House of Commons had taken the Amendments last night or the first Order to-day this House. could have dealt with them to-day. It is entirely the fault of the. way the matter has been managed that you are put in this position. I hope my noble friend will persist in his resistance.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I should like to say that it was certainly not any act of discourtesy on our part to make this proposal, and I do not think that the harsh terms used by Lord Selborne are justified.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is not the only example.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The House of Commons at least has to work very hard at the instance of the Government. They sat up one morning until four o'clock in order to meet our convenience to get the Bill at the earliest possible moment; and when we are blamed

  1167
  that these Amendments did not reach us at an earlier stage, I think it is only necessary for me to remind Lord Selborne that this is Thursday, which is allotted to Committee of Supply, and that that Order, according to the Rules of the House of Commons, if it is to he a counting day, has to be the first Order of the Day. The House of Commons will sit to-night in order to deal with the Lords Amendments. Therefore, as far as the House of Commons is concerned and the attitude of the Government there, they are not to be blamed for causing this delay.
  That the delay exists I greatly regret—I have often expressed my regret at it—and I think all noble Lords believe it would be better in a hundred ways if these Bills could reach us at an earlier date. But I
  1168
  think the main ground of Lord Salisbury's observations has been met by what Lord Astor said. It is desirable, even at inconvenience to ourselves, to avoid a hiatus; and by the House of Commons taking the Amendments to-night at 11 o'clock—they will sit two or three hours if necessary—and by our taking the measure as it reaches us from the House of Commons to-morrow at 12 o'clock, we shall avoid a hiatus which will, at any rate, he of enormous comfort and convenience to many people concerned with this Bill. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will consent to meet at mid-day to-morrow.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock, until tomorrow, twelve o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD SHERBORNE The LORD SHERBORNE —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his uncle.

OSBORNE'S DIYORCE BILL. [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had received by post from the Lord Justice of the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, a Report of the proceedings upon the inquiry before him in the case Osborne v. Savage. The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
London County Council (Money).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

VETERINARY SURGEONS ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.
To be read 2a on Thursday the 8th instant (Viscount Cave).
WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
  PONTYPRIDD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
    Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
AIRDRIE AND COATBRIDGE TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Pursuant to Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, deemed to have been reported from the Committee, and to be react 3a on Tuesday next.
GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.
The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection in regard to the Mablethorpe and Sutton Gas Order.
DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WIDNES EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons, that they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on the 22nd of June last, that it is expedient that the Bill be referred to the Joint Committee which is appointed to consider the Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Birkenhead Extension) Bill [H.L.], as desired by this House.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 1) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment made by the Lords, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments made by the Lords, agreed to.